Randy Kamp

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, representing the people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission where, by the way, the daffodils are blooming and the cherry trees are in flower. On their behalf, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on a good budget.

I remember being in a meeting about 18 months ago where we were all expressing concern about the global economic situation. The recession had really not hit us yet but we could see it coming. Like a tsunami, we knew we could not avoid the effects of it. It did not start here, but we knew we needed to take strong action to mitigate those negative effects that were coming and that is what we did.

Since July 2009, 135,000 jobs have been created and that is not including the 225,000 jobs that were maintained through our work sharing program, a very good program. Some 16,000 infrastructure projects have been completed or started and we delivered $3 billion in general personal income tax relief as a way to address this economic downturn.

Statistics Canada recently announced that Canada's economy for the second straight quarter grew and in the fourth quarter of 2009 by 5%. This represents the strongest quarterly rate of economic growth in almost a decade partly due to an increase in infrastructure funding supported by stimulus projects across Canada. So our government is taking action to ensure that Canada leads the global economic recovery and budget 2010 will help us lead the way.

Jobs and growth, which is what this budget is all about, come in a variety of forms. I am here today to speak briefly on this budget and what actions our government has taken to ensure that Canada's fisheries sector is a key player in our goal to lead the way on jobs and growth.

The fishing industry in Canada employs over 80,000 people and is worth approximately $14 billion. The commitments our government has made in budget 2010 prove once again that we recognize the importance of fisheries to a robust Canadian economy. Specifically, budget 2010 contains funding for seafood certification and traceability, small craft harbours, and a new hovercraft for our Coast Guard, among other things.

Let me talk a little bit more about each of these. First of all, there is catch certification. Many people do not realize the contribution that our seafood industry makes to our economy and our coastal community. Canada is the world's sixth largest seafood exporter with fish and seafood being Canada's largest single food export commodity. It is not grain, or beef, or pork, it is fisheries products. So access to international markets is essential to Canada's fish and seafood industry which exports 85% of its production. In 2010, the European Union will implement a new regulation where fisheries exporting countries need to provide catch certificates attesting that the marine fish and seafood products are legally and sustainably harvested.

Our government recognized the need to protect the livelihood of our fishing communities and is committed to ensuring that the Canadian fish and seafood industry maintains access to key markets around the world.

Budget 2010 provides $7.2 million over two years to support a new catch certification office. Through this office Fisheries and Oceans will issue certificates to exporters ensuring that the Canadian fish and seafood industry remains competitive and maintains employment in both the harvesting and fish processing sectors.

More specifically, the funding provided in this budget enhances DFO's ability to: first, provide traceability systems and support to the fish and seafood industry; second, to support IT upgrades to facilitate DFO audits of industry record keeping systems to ensure the validity of legal harvest; and third, to issue Government of Canada validated catch certificates within prescribed service standards to these exporters based on checks of licence status, catch reports, and existence of a fisheries management plan.

Our catch certificate will provide assurance that the seafood products come from a properly licensed, regulated and reported fishery that is regularly monitored and audited to ensure that catches are obtained legally.

Currently, only the European Union has the legal requirement to demonstrate this for imports coming into its countries, but we expect that this might well happen in other countries. This funding will allow our government to support the industry in meeting these new market requirements.

Given that the European market is worth approximately $500 million annually to the Canadian fish and seafood industry, I believe that this is a very sound investment. I know that Canada's fish and seafood industry, as well as its hard-working employees, will feel the same.

Along our coast the small craft harbours program provides a network of safe and accessible harbours. These harbours support the commercial fishing industry and the broader interests of the coastal communities. In many communities small craft harbours represent the only federal presence.

In fact, I have a colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador who reminds me from time to time that harbours in his province are as important as Highway 401 is to Torontonians and the only refuge for vessels during rough weather.

Nearly 90% of all fishing landings in Canada, valued at approximately $2 billion, occur at small craft harbours. This alone illustrates how important these harbours are, not only to our coastal communities but to Canada as a whole and to our economy.

Our government recognizes the important roles that small craft harbours have in our communities. Funding initiated under the 2009 economic action plan for small craft harbours, $200 million additional over two years, will continue in 2010. To date 242 repair, maintenance and dredging projects are in the engineering or tendering process or are under construction and some have been completed and $88 million of this allotment will be spent in 2010-11.

This funding will improve fish harvesters access to better harbours and will facilitate their ongoing operations. It will also provide a stimulus to small communities by maintaining and creating construction jobs, and by supporting employment in other industries such as the service and tourism industry.

This I feel perfectly embodies the title of budget 2010, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. With our government's funding for small craft harbours we are continuing to lead the way.

More than just numbers, these investments illustrate our government's ongoing commitment to the people who live in smaller coastal communities and rely on small craft harbours so they can do their jobs and provide for their families in a safe and secure way.

In budget 2010 our government continues to invest in the safety and security of Canadians by committing $27.25 million for a new Canadian Coast Guard air cushion vehicle, otherwise known as a hovercraft.

On the west coast at the Sea Island base, the Coast Guard operates two hovercraft, one of which needs to be replaced. These vessels are used to conduct searches, transport ill and injured people, tow disabled vessels and provide logistical support during on-water incidents.

We hope we never have anything like the landing on the Hudson River to deal with, but if we ever do, we will be very glad to have this investment in British Columbia.

Another issue which affects all Canadians in waters from coast to coast to coast is the issue of invasive species. Aquatic invasive species pose a major threat to Canada's biodiversity, our ecosystems, and ultimately to our economy. That is why we have put in place Canada's invasive alien species strategy. Budget 2010 renews the funding for that program to the tune of $38 million.

DFO will receive $8 million over two years to allow Fisheries and Oceans Canada to continue to invest in research, prevention and control of these invasive species, including the management of the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes and the minimization of the risk of new introductions such as the Asian carp.

I am pleased to support the budget. I think British Columbians are supportive of the budget. I know the premier is.

Under the previous Liberal government the federal government starved the provinces. That is not the approach we are going to take. There is $3.6 billion under the Canada health transfer, $1.5 billion in the social transfer. All of those are increases over the previous years and over the previous Liberal government.

That is why the budget has been welcomed by so many across the country. I encourage all members of the House to support the budget.

[Committees of the House, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for his excellent speech. I thought it was an excellent speech, and I am sure my colleagues in the House would agree. He covered some ground.

I want to get him to comment on an aspect that has not been raised so far, or at least has been just barely touched on in this debate on the amended convention. It is the fact that it incorporates precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management and decision-making.

I wonder if the member agrees with me that we are in a new era. We have to realize that no country can single-handedly or unilaterally ensure the sustainability of fish stocks, especially the straddling fish stocks, although that appears to be what is being proposed by some members on the other side. These new approaches are explicitly mentioned in the amended NAFO convention, and I wonder if my colleague could comment on them.

[Committees of the House, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few inaccuracies in the comments made by my colleague from St. John's East. Perhaps when some of my colleagues get to speak, they will correct some of those.

The member makes the concept of custodial management sound simple. I know he was not at committee, and so he did not hear the testimony. This is a subject that we actually investigated with international experts. The dean of Dalhousie Law School said that custodial management is a term that has no definition in international law because it is not an accepted concept. He said:

Whether it is a government policy or it's been stated—and I did read the previous testimony of the minister—I can say from an analyst's point of view that if custodial management is what it was said to be by the Senate committee previously, by this committee at one point, and by the legislative committee in Newfoundland in the early 2000s, then no, we haven't achieved that, and we can't.

I am just wondering if the member could point to some kind of international legal precedent he is using to indicate that—

[Committees of the House, December 7th, 2009]

My colleague has referred to industry in Quebec. I know he has an interest in standing up for the fishing industry, and certainly in his own province. I know he is interested in these issues when they come before committee.

I am curious to know what he thinks the motivation of industry representatives from the province most affected, Newfoundland and Labrador, would be if they supported these amendments. What would be their motivation for coming before committee?

The member is giving the impression that it is just the ones who went and negotiated this and that they have some obligation to support this because they negotiated it. Let me just remind him of some of the testimony that we heard at committee.

For example, Patrick McGuinness, president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the standing committee:

—in terms of what we're looking at now, from the Fisheries Council of Canada's point of view we do not see any tangible negatives in the document. But we do see specific improvements with respect to the current NAFO regime.

He went on to say, “Our recommendation to Parliament will be to ratify the document as presented”.

Bruce Chapman, Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, told the committee, “In our view, it is in our interest to ratify this new convention”.

Now this is industry speaking. Does he recall those and why he—

[Tourist Industry, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, today we received more good news for the Canadian economy.

Following meetings between our Prime Minister and the premier of China, a number of important agreements have been reached with the Chinese government in terms of Canadian pork, climate change, cultural exchanges and approved destination status.

Approved destination status will open the door to more Chinese citizens who wish to visit our country. It allows us to market our unique and beautiful country as a top destination to one of the largest outbound tourist markets in the world. The UNWTO reported that by 2020, China would have around 100 million outbound tourists annually.

In 2010 we will be showcasing Canada to the world with the Olympic Games, and the G8 and G20 summits. The approved destination status agreement will help Canada further capitalize on these opportunities and bring more tourists from China to visit our hotels, restaurants and attractions.

This is another example of our Prime Minister representing Canada on the world stage and strengthening our economic ties with this important market.

[November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member just has his facts wrong. If he looks for example at 2005, how many serious violations were there? There were 13, and how many were there in 2008, for example, after these new measures that I have recited for him were put in place? There was zero. The main reason for that is that we have toughened the measures. We have put in place an enforcement regime under which there is greater compliance.

He says it is not effective as one of the measures to have a vessel be required to go back to port if it is fishing in the NAFO regulatory area off of Newfoundland, for example. It is boarded and required to go back to Spain. It sits there for months at a time, there are some examples of that, while inspections are done, while they are deciding what to do with it. That is a very significant deterrent. Certainly it is not very profitable to these fishing enterprises when they are stuck in Spain rather than out fishing. So I think we have made great improvements.

[November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to respond to this question. Let me begin by assuring the House and this member that the government continues to fully protect Canadian sovereignty when it comes to decision making about fisheries inside Canadian waters. It is also clear that NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, has no such mandate.

In the last few years, NAFO has seen significant progress, moving from words to action by embracing change and responding to the conservation challenges before us. We have seen significant improvements in compliance in the NAFO regulatory area, which is what we want. We have seen improved cooperation and coordinated responses by NAFO members to address any violations on the water.

This happened because several years ago Canada pushed for NAFO members to adopt stronger means to deal with violations of the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures and to ensure that conservation rules were enforced. The member has spoken about that. I think he shares with us that this should be our goal, and that is what we have accomplished. We have ensured that those who were not complying with the rules were given tough sanctions. These sanctions have served as effective deterrents to improper fishing activity.

Canada participates in the NAFO joint inspection and surveillance scheme, which allows patrol vessels from one NAFO member to board and inspect the fishing vessels of another NAFO member in the NAFO regulatory area outside 200 miles. It also allows members to issue citations to vessel masters for violations. We have increased our monitoring, surveillance and enforcement activity outside Canada's exclusive 200-mile zone to accomplish this.

At the most recent meeting, NAFO contracting parties also agreed to enhance the satellite reporting requirements for fishing vessels. These changes will provide NAFO enforcement officials with more accurate and timely information to better monitor fishing vessel movement in the NAFO regulatory area and protect closed areas such as protected vulnerable marine ecosystems.

These are big accomplishments. We as a country, and particularly the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, owe a debt to Loyola Hearn, our previous fisheries minister, who is responsible for many of these positive changes. However, increased enforcement and compliance is only part of the picture.

Canada is a keen supporter of international efforts to strengthen and modernize management of renewable ocean resources. Amendments to the 1978 NAFO convention are a necessary step in the process as they position the organization in line with the provisions of the United Nations fish stocks agreement and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada is a party to both of these agreements.

Under the old rules, members could ignore a NAFO decision. The convention also lacked a dispute-resolution mechanism and therefore led to long-standing disagreements. The amended convention places a limit on objections and strives for consensus-based decision making. When a consensus cannot be reached, the approval of two-thirds of members is required. This is emerging as a global standard and provides enhanced protection of Canada's shares of NAFO-managed stock.

The amended convention fully recognizes Canada's sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. In recognizing the rights and sovereignty of Canada as a coastal state under the amended convention, no NAFO measure will apply in Canadian waters unless two conditions are met: first, the Canadian government requests the measure and second, Canada's NAFO delegation votes to accept it.

The amended NAFO convention also calls for NAFO to adopt an ecosystem-based approach. These are good improvements. We think it should be ratified. We are thankful for the opportunity to make—

[November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleague to actually read the testimony from the committee and she will find that she is misinformed. In fact if she looks at the data, she will find out that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was part of the delegation that was looking at the amended convention and that right up until this last summer, it was onside with this. We do not know what changed its mind. Perhaps it has something to do with some political issues. In any case, she might also want to talk to industry representatives in her province. She will find they are pretty unanimous in their opinion that this is good for their industry, good for the stocks, good for Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we agree with them.

She might also want to talk to the legal experts who told us that as far as they can tell, there is certainly nothing to be concerned about with this, that it is actually good for Canada and it is an advancement and probably going to be the best--

[November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member. I really think she has her facts wrong on this, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct some of them.

The previous government, the party which she represents, had no policy at all about bringing any kind of international agreements, like the one we are discussing today, before Parliament. It was our government that put in place the requirement to table before Parliament, for a minimum of 21 sitting days, these international agreements, and we did that. We did this back in June and allowed 21 sitting days for her party to do whatever it wanted during that time.

The committee decided it needed to hear more witnesses on this and the government added an additional 21 days. During that time, the Liberals did not use a single opportunity of an opposition day to discuss this. It was their opportunity to do that if they really felt strong about it and they did not take it.

We are talking about NAFO reform. The amendments to this convention are part of the reform, but it is bigger than that and it has gone on for a number of years, since 2006. We understand the importance of the fisheries, especially for people on the east coast. It is worth billions to our economy, and it is particularly significant for Newfoundland and Labrador.

NAFO has been around since 1978, but it has changed a lot since then as have the fisheries, so there is a requirement to do some work on this convention. After 30-some years, NAFO members agreed that it was time to modernize the organization. We know we have to be forward-looking and to give ourselves the modern, decision-making tools required to deal with the contemporary problems we face.

Probably one of the most important things we did, and it is outside of these amendments, and we were able to do without changing the convention was make improvements to our monitoring, control and enforcement. The reform finally gave NAFO the teeth it had always lacked.

Vessels that committed serious infringements, such as misreporting of catch or fishing for moratorium species, would now be ordered to return to port immediately for a full inspection. An early return to port is a harsh penalty in and of itself, given the exorbitant costs associated with outfitting a vessel for a lengthy fishing trip and the lost fishing possibilities. The vessel would also be subject to penalties imposed by its own country for the infringements it had committed. This has borne fruit. The number of serious violations has dropped significantly in recent years from 13 in 2005, 7 in 2006, 1 in 2007 and zero in 2008.

We have also heard questions, and my colleague has raised this, about whether Canada is effectively protecting its sovereign rights under this amended convention. Let me be very clear. The amended convention protects Canadian sovereignty over the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Under the amended convention, it is clear that Canada will control the process of establishing measures in its own waters. NAFO measures will not apply in Canadian waters unless two conditions are met: first, the Canadian government requests the measure; and second, Canada's NAFO delegation votes to adopt it.

Our sovereignty over the 200 mile limit is also guaranteed in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and in customary international law.

We look forward to the next NAFO annual meeting, where we will have the opportunity to help the organization move forward on its commitments. In the meantime, we think the amendments to the convention are a good thing. They benefit Canada's interests and they should be ratified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate. As my colleagues on the committee know, this has been before us for a while now. The notion that somehow our government is restricting debate on it is really difficult to understand. We have certainly done our best to allow debate in committee and to allow it to be brought before the House.

Let me start off by saying that we on this side of the House understand the importance of fisheries for our coastal communities. We know the income that they generate from the high seas for the processing sector as well as supporting industries, equipment suppliers, retailers and others. In fact, they mean billions of dollars in economic input for our coastal communities each year, and in these difficult economic times, this income is all the more crucial.

For these fisheries to continue to thrive we must, among other things, continuously strive to curb overfishing and to ensure the sustainability of the fish stocks and the long-term health of the ecosystems in which they live. As one of my colleagues has said, fish do not respect boundaries of any kind, so these concerns are global, international concerns. Areas beyond national jurisdictions require solutions that are achieved cooperatively with other fishing nations.

On the east coast of Canada, we have a vested interest in the successes and failings of NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Its regulatory area abuts our national waters. Canada has been a full member of NAFO since its first convention was adopted in 1978, which came from the amended version of its predecessor, ICNAF, but a lot has changed since 1978. The face of the fisheries has changed, along with the expectations of those who manage them. These things have evolved.

Let me first talk about how we have gotten to where we are today. The 1978 NAFO convention predates the United Nations fish stocks agreement of 1995 and most other modern fisheries instruments as well. Fisheries management has changed radically since then also. We now have ENGOs, or environmental non-governmental organizations, at the table that report on the deliberations of NAFO. We have the marketplace insisting it will allow to come in only those products that can be demonstrated to be fished sustainably and caught sustainably through traceability programs, certification programs and other things. As of January 1, 2010, and we are not far from there, the European Union will require fish products entering its market to be certified as having been harvested sustainably. In short, the world of fisheries has evolved significantly, and our world-class fishing industry needs our support.

My Liberals colleagues would have us believe that this amended convention is some nefarious scheme, a document imposed on us against Canada's will. They discount the collective wisdom of the learned and experienced industry and legal members of our negotiating delegation. Canadians should know that in 2005 at the conclusion of the St. John's conference, which was called “Governance of the High Seas Fisheries and the UN Fish Agreement: Moving from Words to Action”, the member for Halifax West, then fisheries minister, felt very differently about things. He signed a declaration calling for reform of organizations. He proudly stated:

The Government of Canada considers the Conference as a positive step toward stronger international fisheries governance.... We will continue to press for further progress to modernize fisheries management on the high seas.

Members should notice that last phrase, “to modernize fisheries management on the high seas”. In fact, that is what we are talking about today, our attempt to achieve in NAFO the modernization of fisheries management. As they have done on many issues, the Liberals talked a good game, but they did not deliver. They did not get to the action part of that announcement.

Our government pressed for action when Canadians voiced their desire for change in 2006, and NAFO members agreed that it was time to modernize the organization in order to bring it in line with the 1995 United Nations Fish Agreement, or UNFA, as it is usually called.

We know we have to be forward-looking and we need to give ourselves the modern decision making tools required to deal with the modern problems we face. I think my colleagues would agree with that.

First came the enforcement reforms in 2006. These reforms did not require an amendment to the NAFO convention, as such, and have been in force since 2007.

Let me say on the record that Canadians, especially those in Newfoundland and Labrador, owe a real debt of gratitude to the former fisheries minister, Loyola Hearn. This was his primary focus for many months. I worked with him on this and other issues, and he was committed to doing better in NAFO.

I am surprised at some of the comments I have heard so far. We need to admit that the NAFO that we inherited in 2006 was not working and for 13 years it is not clear to me what efforts the previous government made to improve it.

We now have deterrents in place in the NAFO regulatory area and foreign overfishing has dramatically declined. That really matters. After years of talk, Canada is finally seeing tangible results of increased co-operation. We have seen better adherence to scientific advice and enforcement vigilance.

Important stocks are now showing some signs of recovery and that is because we have done some work. We have air patrols, 2,000 to 3,000 air surveillance hours annually. Our ships are out there again. Approximately 800 Canadian Coast Guard patrol vessel days are dedicated to the NAFO regulatory areas.

In the last few years, we have seen fewer violations. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of violations. In 2004, for example, I believe there were 13, perhaps more, serious violations. In 2008, I do not think there were any. This year, there have been three or four so far, but there is a dramatic reduction from the way it used to be.

Enforcement and science are only part of the solution. NAFO needed a modern governance framework according to which decisions are made and for which they could be held legally accountable. With a strict mandate from the previous minister, Canada took a leadership role and NAFO members negotiated and adopted amendments to the 1978 convention in 2007. The Government of Canada supports these amendments because we know they are the right way forward.

Let me say this clearly. All members of the Canadian delegation were onside throughout the whole multi-year negotiation process and were consulted extensively. That includes the representatives from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I must confess that our government was taken by surprise by the sudden about-face of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in late summer 2009. It gave us its support to NAFO reform over the last three or four years, even in writing. For it to now say otherwise at the eleventh hour is very surprising and disappointing.

On the other hand, we have heard strong support from senior representatives of the Canadian fishing industry at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Patrick McGuinness, for example, the president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, stated,

We do see specific improvements with respect to the current NAFO regime...Our recommendation to Parliament will be to ratify the document as presented.

Bruce Chapman, president of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council and the Canadian Association for Prawn Producers, stated, “In our view, this is in our interest to ratify this new convention”.

For the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor to indicate that he is standing up for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador is just not the case.

We have also heard equally compelling testimony at the standing committee from renowned Canadian legal experts. For example, Ted McDorman from the University of Victoria, originally a maritimer, which I am sure he would want me to say, and Phillip Saunders, the Dean of Dalhousie Law School, have both provided a balanced perspective on the NAFO amendments. Mr. McDorman noted:

By the standards of other organizations, there's actually been some significant progress made here with the NAFO amendments.

As I said earlier, NAFO faces some very different issues and much higher public and market expectations for our fisheries today than is supported by the existing convention, and despite promises by the previous government to implement the stronger UNFA provisions into NAFO, it simply did not do it, not in any way other than to promise NAFO reforms at the 2005 St. John's conference, the same NAFO reform that it is rejecting today. It kind of boggles the mind.

Canada needs NAFO to work. The opposition has not given us any solutions that I have heard so far. Our industry needs it. Ecosystems that cross the boundary from our 200-mile limit need it.

I will just briefly address some of the concerns raised by my colleagues in large measure through the material provided by expert witnesses at committee. Canadians deserve to hear in this Chamber that changes for the amended NAFO convention are widely supported by those who have read it and are directly affected by it.

First, and we should not miss this, under the current convention, fish stocks have increasingly collapsed. They are managed as a single species and decision makers are not bound to adhere to scientific advice. Everyone here I think would agree that this approach is ineffective, but the amended convention requires ecosystem-based and precautionary approaches to decision making. This is explicitly in the language of the convention, according to the amendments.

Given the proximity and overlaps with Canadian waters, it is high time that NAFO protected fish stocks and the ecosystems that support them. It is forward-looking and overdue.

For example, significant international pressure, including a 2006 United Nations General Assembly resolution, requires those fishing on the high seas to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems or risk broad bans of gear types used extensively by Canadian industry. NAFO members have led the way.

For example, certain seamount areas have been closed to commercial fishing until scientific research shows that it is safe. A coral protection zone has been established which is closed to bottom-contact fishing. At the 2009 annual meeting, NAFO closed 11 areas which were identified by scientific studies as containing high concentrations of corals and sponges in the NAFO regulatory area. This is precisely the approach taken in waters in the Canadian zone and is fully in Canada's interest. No political spin or speculation will make that less true.

Let me mention one other issue, the objection procedure with which my colleague from the Liberal Party began this debate.

Objection procedures allow sovereign countries not to apply international provisions in conflict with their national interests. Unfortunately, the current NAFO convention does not fetter the use of objections and, as has been pointed out and we agree, the abuses leading to foreign overfishing are legendary in NAFO. NAFO parties can disagree with a particular catch or quota decision and fish as much as they want. The current convention also lacks a dispute settlement process, leading to longstanding disagreements, some of them still unresolved even to this day.

Under the amended convention, we will have a controlled and timely system to address objections. The grounds under which an objection can be made have been narrowed and a contracting party that objects will be required to set out alternative measures that it intends to take for conservation and management of the fishery, consistent with the objective of the convention. The objection can then be referred to an ad hoc panel which will examine the issue and make a timely recommendation to NAFO.

Should this process not resolve the issue, parties can use a binding dispute resolution mechanism that will ensure that the issue is resolved and does not linger for years, as is the case under the current convention.

We need to bear in mind that it is not about language. It is about protecting the fisheries resources. It is about compliance. It is about NAFO parties being willing to comply, realizing that it is in their best interests. This kind of objection procedure, the sort of name and shame approach that will be required of them, to state for the record why they are objecting, the grounds for that objection and how they think it meets the conservation objectives of the NAFO convention, is a whole new approach, and I think it will be successful.

Let me also just refer briefly to whether Canada is effectively protecting its sovereign rights under this amended convention. This has been brought up a number of times and will probably be brought up again. Let me be very clear. The amended convention explicitly and fully protects Canadian sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

The previous Liberal government signed treaties that bound Canada to obligations such as ensuring compatibility between NAFO measures and Canadian measures that apply to fish stocks that straddle our 200-mile limit. This government ensured that, in the amended NAFO convention, it is clear that Canada will control the process of establishing such compatible measures in its own waters.

More specifically, measures will not apply in Canadian waters unless two conditions are met: first, the Canadian government requests the measure; and second, Canada's NAFO delegation votes to adopt it. In his testimony, Dean Saunders said:

I've tried to work through the scenarios in which it would become a real problem, and I find they mostly require an awful lot of steps to take place before something really bad could happen. Because the Canadian government holds complete control.

My colleagues will speak more on this matter, but any speculation by the opposition that our sovereignty is at risk is wrong-headed and irresponsible. In response to questions about the possible negative use of article VI.10 in the amended convention by another NAFO contracting party, Mr. McGuinness replied, “It is extremely far-fetched”, and we agree with him.

Fundamentally, these changes provide for a more modern governance process and a decision making process based on modern fisheries management principles that reflect today's challenges faced by NAFO. Canadian industry wants this. The provincial government was onside with us on this. It integrates the most up-to-date decision making and management practices while effectively protecting the interests of Canadians.

Where do we go from here? We essentially have two options. We can adopt the NAFO amendments as were recommended by Canadian industry representatives or reject them as proposed by the opposition. This may well lead to a restart of the negotiations. However, it is extremely unclear where this would take us or whether it is even remotely possible to expect a significantly different outcome.

Another possibility is to kill or withdraw NAFO as proposed by a small, more radical group. This is not a realistic option, as Canada would forfeit its fishing opportunities in the NAFO regulatory area as well as its voice at the table, where decisions are taken. Certainly, we do not want to go to a place where it is a free-for-all on the high seas. Only Canada loses at that point. Canada's interests and responsibilities in NAFO are clear to our stakeholders and they should be to the opposition members as well.

We will continue to advocate for change through multilateral discussions and through our important bilateral relations with likeminded fishing countries. We look forward to the next NAFO annual meeting, where we will have another opportunity to help the organization move forward on its commitments. Hard-working Canadians expect us to defend their interests.

Finally, let me take this opportunity to move the following motion. I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.