Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the co-operation we have received from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a variety of issues concerning the fisheries. He has been most helpful and we do appreciate it. That being said, our job is not to be a cheerleader for the minister; rather our job here is to point out what we feel are shortcomings in government legislation, if there be any. That is what we are about to do.
We clearly agree in principle with this bill and will support it. Taking action on foreign fishing is long overdue. We suggest that if this action had been taken 10 years ago we might not have had the tragedy we have on our hands now.
The bill was tabled in the House yesterday morning; I was only briefed on it late yesterday afternoon. We want to support this bill because we believe it imperative that action be taken. However it is difficult to do so entirely when we have not had time to fully investigate the consequences of the bill.
The minister has said the bill must be passed quickly because it is an emergency situation. This has been an emergency situation for years. The government did not just compose the bill last night. We could have presented constructive criticism which might have made the bill a better one if we had been brought into the process at an earlier date.
The function of Parliament is to debate issues so that the best possible solution is developed. We question whether the best possible solution has been reached with this bill. We sincerely hope this bill will achieve the desired results but we are not confident it will. This is a serious move the government is making and there will be no turning back.
In a news release yesterday DFO stated: "in February 1994 NAFO reviewed the 3NO cod stock at Canada's request. It imposed an international moratorium on this stock". The news release went on to say: "Fishing activities by vessels that carry flags of convenience and by several stateless vessels are conducted without regard for international conservation controls. Such vessels are targeting fish stocks now subject to NAFO and Canadian moratoria".
To ensure the international moratoria was adhered to, Canada, along with the European Community, Japan and Russia participated in a high level joint demarche to non-NAFO states fishing in the NAFO area requesting them to stop fishing.
This action had been agreed to by the participants of the September 1993 NAFO annual meeting. Meetings took place in Panama and Honduras in February with both governments and the principal suppliers of the so-called flags of convenience undertaking to address the problem on a priority basis.
The violators had agreed to act. Rather than acting unilaterally, would Canada have been better off to go back to NAFO and obtain its support for police action to enforce the conservation measures which NAFO had agreed to? We ask this because we cannot help but wonder what the consequences of enacting this legislation will be, in that we will be acting unilaterally.
Will this bill be supported by the international community? Will this bill set a precedent and therefore give licence to countries that may not be as reasonable as Canada to extend their own jurisdiction into international waters? Is giving this licence in the best interests of Canada? Will this bill be viewed by the U.S. as being in its best interests? We are curious as to what the U.S. view is of this bill. If the U.S. has a negative view, as I suggested, will it have any effect on the current negotiations under way on the west coast salmon treaty? I am concerned that the government has not fully thought through this bill and the possible consequences.
The joint news release issued yesterday by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the ongoing process to strengthen the high seas fisheries conservation is currently focused on two recent major developments.
One is the compliance agreement approved in November 1993 by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. This agreement requires that its parties control their vessels to prevent any activity that undermines conservation measures established by regional fisheries conservation organizations such as NAFO.
The other major development cited in the news release is the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks which has been under way since 1993. It is aimed at developing new global rules to prevent high seas overfishing of the stocks concerned. It is scheduled to enter its final negotiating session in August of this year.
What the news release fails to mention is the lead role Canada played in negotiating the FAO agreement. It fails to mention the lead role Canada played in the decision to convene the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. It also does not mention the lead role Canada is continuing to play to bring these critical and important negotiations to a meaningful conclusion this summer.
Will this unilateral action on Canada's part jeopardize these developments? Will this unilateral action encourage other nations to throw caution to the wind and exert territorial jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit?
What assurance can the minister give Canadians that the proposed legislation will be supported by the international community? The implementation of Bill C-29 is dependent on co-operation and support of the international community. Without that, it is no more than a whistle in the wind.
At the same time that the minister threatens action against foreign vessels outside the 200-mile limit, we question the level of enforcement within Canadian waters. Perhaps no action better exemplifies the government's real intentions and priorities than the actions it has taken in the last few months to conserve stocks within our own 200-mile limit.
I am thinking of yesterday's hearing of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in which we heard from fisheries observers who had been thrown out of work by the government. These observers are our first line of defence against overfishing within Canadian waters. Without experienced observers we have no way of knowing whether vessels within our waters are dumping undersized fish intentionally, catching the last few remaining juvenile cod in our waters or accidentally catching a second species that may already be overfished.
Talk about catching pirates makes good headlines. But why did the government undermine the only program with ears, eyes and teeth to conserve our fish stocks, the observer program?
In February the government selected a firm to take over the observer program effective April 1. By the end of March it was clear to the government that the company was not able to provide the experienced certified observers, but it went ahead anyway.
The tender process had been organized such that the winning contractor would be required to use certified observers who had extensive experience in the offshore on foreign vessels. The tender required the contractor to submit a list of 30 experienced observers on April 1 and a final 20 on April 30. The winning company, Biorex, was not required to comply with these tender requirements to produce experienced observers and the results are already being felt.
The silver hake fishery is now open. The minister has authorized Cuban and other foreign vessels to undertake this fishery in our waters. Yesterday the committee heard that we have Cuban vessels in Canadian waters manned by inexperienced observers, observers who have never been involved in the silver hake fishery before but more important, who have never undertaken work on foreign vessels in an often hostile environment.
If an airport control tower were staffed by inexperienced controllers, we would know very quickly the sad results. The seas however are silent. We do not know if the Cuban vessels are taking a cod bycatch or dumping unwanted species at sea. We do know that their careless actions have led to the destruction of fish gear of Nova Scotia fishermen.
Problems have already arisen with vessels from Nova Scotia in 3-O, an area adjacent to the tail of the bank, an area specifically covered by Bill C-29. Just last week there were reports of Scotia Fundy vessels in 3-O without observers. Newfoundland vessels in the same area manned by observers were directed to leave the area because their cod bycatch was over 11 per cent, which is over twice the allowable limit.
The same reports indicated that vessels without observers appeared to have dumped their catch of undersized redfish overboard. Neighbouring ships reported sailing through three or four miles of waters covered by dead juvenile redfish.
Is it that Biorex cannot find enough observers to provide adequate coverage for Scotia Fundy vessels or is it that DFO does not consider it a priority to have observers on vessels in 3-0 where cod bycatch is often twice the allowable limit?
In an unrelated case the court in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia levied fines against two Scotia Fundy skippers in the last few weeks. The captains had dumped their cod bycatch of some 22,000 kilograms while fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There were no observers aboard the vessels.
I believe if the minister tabled in this House the coverage records and the number of days at sea over the past four years for the observer program, the records would show a declining number of sea days by observers and inadequate coverage.
This is the nuts and bolts of our conservation effort. It does not make headlines like stories of promised action against pirates by our naval frigates, but it is the story of our government and how it has failed to conserve our fish stocks.
Observers did not use expensive equipment or cost a great deal of money, but they were effective. I ask the minister to strengthen and protect a program that he knows works, a little program that works effectively to protect our dwindling groundfish stocks.
Officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Department of Foreign Affairs have been careful to point out that Canada was not extending its jurisdiction with Bill C-29 but merely extending the protection to an endangered fishery. Despite this unilateral action Canada is still committed to bilateral and multilateral negotiations on managing fish stocks in international waters.
While Reform members agree in principle with the government's action, we are concerned that through a unilateral action Canada's role in the delicate ongoing multilateral negotiations through the UN and NAFO may have already been adversely affected. Also we are concerned about the implications of this action on the delicate negotiations currently under way to establish a new Pacific coast salmon treaty with the United States. Obviously the government's actions change Canada's negotiating framework in these different sets of negotiations.
While we give the government our support on this critical conservation issue, we would have preferred a multilateral approach to this uncertain unilateral action.