14259 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 219 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 28, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 28, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 219 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 219 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 219 (Version officielle) 147 219 28 05 2015 2015/05/28 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 21 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian

Section of ParlAmericas respecting its participation at the 11th Plenary Assembly and 35th meeting of the ParlAmericas Board of Directors held in Santiago, Chile, on September 24-27, 2014, and the 36th meeting of the Board of Directors of ParlAmericas and the Inter-Parliamentary Meeting on Transparency, Summit of the Americas, held in Panama City, Panama, on April 10-11, 2015.

Committees of the House Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C-597,

an act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day) . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Creation of Small Business Impact Assessment Act Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) Bill C-682. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-682,

An Act to amend the Department of Industry Act (small businesses) . She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today, along with my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North , to present for the consideration of the House a bill to, for the first time, create a system of orderly consideration of the impact on small businesses of legislation, regulations, and policy.

This is loosely based on something I first heard about from colleagues in the Green Party in the European Parliament, where they have what they call “think small first”, a lens that looks at the policies being undertaken by the European Parliament to see what impact, unintended, there might be on small businesses. This act would require the Minister of Industry to consider whether measures require that analysis.

It is essentially similar to an environmental impact statement, only this would be a small business impact statement so that small and medium-sized enterprises would not inadvertently have further hurdles put in their way through unintended consequences of government policy. I hope that this bill will receive support at first reading and proceed to second reading and that it will eventually become the law of Canada. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) [ Translation ] Petitions Canada Post Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to present three petitions on the same subject from different provinces: Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Dozens of people want to maintain home mail delivery. I am pleased to present these petitions today. I think it is in the public interest. There is no reason for Canada to be the only G7 country that can no longer deliver mail to people's homes.

[ English ] Concussions Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present eight petitions on the need for comprehensive action on concussions in Canada. The petitioners call on the government to enact a pan-Canadian concussion awareness week to promote understanding of the injury; a strategy to address prevention, diagnosis, and management; and the development of a centre of excellence for concussion research.

[ Translation ] The Senate Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to abolish the Senate signed by several hundred people. It has become abundantly clear that the Senate is failing to uphold Canadian values, and the vast majority of Canadians agree with me on that. Several hundred of them decided to take action and officially call for the abolition of that institution. Nearly half of its members will be facing reprimands, reimbursements and even prosecution.

I think that these Canadians are absolutely right to be calling for the abolition of an institution that is so undemocratic, not to mention plagued by scandal. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.

[ English ] Consumer Protection Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have over 300 names from Trail, Castlegar, and the Beaver Valley of folks who are upset about paying additional fees so that they can pay their bills. This especially hits seniors unfairly. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada, its agencies, ministries, and departments to employ the measures at their disposal, appropriate to their jurisdiction, to prohibit the charging of customers for receiving a monthly bill or statement in the mail.

Palliative Care Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition regarding the inclusion of palliative care in the United Nations sustainable development goals, specifically recognizing that hospice and palliative care is an essential component of national health systems. The petitioners would like to see the Government of Canada call for the inclusion of hospice and palliative care in the United Nations sustainable development goals.

Taxation Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions on behalf of hundreds of Canadians across the country on the cessation of taxes on menstrual hygiene products. Clearly, a tax on feminine hygiene products is a gender-specific discriminatory tax, and we need to end it. The petitioners are calling for the Government of Canada to extend a 0% GST rate to menstrual hygiene products.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by 800 residents of the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farmers to store, trade and use seed. More specifically, they want the federal government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers and to ensure that policies and programs are developed in consultation with them. I want to thank the people from Development and Peace in the Victoriaville and Richmond regions who met with me and brought this to my attention. I am presenting this petition on their behalf.

[ English ] Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the World Parks Congress long ago recommended that 20% to 30% of all ocean habitat be protected from fishing to actually help fishing outside of those areas. Canada established marine protected areas. There are 161, but 95 were intended to be areas free from harvesting. However, that has not happened. Only one has happened. There are 11 classifications for marine protected areas included by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The petitioners are calling on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to actually close some of these areas to harvesting and to work with other relevant branches to make the system work.

(1010) [ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition signed by about a hundred people from Longueuil calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farmers to store, trade and use seed.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition calling on the government to extend a 0% GST rate to menstrual hygiene products. We note that the government has agreed, by voting with the NDP, on the elimination of the GST. We are in the middle of a budget debate, and we could very easily, successfully, reduce the GST on feminine hygiene products to 0% in this round of Parliament.

Canada Pension Plan Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by dozens of residents from across British Columbia. The death benefit allowance provides a one-time lump sum payment to a deceased CPP contributor's estate. The maximum entitlement was reduced to $2,500 in 1997 and has not been increased since. The petitioners call on the federal government to review and increase the death benefit allowance and to bring it in line with consumer price indexing adjustments, as is done with old age security payments. I urge the government to consider this motion.

International Development Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are concerned about accountability within the overseas development assistance budget and the activities of what used to be CIDA but what is now part of DFATD. The Official Development Assistance Accountability Act was passed in 2008 and requires that development assistance contribute to poverty reduction and take into account the perspectives of the poor to be consistent with international human rights.

The petitioners are calling for these criteria to become the fundamental principles of our ODA budgets and operations and that the minister responsible for development assistance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs once again be of parallel status.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill S-3. Third reading Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development . Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is a serious problem in many parts of the world. It is one of the main barriers to the achievement of sustainable fisheries worldwide.

Illegal fishing affects some of the poorest countries, where dependence on fisheries for food and livelihoods is high. By its nature, illegal fishing is not a problem for one country to solve on its own, because the problem respects no boundaries. These exploitive activities put pressure on the sustainability of all fish stocks and marine wildlife and distort the price of fish on world markets. In recent years, the international community has been working to develop global tools to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing activities.

Improving the control of foreign fishing vessels through a global standard for action that can be taken in ports is one tool to stop illegal fishing. In short, if criminals cannot land their illegal catches, they will not be able to continue their operations. I am proud to say that our government is part of this movement. As a nation with a well-regulated fishing industry, Canada has a strong interest in protecting fish stocks and in ensuring that fishing regulations are respected around the world.

In 2009, Canada and other countries approved the port state measures agreement that had been negotiated at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Canada signed this agreement in 2010 to signal the importance of taking strong action in ports to prevent illegal fishing, and today we are taking a step towards ratifying this important agreement. So far, 11 nations have ratified. The United States is in the process of passing ratification legislation, and it is expected that other countries will soon follow suit.

Before Canada can ratify this new global standard, we must address areas where our current legislation differs from the international agreement. These are the amendments we are discussing today through Bill S-3 . Through our current legislation, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Canada already has a rigorous port control system for foreign fishing vessels. The proposed changes contained in Bill S-3 will make this system even stronger. The proposed amendments to the act can be grouped into three broad categories. The first category concerns authorities related to foreign fishing vessels.

The port state measures agreement generally promotes a country's ability to refuse port entry to fishing vessels that are suspected to have engaged in or supported illegal fishing. However, there may be situations when the country responsible for the fishing vessel will want Canada's assistance to conduct an inspection and gather necessary evidence against the suspect ship. The proposed changes will create an enforcement permit that will apply when a foreign fishing vessel has been directed by its flag state to enter a Canadian port for inspection.

In this case, Canada would issue a specific entry permit for the sole purpose of inspection and enforcement. This is important, as the current system requires that the vessel itself request a permit to enter a Canadian port. Naturally, those who would commit illegal fishing activities are unlikely to seek permission to land in a country with as rigorous an inspection system as Canada's. This amendment will allow Canada, in partnership with the flag state, to direct a ship to port so that our officers can catch the criminals.

The proposed changes will also give our Canadian fishery protection officers greater authority to take enforcement action in such circumstances. When that foreign fishing vessel is directed to port under the new permit system, these powers will allow Canadian fishery protection officers to inspect and search the vessel and seize any illegal catch. The second set of proposed changes relates to information sharing. To meet the requirements of the port state measures agreement, these changes provide clarity on the authority to share information with our enforcement partners.

The proposed changes cover both the type of information and with whom it would be shared.

(1015) These proposed changes would clearly outline that the minister could share information regarding the inspection of a foreign vessel, the denial of entry to port, any enforcement action taken and the outcome of any of those proceedings. They would also outline the international partners with which such information could be shared. Applied globally, this effort would make illegal fishing operators easier to identify and facilitate the denial of entry at ports for those bandits throughout the world.

For our officers at home, the proposed changes would clarify the ability of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to share information related to the importation of fish and seafood products. The third major category of proposed changes concerns import prohibitions. Under the proposed changes, it would be an offence to import illegally caught fish into Canada. The amendments would also give authorities new tools to enforce these prohibitions.

For example, Bill S-3 would expand the powers of fishery protection officers to inspect any place, including containers, warehouses, storage areas and vehicles. These inspections could also be conducted in all ports of entry. This would be an important change since, currently, such powers are limited to fishing vessels and wharves. The amendments would also allow fishery protection officers to seize illegally caught fish in these places and seek their forfeiture in the event of a conviction.

Illegal fishing is a global threat to sustainable fisheries and to the management and conservation of our marine environment. Regional fisheries management organizations are increasingly requiring documentation for high-value species that are targets of illegal fishing. Canada can play its

part in preventing economic gains going to illegal operators by preventing the import of fish and fish products that do not have the required documentation. If a court finds the person guilty of an importation offence under the act, significant fines would apply. In addition, with these amendments, the court could also order an additional fine equal to the financial benefit the defendants gained from committing the offence. This would ensure that fines are not able to be factored into the criminal's operating costs and would provide a real deterrent to these operations. In addition to these three broad categories, the proposed amendments would also change several

definitions, in order to be consistent with the port state measures agreement. The amended definition of “fishing vessel” would include any vessel used in transshipping fish or marine plants that have not been previously landed. The scope of this definition is limited so that it would not include vessels that merely ship across the sea, such as those transporting grain. The proposed changes would also redefine the term “fish” itself. In keeping with the port state measures agreement and the Fisheries Act, “fish” would come to include fish, shellfish and crustaceans, whether processed or not.

The amendments would also add a definition of “marine plant”. Bill S-3 would strengthen the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, aligning it with the new global standard of the port state measures agreement. As part of meeting our international obligations, the bill would allow us to protect the livelihoods of fish harvesters in Canada more effectively by limiting the amount of illegal fish that enter global markets. I urge all hon. members to join with me in supporting these critical amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

(1020) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to pose a question to the minister. When we think of our coastal regions, there is a great deal of concern with respect to overfishing, quotas and so forth. Canada, traditionally, has played a fairly strong role internationally in demonstrating leadership in protection and conservational-type attitudes in what we can do to promote healthier fish stocks. I wonder if the member would provide some insight, in terms of how the legislation would impact inland fisheries. I am thinking specifically of Lake Winnipeg.

We have a lot of healthy freshwater fishing industries in Canada. I wonder if she would provide some comment with respect to whether the legislation would impact freshwater fishing. Mrs. Patricia Davidson : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is 100% right that Canada has always played a leading role when it comes to protection and conservation and doing the right thing when it comes to protecting our fisheries. We are a major exporter of fishery products and because of that we are not immune to the economic impacts of illegal fishing in international trade.

As I said in my remarks, this is indeed an international issue, and that is why Bill S-3 is being put forward. We do want to continue with our excellent role that we have been playing globally. We do want to be able to take

part in the port state measures agreement. To do that, we need to have the amendments that are being put forward in Bill S-3. We want to be able to continue to prevent illegal fishing and we want to be a

part in setting the global standard for actions when vessels do seek to enter a port and they should not be. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite certainly laid out what this bill would do, but I am left with a number of questions about future plans for the current government. In particular, we know that in order for this international treaty to be ratified and implemented we need 25 countries to sign on to ratify the agreement.

I wonder what our government is doing in terms of taking a leadership role in working with those other countries to sign and ratify the port state measures agreement. I wonder if our government is actually taking a leadership role, specifically with some of our trading partners, like Mexico, Spain and Panama, whose fishing vessels we know are engaged in IUU, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This is a serious issue where Canada should be seen to take a leadership role, and I do not see any evidence of that happening.

(1025) Mrs. Patricia Davidson : Mr. Speaker, we do know that there have to be 25 member countries ratify this agreement before it comes into force. As of this date, I believe 11 countries have ratified it. We have two others that are very close to ratifying. Of course, Canada is moving forward with the amendments proposed in Bill S-3 . We certainly do not want to be the last country ratifying this agreement. We have always taken a leadership role when it comes to conservation and when it comes to trying to protect our fisheries. We want to be able to continue to do that. There are meetings constantly with other countries and we are certainly promoting that other countries do take

part in this ratification. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that there has been little mention of our third coast on the Arctic. My questions for the hon. member are these. Where in the budget, and in successive budgets, are we seeing stepped-up dollars to actually move forward on building these ships that will ply our waters and protect our fisheries?

What measures have been taken, including through the Arctic Council, to ensure that we have better monitoring of what fishery is in our Arctic waters; and what measures should we be taking in co-operation with other nations to ensure that those fisheries are protected as well in our Arctic coastline? Mrs. Patricia Davidson : Mr. Speaker, certainly Canada plays a very strong role when it comes to protecting all of our shores. We know we have wonderful services in Vancouver on the west coast. It has full Coast Guard capacity there. It is doing all kinds of great work.

Bill S-3 would apply to all ports, so it is not just a bill that would apply to the east coast if that is what the member's concern was. Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to add my support for amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. As we have heard the last time this bill was debated, members from both sides of the House recognized the importance of this bill moving forward.

Unfortunately, the suggestion of my colleague, the member for Yukon , for a vote on this important bill was not supported by the opposition. As a Nova Scotian, this issue is particularly important to the economy of my province and the economy of the riding I represent. It is certainly my hope that we will be able to pass this legislation quickly so that we can continue to focus on protecting fisheries at our ports with the new tools contained in this legislation.

The proposed changes we are discussing today would bring our already rigorous system in line with new international standards for combatting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as outlined in the port state measures agreement. As my colleague noted, in 2010, Canada signed this important agreement. The agreement points the way towards practical, cost-effective solutions that will deter and stop illegal harvesting operations. It would do this by requiring some practical standards for ports around the world.

For example, it spells out that vessels involved in illegal fishing activities would be refused entry into a port or the use of that port's services. It also sets minimum standards for information that vessels must provide to obtain entry into a port for the inspection of vessels and for the training of inspectors. Also, it allows for greater co-operation and exchange of information between jurisdictions. It will require at least 25 ratifications for this agreement to enter into force.

As my colleague mentioned, currently 11 members of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have taken this step. Some 20 others, including Canada, have indicated that they are moving towards ratification. In doing so, these measures would support the global fight against illegal fishing and would help us protect the livelihoods of our hard-working fish harvesters here at home in Canada. Our government is committed to supporting the efforts of our hard-working fishermen.

As part of economic action plan 2015, our government is increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of fishing businesses. This means that fishers and their families would have more money in their pockets. On the topic of supporting our fishers, I would like to take a moment to speak to the economic advantages of approving these proposed legislative changes. Canada currently enjoys one of the most valuable commercial fishing industries on the planet. Around 85% of Canadian fish and seafood products are exported internationally, to the tune of over $4 billion annually in export value.

We are a major global player in the international seafood market. In fact, Canada is the world's seventh largest exporter of fish and seafood products, and we believe that this is going to grow exponentially. Of course, in order to ensure that this industry continues to provide strong economic opportunities to future generations, we are devoted to responsible fish harvesting practices. We closely monitor fishing within our own waters as well as the activities of Canadian fish harvesters as they conduct their craft on international waters.

With the current Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Canada already has the tools to carefully monitor and regulate activities by foreign fishing vessels in Canadian waters and in specific areas of the high seas, but what about fish harvesters who do not act responsibly? What about those who try to bend or break the rules? The economic impact of those operations is very serious. A 2008 study estimated that illegal fish harvesters are potentially siphoning off up to $23 billion from the global economy each year.

By refusing to follow the rules and regulations, illegal fish harvesters can reduce their own operating costs, selfishly. This puts legitimate fish harvesters in Canada and around the world at an economic disadvantage. Fish are one of the most globally traded food commodities. When we consider the volume of Canadian exports each year, it is clear that illegal fishing in other parts of the world does great damage to our economy.

(1030) Members should consider for a moment the impact of illegal fishing on our trading relationship with Europe. Between 2010 and 2012, the European Union imported an average of $25 billion annually in fish and seafood. Canada's share of that total was $400 million annually. With the upcoming comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, our industry stands to have unprecedented access to the European market for our fish and seafood products. That is good news for Canadian fish harvesters and processors.

When this agreement comes into force, it will lift 96% of tariffs on Canadian fish and seafood products, and remaining tariffs would disappear over the next seven years. We want to protect these economic opportunities for our fish harvesters from the detrimental impacts on prices caused by illegally caught fish. Of course, these rules and regulations are in place not just to protect the livelihoods of legitimate fish harvesters, but they are also meant to safeguard our marine resources for future generations.

When illegal fish harvesters break the rules that ensure global fish stocks are sustainable, they damage the ecosystems that the fish depend upon. Therefore, for both economic and environmental reasons, we must join our international partners to take comprehensive action to stop these devastating illegal fishing activities. That is exactly what we would do with Bill S-3 . We would strengthen our already rigorous system and support this global action to protect the world's fisheries.

For example, our existing legislation, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and its regulations, gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the discretion to authorize foreign fishing vessels to enter Canadian fisheries waters and Canadian ports. In other words, the act prohibits foreign fishing vessels from entering Canadian fisheries waters unless they are already authorized to do so by the act, regulations, or other Canadian law. The act also prohibits any person or crew member aboard a foreign fishing vessel from fishing in Canadian waters without proper authorization.

It is important to stress that Canada's legislation already serves us well. We are among the world's leaders in responsible fishing. Nevertheless, there are a few areas where our legislation could be strengthened before Canada meets the requirements of a new standard approach. This approach is outlined in the port state measures agreement. Today's debate is not only about strengthening the Canadian approach to our port control measures; it is also about supporting a global effort to fight illegal fishing. These two goals go hand-in-hand to protect and support both our industry and our environment.

To that end, Bill S-3 proposes several important changes that would make it possible to share information among federal departments and with our trusted international partners. These amendments would also allow Canadian authorities to take enforcement action against foreign fishing vessels that are directed to our ports by their flag states for inspection and enforcement purposes. These changes would make it illegal to import fish and fish products that are sourced through these criminal activities and would prevent their entry into our market.

Together these changes would create the conditions to ratify the port state measures agreement, an important tool in the global arsenal to fight illegal fishing. Canada's fish and seafood industry is a mainstay of economic life in coastal and inland communities around the country. My riding is a prime example of this. Currently, the fishing industry employs 80,000 Canadians in jobs nationwide, ranging from fishing wild stocks to aquaculture harvests.

With our government's ambitious trade agenda, these industries would benefit directly and see Canada's world-class seafood products on dinner plates across the globe. We are already seeing some of these improvements and advantages taking place in industries like the lobster industry in Nova Scotia. However, in this global context we must continue to support the fight against illegal fishing, for both economic and environmental reasons.

To that end, I am urging all hon. members to support changes to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to protect our industry and our environment, and to ensure that we continue to protect this vital industry and economic resource for Canada's economy.

(1035) Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the same question for my colleague opposite as I did for his colleague who spoke before him. I do not see any evidence of government wanting to take a leadership role on this. This bill was first introduced in 2012. Here we are quite a few years later, and it still has not been passed by us here in Canada. I want to know this. Once we finally put this piece of legislation to rest and it is passed, will the government urge other countries in the international community to sign and ratify the port state measures agreement?

Beyond that, when we are looking at leadership internationally, would the government consider some regulation that is similar to the regulation we see in the EU, which would require all fish and seafood products entering the Canadian market to be certified and have their origins traceable? Those are really the next two steps here if we are to tackle this issue and be serious about it. Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. As I said in my remarks, it would take 25 countries internationally to ratify this agreement to put it into force. Currently, 11 have done so.

Canada is one of 25 other nations that are getting the legislation in place and moving toward ratification. As members can see, we are all moving together as an international global community to protect our fishing industry and our fishing environment. As we ratify the agreement in Canada, we will continue to encourage our allies and our colleagues across the international community to put this measure in place. It would bring in international regulations that would have to be followed from one end of the globe to the other.

We encourage all other nations to get on board, make sure we pass this legislation, and make sure we protect our industry and our environment.

(1040) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question I asked the member's colleague. Does the legislation in any way whatsoever have an impact on inland freshwater fishing? It is a significant industry within Canada. That is a question on which I would really appreciate an answer. The second question is in regard to the timetable. Looking at it, the first question I put forward dealt with the strong role Canada could and should be playing on the international scene.

I would ask the member why he feels it has taken so long just to get the legislation to the point it is at. Were they working with different stakeholders? Why has it taken this long to get us to this point? Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, as I said, so far 11 countries have ratified the agreement and 25 more are moving toward ratification. Canada is in this cohort of 25. We are working with our international partners to make sure we not only have this legislation in place moving forward, but we actually include as many countries as possible. This is an international piece of legislation.

It has to be ratified by many countries, 25 at least, to make it come into force, so we are working not only with the 11 countries that have already ratified but with other countries to encourage them to make sure we ratify this as quickly as possible. We need at least 25 countries for it to come into force. We would be one of the next countries to ratify this, if all things go as planned, with the support of the opposition parties as well as this side of the House. Things are progressing the way they should.

International legislation sometimes takes longer than domestic legislation, simply because so many different parliaments have to use so many different regulations to pass this legislation. However, we are moving in the right direction. It is good legislation and we appreciate the opposition's support. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . We have Bill S-3 , which is the current incarnation of this bill. I believe it was Bill S-13 before prorogation, so we have started it again.

I will start by talking a little bit about the history, how we got to where we are, and the issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or IUU fishing. In the early 2000s, there was a small group of ministers and directors general of international NGOs who decided to take the lead on this issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This group included ministers from Australia, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand, the U.K., and Canada. In 2003, they came together and established the High Seas Task Force to advise them and finalize an action plan.

The aim was to provide political leadership to drive forward some very badly needed practical initiatives about IUU fishing that could be implemented immediately. That word “immediately” is important. This was in 2003. Members are going to see that we are really far behind on this issue. Why would they have come together on this issue of IUU fishing? IUU fishing is a very serious international problem. It is a global problem. It is increasingly seen as one of the major obstacles to the achievement of sustainable world fisheries, something toward which I think everyone in the House wants to work.

The result of the task force included a 2006 report called “Closing the Net: Stopping illegal fishing on the high seas”. It is a fantastic report, and it found some basic facts. For example, it estimates that the worldwide value of IUU catches is between $4 billion U.S. and $9 billion U.S. a year. Of this, $1.25 billion comes from the high seas. The remainder is taken from exclusive economic zones of coastal states—for example, where Canada has the exclusive right to fish along its coast.

IUU losses are borne particularly by developing countries, believe it or not—actually, it is probably easy to believe—which provide over 50% of all internationally traded fishery products. This is why I have been asking the Conservatives about the idea of having mandatory labelling for seafood, because we do not know where these products are coming from, and we do not know if they have been caught legally or not. Losses from the waters of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, amount to $1 billion U.S. a year. That is roughly equivalent to a quarter of Africa's total annual fisheries exports.

We can see the gravity of the situation. The Pew environmental group notes that fisheries scientists estimate that illegal fishing accounts for up to 40% of fish caught in west Africa. That is a staggering number. IUU fishing, therefore, imposes significant economic costs on some of the poorest countries in the world, where dependency on fisheries for food, livelihoods, and revenues is very high. Moreover, it effectively undermines recent efforts by these countries to manage natural resources as a contribution to their growth and welfare.

IUU, or illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing does not respect national boundaries. It certainly does not respect international attempts to manage high seas resources. It really thrives where we see weak governance arrangements, and it is encouraged by the failure of countries—and we might put Canada on that list—to meet their international responsibilities. It puts unsustainable pressure on our fish stocks, on marine wildlife, and on habitats; it subverts labour standards; and frankly, it distorts markets. There is a lot at play here with IUU fishing.

It has proven to be incredibly resistant to recent international attempts to control it. Its persistence is due both to economic incentives, fuelled by demand, overcapacity, and weak governance, and to the lack of global political resolve to tackle its root causes. I will get back to that resolve in a few minutes. This report, “Closing the Net”, states: An extensive framework of international measures has emerged with the aim of resolving...[this issue], but a central difficulty has been to garner the political resolve to carry forward targets and declarations already agreed.

(1045) That is the situation we are in now. Many states are reluctant to adopt measures aimed at controlling their fishing vessels on the high seas. Even where they have adopted such measures, enforcement, which is key, is patchy at best. Thanks to the work of the High Seas Task Force, another international work, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization created the 2009 agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This is where we are today. The bill would effectively enact that agreement.

It would implement that 2009 agreement in Canada by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I want to emphasize how important it is that Canada live up to its UN obligations and that Canada be a world leader in combatting IUU fishing. We have the ability to do so and we are pleased to see that the government is taking action on this issue with Bill S-3 .

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is not only an environmental concern, and of course a concern for our marine ecosystems, but it undermines the sustainable practices of legitimate fishing operations, including those in Canada, and it presents unfair market competition to sustainable seafood. The changes in the bill would help protect fishermen and their communities from unfair competition, which is important to the fishermen in the area around Halifax as well as across Canada.

While the bill represents a small step in the right direction, it comes on the heels of decades of Conservative and Liberal mismanagement, taking Canada in the wrong direction. I will point out that after years of experience as the environment minister in Quebec, the NDP leader understands the important relationship between environmental protections and a thriving fishing industry in Canada. Canadians can trust the leader of the NDP to grow the economy, while protecting the environment.

That is the situation we have here, where we want to grow the economy and grow our fishery, yet ensure its sustainable, it is legal and it is regulated. This is the balance that needs to be struck. We have heard about the dire situation when it comes to illegal fishing globally. The time to act is now. The bill means that Canada can ratify the FAO's 2009 agreement. Once Canada has fully ratified the port state measures agreement, Canada needs to advocate internationally for other countries to do the same.

As we have heard from other speakers, we need 25 countries if we are to realize this agreement internationally, so time is of the essence. The bill was passed in the Senate in 2012, and it has only been recently brought to the House of Commons and sent to committee. While we support the bill, we support it so it is actually passed. However, what has been happening? Why has the government been dragging its feet on the bill?

We have heard all this talk about IUU fishing and our international pledge to ratify a bill in 2012, yet we are in 2015, three and a half weeks before the House rises, and now we finally see the bill. Remember that the worldwide value of IUU catches is between $4 billion to $9 billion a year, yet we waited year after year to ratify this, not to mention the ecological devastation that comes with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We are not alone in wondering what the heck the delay has been. Patrick McGuinness from the Fisheries Council of Canada was at committee.

He said: The problem that has emerged in trying to address this IUU through an international agreement, the port states agreement, is that it's taking so long. It took a long time to negotiate and it's going to take a long time to be ratified by a significant number of countries to be able to attest that this is the right thing in addressing the IUU fishing issue that has been identified.

(1050) The New Democrats support this legislation. I wonder why it has taken so long to bring it forward, especially when its ratification means so much because of the need for 25 countries to sign on before it becomes enforceable. I have other questions about the legislation, and I have asked some of them of Conservative members, but I will save the rest for later. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the leader of the official opposition doing some good on the environment.

At the time he was part of a Liberal government as minister of the environment and he did some goods things, but that was in the capacity of a Liberal cabinet, No doubt, that likely contributed to some of the work he did. The question I have for the member is with regard to the treaty. She really put some emphasis on it, and we are inclined to agree with her on that. The government has not been diligent and has definitely not been proactive in getting this legislation through the House in any form of an expedited fashion. Maybe the member could provide further comment on this.

She is right in the sense that the government has not demonstrated leadership. If we take a look at the role that Canada as a nation should be playing, I suspect there is no other country in the world that has as much coastline as Canada. I could be wrong, and I may be a little biased in favour of my country. However, it should have been playing a much stronger leadership role. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the fact that the leader of my party was a cabinet minister in a federalist party. That is really important to underline.

I agree with the member that we have not seen any kind of leadership. It is not just on this issue, though. The Conservatives are very good about saying, internationally, that they are going to talk the big talk and sign onto this and onto that, but it is the actual implementation. That is really important. A very good example of that is this. My colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam brought forward a bill that would ban shark finning in Canadian waters. We have a ban, but it is not legislated. We also have no law to prevent the importation of shark fins. Therefore, my colleague thought we should take action.

As legislators, that is what we should do. He brought forward this bill and it was defeated, 143 to 38. How can we tell the world that we do not agree with shark finning, yet not have legislation to enforce that ban or prevent the importation of shark fins? They do not exactly come into Canada with labels on them to say where they come from. It is all about putting our money where our mouths are or, as we heard in the House the other day, putting our mouths where our money is. I am confused on that one. No, we have not seen any action. (1055) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, first I wish to congratulate my colleague on her speech. We all know how dedicated she is to protecting our planet in several areas. I am learning about a file that I was not very familiar with, since I do not eat much fish myself. I am allergic to it, so unfortunately I do not eat it very often. It is nevertheless very important for Canadians to talk about this issue, especially given that it seems to be a global problem, if you listen to the debate and read a little bit about it. This is about a living, wild resource, specifically fish that live in international waters.

Would my colleague like to talk about what a challenge it is, on a global scale, to coordinate quickly on this issue and make it as much of a priority as climate change is? Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, this is a global and international challenge and all countries around the world must work together, much like the NDP, on climate change and fishing. [ English ] We need to take action with our international partners if we are to achieve this, and the time to act is now. This is not pie-in-the-sky hopefulness.

We really can do this if we look at the economic benefits that could come if we decide to tackle climate change. The fact is that there are real economic opportunities for us in the green energy economy. The issue of international illegal fishing is about the environment, the ecosystems and the damage that kind of illegal fishing does, but it is also about the economic damage. IUU fishing is illegal, unregulated and unreported, so the regulation is really key. We need to work internationally and work with other countries. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-3 . It is a real pleasure to rise after the hon. member for Halifax . I had the opportunity to work with her previously, as the deputy environment critic. We were both members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. That was at the time when the government completely gutted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This government is not interested in striking a balance between the economy and the environment. The NDP understands that these two things are not mutually exclusive.

We know that we can develop policies that help and protect our environment while protecting our industries. Today, we are talking about the fishing industry, since we are talking about Bill S-3 , which deals primarily with illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This bill is essential. It is largely an administrative bill to allow Canada to ratify a United Nations agreement that we signed in 2010, the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. We will support this bill, and we congratulate the government for bringing it forward.

Unfortunately, there are only four weeks left in this parliamentary session. We saw that this government hesitated to take action. It has really dragged its feet on addressing illegal fishing. Illegal fishing is a global issue that affects countries all over the world. According to a 2008 study, the global economic loss due to pirate fishing ranges from $10 billion U.S. to $23 billion U.S. a year. Illegal fishing yields between 11 million and 26 million tonnes of seafood every year, and it can account for up to 40% of the entire catch of certain fisheries.

There is one last statistic that I would like to mention: commercial fishing, aquaculture and the processing of fish and seafood in Canada contributes $5.4 billion to to our total GDP. Therefore, it is a significant part of our economy. For that reason, we must fight illegal fishing in order to protect legitimate fishers and the fishing industry in Canada. Another problem with combatting illegal fishing around the world is the fact that a number of countries have rules or regulations in place to combat illegal fishing but they have a hard time enforcing them.

There is a lack of inspections and resources to ensure compliance with these laws, regulations and international agreements. That is very concerning. Canada must play a role in the world to encourage other countries to sign the agreement. We need 25 countries to sign the United Nations agreement on combatting illegal fishing. Canada must take a leadership role on the world stage to encourage other countries to get involved. We need to get other countries to ratify this agreement as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, Canada's international reputation and image are not the same as they were 10 or 15 years ago.

They have changed a lot under the Conservatives. In 2011 I had the opportunity to go to Durban, South Africa, for the UN negotiations on climate change. I was there with the minister of the environment at the time, although he had not included any opposition members in the government delegation.

(1100) During these negotiations on climate change, Canada was the laughingstock of the international community. Many delegates from other countries told me that they thought that Canada had negotiated in bad faith, particularly since the Prime Minister did not even allow the environment minister at the time to go home after getting off the plane from Durban before announcing that Canada would be withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. The minister made the announcement as soon as he got back to Canada from Durban.

Those delegates from other countries were right because Canada did not announce its intention to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol during the negotiations in Durban. It did so in December when very few people are following federal politics. It was done on the sly, without consultation. I would like to reiterate that Canada must play a leadership role and that it has a lot of work to do to rebuild its reputation in the international community, particularly when it comes to environmental issues and illegal fishing. The government could have acted more quickly to implement the United Nations agreement.

Patrick McGuinness, from the Fisheries Council of Canada, summed up that idea very well when he testified in committee. He said, and I quote: The problem that has emerged in trying to address this IUU through an international agreement, the port states agreement, is that it's taking so long. It took a long time to negotiate and it's going to take a long time to be ratified by a significant number of countries to be able to attest that this is the right thing in addressing the IUU fishing issue that has been identified.

This is not at all a priority for this Conservative government, which has been slow in introducing this legislation in the House. Personally, I am proud to be part of a team that has expertise on the environment and this industry. We have members such as the member for Halifax , who spoke before me, and we also have a caucus leader, the leader of the official opposition , who was Quebec's environment minister. During his career in provincial politics, he showed that he is a man of conviction.

He cares deeply about protecting the environment, but he also knows how to balance Canada's environmental and economic priorities. I am therefore convinced that the captain of our team is the right man. He is excellent. When the NDP becomes Canada's next government, we will solve this problem. By playing a leadership role in the international community, we will fight illegal fishing at the international level. We want to emphasize how important it is for Canada to fulfill its obligations to the UN and that Canada can be a leader.

Once the bill is passed, the government will have fully ratified the port state measures agreement. I would like to reiterate that we will support this bill, but the government must take preventive action against illegal fishing. The Government of Canada has been dragging its heels on this issue for a decade now.

(1105) Even though we are pleased with this bill and support it, the federal government still has a long way to go. There is no doubt that leadership is not the Conservatives’ strong suit. [ English ] Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons . I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act . This bill would give Canada additional tools to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activities more effectively and support global efforts to stop illegal fishing. As a maritimer, I am keenly aware of the critical importance of sustainable fisheries for coastal communities. Illegal fishing is a worldwide problem. Unfortunately, these criminal operators have been able to move around, seeking out opportunities for profits in areas where enforcement is lacking or is difficult to undertake.

Over the last several years, the global community has been developing tools to ensure that illegally harvested fish do not make it to the global market. The goal of these efforts is to remove the economic profits from illegal fishing. By removing the monetary incentive from these illegal fishing operations, which are so detrimental to our environment and to the sustainability of marine species, we can hopefully eliminate these activities. As a country that exports 85% of our fisheries harvest, we are mindful of the serious impact illegal fishing in other parts of the world can have on our industry too.

By ratifying and implementing the port state measures agreement, we are working with our international partners to prevent illegal harvest from being traded around the world. We are making a commitment to support a fishing industry in Canada and abroad that follows the rules. What kinds of species are targeted by illegal fishing ventures? They are the high-value species: bluefin tuna, toothfish, and so on. In many cases, the reason these fish are so valuable and so attractive to these criminals—their scarcity—is the same reason they are in such dire need of protection from unsustainable fishing practices.

Illegal fishing is not a new problem. In fact, there is a growing trend to require proof to ensure that imports of fish and seafood have been harvested legally. This proof usually takes the form of a document attesting that the fish harvesters followed national or regional fisheries management rules when catching the fish. Such documents must be supported by effective monitoring, control, and surveillance activities so that the importing country can confirm that the proper procedures have been followed.

Depending on the area, fishing requirements in international waters may be set by regional fisheries management organizations, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO. Through our membership in NAFO, our government is standing up for the interests of Canadian fishermen and sustainable fisheries. We have consistently called for measures that promote sustainability, address overfishing, and protect important marine ecosystems. For example, at the 2014 annual meeting, Canada successfully pushed for further measures to strengthen catch reporting by all member countries.

Some countries have started requiring catch documents for some or all seafood that is landed or imported into their markets. For example, the European Union has required all fish and seafood imports to be accompanied by a catch certificate since 2010. All countries who export to the European Union, including Canada, must demonstrate that they are able to ensure that their certificates are backed by strong fisheries enforcement. Many regional fisheries management organizations take the same approach.

These organizations have been focusing on creating catch documentation requirements for valuable species that are often fished illegally. For example, some organizations have documentation requirements for tuna species. These include regional management organizations that Canada is a member of, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

(1110) We also import fish and seafood from areas around the world where we do not harvest. In many of these areas, regional organizations exist to manage prized species, such as tuna. Organizations, including the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, also require catch certification documents to ensure that fish are caught legally. Under the amendments proposed in the bill before us, Canada would be able to make it an offence to import tuna from these far-off regions without the required documents.

This bill creates the necessary protection between Canada's seafood market and the illegal fishing operations that want to cash in on the high demand for these species. Import documentation requirements can have a real impact on illegal fishing operations. One example is another species at great risk from illegal fishing operations, the Patagonian toothfish, often sold under the trade name “Chilean sea bass”. This species, living in the world's far southern oceans, is managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

All vessels fishing for toothfish in these waters must follow conservation measures and obtain a catch document to show that their catch was sustainably harvested. Since this catch documentation requirement was implemented in 2000, the amount of illegally caught toothfish entering global markets has dropped by half. Canada does not fish these species, but this species is imported into our country. Much as is the case with tuna, the amendments before us in Bill S-3 will provide clear legal authority for Canada to adopt and implement such certification requirements for our imports.

Outside of catch certification documents designed by regional fisheries organizations, the amendments made to this bill in committee would allow Canada to determine, on our own, whether other fish and seafood imports should require specific documentation and what that the documentation should contain. The requirements would be set out in the regulations. The amendment adopted in committee is important as it will allow Canada to react quickly with new requirements for fish imports when we learn of new species being targeted for illegal fishing.

The continued threat of illegal harvests was highlighted by the recent case of the fishing vessel called Thunder , which was tracked for months while fishing with illegal nets in Antarctic waters. In this instance, co-operation between Interpol, several states, and the organization performing surveillance left the vessel with no viable safe harbour for its illegal catch. This case clearly demonstrates that when the global community works together, we can stop these criminals and protect our oceans. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting the passage of this bill as reported by committee.

These amendments to our Coastal Fisheries Protection Act would ensure that Canada's port state measures regime is consistent with this important international agreement and with standards shared by our international partners. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking action on this important matter. I hope the opposition will do the right thing and vote for this bill. (1115) [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the member opposite: the NDP will support this crucial bill.

I would like to ask the member if the government is prepared to appeal to other countries around the world to sign and ratify the port state measures agreement. I would also like to know how the government plans to put an end to illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in Canada. [ English ] Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to know that the opposition will be supporting this bill, because it is very important. It will greatly help our economy. We need to take measures to put a stop to illegal fishing, and this is what these amendments will do.

The bill will give our fisheries officers a bigger role to play. We certainly know about and appreciate the hard work these officers do. This is an important bill for our economy, and I am so proud to be part of a government that is taking action to help stop illegal fishing in our country and in many waters. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we too will be supporting the bill, but we do have some concerns about it. One is the limit of a $500,000 fine. Illegal fishing, in some cases, could amount to millions of dollars in profit.

However, for some reason, and the government would not allow the proper witnesses to come forward, it has limited the fine to $500,000. That to me, for a government that claims to be tough on crime, will not really be very tough on what will be, after this bill is implemented, an international crime. Could the member explain why her government is so reluctant to impose the penalties necessary on large or massive fishing vessels that take these illegal measures? Why is it just $500,000?

(1120) Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his question, and I am happy to learn that he too will be supporting our bill. It will certainly have a great effect on our economy. We will be leaving much work in the hands of our officers, and it certainly is a lot of work for them. We value the excellent and dedicated work they all do. As we all know, Canada is taking a leading role, and I am so happy to be part of a government that sees the importance of sustainable fisheries for coastal communities.

I am proud to be part of this great government that not only sees the need but is standing up and taking action. Not only does our government see the need to combat illegal fishery activities, it is taking action. I am very happy that the opposition is going to support us. Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I spent a number of years on the fisheries committee when I first arrived here in 2006. My background is in conservation, law enforcement, and fisheries management. Therefore, I have a very active and keen interest in this.

I am very pleased that the government is moving forward through Bill S-3 . I wonder if the hon. member, being from Atlantic Canada, can give us an update on what the fishermen and folks in Atlantic Canada think about this particular piece of legislation. Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question. I too, when I first came here, was a member of the fisheries committee. It certainly was a great learning experience. I know that our fishers are in favour of the bill and realize the benefit to our economy. They are glad that our government is taking action. Hon.

Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , which is a particularly important bill. It is designed to combat illegal fishing and to do so in the context of working with our international partners. This is important for Canadians from a number of perspectives. Obviously, the fishery is of tremendous economic importance. There are many thousands of families that depend one way or another on the fishery.

We have seen in past decades the havoc that can be wrought by foreign overfishing, which has seriously harmed our economy and undermined the fishery in terms of the cod fishery, for example, which has yet to fully recover from that. This makes it particularly important that we implement the measures included in this particular agreement. It is from that perspective, the economic one, that it is important to the families involved in the fishery, but it is also important from a Canadian sovereignty perspective.

This is a further way for us to properly assert our sovereignty over our resources and territory, and that is something I think Canadians support. Finally, it is, of course, of greater and greater environmental significance. There is a broad recognition that the fisheries are somewhat at risk internationally. There are parts of the world where overfishing has been dramatic, and we have only a vague sense in some parts of the world of the potential impact.

Canada can be proud of having been a leader in that regard by taking action to further prevent illegal overfishing and to allow proper management not just of our resource but of the very important natural ecosystem. That is what we are talking about here. It is very important legislation from an environmental perspective. Economically, sovereignty-wise, and from the environmental perspective, this is a very important bill to support.

(1125) Digital Privacy Act Bill S-4--Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr Speaker, I also want to address another issue, which I raised in a notice to the House yesterday, and that is that I would like to propose the following motion, seconded by the Minister of Industry . I move: Motion That, in relation to Bill S-4,

an act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to consideration at the report stage and second reading stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to consideration at the third reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the report stage and second reading stage of the said bill and on the day allotted to consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and would appreciate your guidance on this, but it is a question of relevance. I understand that the government House leader can at any point rise to put forward such a motion as the one to put time allocation, yet again, on another government bill. However, I find it to be offensive to the principles of examining Bill S-3 to then, in the pretense of speaking to Bill S-3, which is an important piece of legislation to ratify global action on our fisheries, slide into a completely different matter.

On the point of relevance, I think the hon. government House leader should not have pretended to be speaking about Bill S-3 in order to put time allocation on Bill S-4 . The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands identified herself that what the government House leader did is actually within the Standing Orders. There is no requirement in the Standing Orders that when a motion is moved, it must in any way be relevant to whatever matter is before the House at that time.

Consequently, while it is not common, what the government House leader has done is in fact well within the Standing Orders of this place and is in order. Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places at this time so the chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the debate. I see significant interest. I would ask that all hon. members limit their questions to about a minute, as is the case usually in questions and comments, and that the minister responding to do the same thing.

Questions and comments, the hon. member Terrebonne—Blainville. [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that a time allocation motion has been moved in the House for the 97th time. Frankly, it is an insult to our democracy. What I find even more shocking is that not only is the government imposing a gag order at report stage and second reading, but it has already imposed one for third reading, even though the House has not yet begun that debate. This is really rich. Once again, it is an insult to our democracy.

The government is invoking the urgent need to pass this legislation. I agree that it is really important to protect Canadians' personal information and take action, but this government dragged its feet for years. It had four years to do something. There were some bills in the past that were simply never introduced in this House. We had plenty of time to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Once again, the government dragged its feet on this issue.

Now all of sudden there is a sense of urgency, when we had countless opportunities to update the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I introduced a bill that the House could have passed into law already. Instead, the government is making this an urgent matter at the last minute. It is despicable. Why did the government take so long to act on this and then turn around and say that this is an urgent matter? It makes no sense. Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is not the urgent matter that my colleague is making it out to be.

We think it is very important to pass this bill, and as my colleague knows, the House will stop sitting in about three weeks. We have already had a debate on this very complex bill. In my opinion, we have been very respectful of the members of the House of Commons and the opposition parties. We involved stakeholders from outside the House of Commons. The Privacy Commissioner is on board with this. Mr. Therrien supports this bill and commends the government's approach in this bill.

It is truly essential that we move forward with this commitment and this approach for the sake of Canadians' privacy, in a world that is more digital than ever. We want this bill to become a reality for the sake of Canadians. (1130) [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Industry is here in an unenviable position in that the government House leader moves time allocation on bills over and over again. This has the effect of reducing the ability of smaller parties, such as my own, as the leader of the Green Party, to speak.

It is very rare that we have an opportunity to give a 20-minute or even a 10-minute speech in different parts of the legislative process. In a normal review, under parliamentary process, when time allocation does not take place, members such as me or others who are independents or in one of the three smaller parties would have an opportunity to debate legislation.

The government House leader lowers the boom and says that we are not going to have time to debate this and leaves the Minister of Industry to defend reducing the rights of members of Parliament in this place, reducing democracy, over and over again through the use of time allocation. Therefore, my question is not really directed to the Minister of Industry. We would like to discuss the substantive aspects of the bill. We agree that it represents some progress but falls short in disappointing areas. My main reason for rising here again this morning is to decry the excessive use of a limitation on debate.

It is unprecedented in the history of this constitutional democracy, constitutional monarchy, and Westminster parliamentary democracy, where at least in principle, all members of Parliament are supposed to be equal. Hon. James Moore : Mr. Speaker, I know this is a very well-articulated and long-standing concern of the leader of the Green Party on this matter. With regard to Bill S-4 , the time in the House is precious. I personally have the view that I would like to see Parliament sit later into the evenings.

Parliament is going to go from a 308-seat House to a 338-seat House, so affording more members of Parliament the opportunity to speak on more bills is an admirable goal. I would hope the Standing Orders in the next Parliament might reflect that. If we look at other jurisdictions, for example, the U.S. Congress sits very late into the evening, but it also has an approach where it has fixed times for debate of specific bills. It allots to all political parties specific speaking slots and it is done a very different way.

Perhaps this conversation needs to be had, given that the House will grow in size by 30 seats this coming fall. There are other ways in which the government could accommodate, in a meaningful way, people's views on government legislation.

With regard to Bill S-4 , which is a technical bill, as well as with the Copyright Modernization Act and other legislation that I have had the responsibility to steer through the House, I suspect the opposition parties would concede that we have tried to approach this in a pretty non-ideological, non-partisan way to draw in opinion from the private sector, from academics and from those who are interested in digital policy and privacy policy to arrive at legislation that would be as effective as possible and would move the country forward in a significant way. [ Translation ] Ms.

Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Minister of Industry is talking about a Parliament that will have 338 members. It is difficult enough to speak with 308 members in the House. I am not looking forward to what will happen when there are 338 members. My colleague should not be proud in the least about a 97th time allocation motion, a gag order to prevent members from speaking, in this case at all stages. This 97th time allocation motion is really one of a kind. We are hearing that the committee's work was short-circuited and that no proposals were accepted.

The exercise of democracy is at stake on the eve of an election campaign that is going to be pretty tough for the government, according to what we are hearing on the ground. Is he not concerned about how the government is curbing democracy in our country and not just because Bill S-4 , as important as it may be, is a Senate rather than a government bill?

(1135) Hon. James Moore : Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that half the legislative process in the Parliament of Canada is conducted in the Senate. I know that the NDP wants to abolish the Senate. However, the Supreme Court says that that is impossible, so the NDP's policy is clearly pointless. Bill S-4 did originate in the Senate, but that is because we wanted an efficient approach to the process in order to ensure that both houses of Parliament would have the time needed to do their homework and act responsibly with regard to a bill as complex as this one.

That is why we took this approach. [ English ] Certainly, in legislation as important as this, the personal information protection and electronic documents act reform, Bill S-4 , which is quite technical, it is important that we have a thorough process. It is mandated that Parliament do this review and, as Minister of Industry , it is my responsibility. I know the industry committee did a thorough study of this. We had all kinds of views that were incorporated prior to us tabling legislation, during the legislative process and deliberation at the committee stage. It happened on the Senate side as well.

This legislation is something of which I am quite proud. It is very important for our country. Reporting of data breaches, accountability, the implication of support of the Privacy Commissioner with regard to data breaches, the penalties that are in place for firms that do not inform people about data breaches that take place, all are important. This would be a big step forward for Canada. Again, it was arrived at after a great deal of consultation, in a non-partisan way, to draw in ideas. We arrived at legislation that would strike an effective balance.

When the legislation is adopted and moves forward, the country will be very well-served. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am concerned. The minister has stated that we need to move forward with the bill because the government has great respect for the Privacy Commissioner. It did not have much respect for the Privacy Commissioner when he wanted to testify on Bill C-51 , which would deal with many similar issues. All of a sudden, the government has this newfound high regard for the Privacy Commissioner, and that troubles me.

It also troubles me that the government continues to bring forward important bills through the Senate, the unelected Senate, and then bill comes to the House, this elected House, and it cuts off debate. This is a pattern the government follows over and over again. Yes, it is an important bill, so why did the government wait until almost the close of this session to bring forward the bill, with the excuse that we were running out of time, that we needed to move forward with this important bill? Frankly, I know my constituents will find this deeply offensive, as they found the process on Bill C-51 offensive Hon.

James Moore : Mr. Speaker, with respect, the bill has been before the House a number of times. We actually thought we had deals in the past with the NDP, for example, to allow the debate on this legislation to collapse so it could go to committee for a thorough study. However, the New Democrats kept putting up speaker after speaker who read the exact same speech, with no new information, no new opinions, and offered nothing to the conversation so they could drag out the debate and make self-righteous statements at moments like this about the government ending the debate.

It was a circular game being played by the New Democrats. We want to move forward with protecting the privacy of Canadians. That is why the current Privacy Commissioner has said this about the legislation: —I am greatly encouraged by the government’s show of commitment to updating PIPEDA and I welcome many of the amendments proposed in this Bill. Proposals such as breach notification, voluntary compliance agreements and enhanced consent would go a long way to strengthening the framework that protects the privacy of Canadians... Chantal Bernier, the interim privacy commissioner, said the same thing.

She said “I welcome the proposals”. This bill contains “very positive developments”. She also said, “I am pleased that the government has heard our concerns and has addressed issues such as breach notification”. I hope this is not news to the member opposite. I know the New Democrats aspire to be government, but when governments actually propose legislation, it has to pass the House and it also has to pass the Senate. Therefore, having had the legislation approved through the Senate process, it is now before the House.

The legislation has been before the Parliament of Canada for consideration, debate and a great deal of discussion for well over a year. It is time to move forward, it is time to protect Canadians, and it is time to update the PIPEDA legislation with the digital privacy act.

(1140) Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us what the government is doing to give the Privacy Commissioner increased power to ensure that companies play by the rules when dealing with the private information of Canadians? Hon. James Moore : Mr.

Speaker, from 2006, when we first formed government with our first piece of legislation, Bill C-2 , and a number of measures since then, we have provided more tools, larger budgets and more responsibilities to independent officers of Parliament in order to hold not only Parliament but also agencies and firms beyond government accountable for their responsibilities and duties to protect Canadians. This legislation would give the Privacy Commissioner and individual Canadians increased time of up to one year to take an organization to court if it broke the law, instead of the current 45 days.

Very often data breaches happen and people may not be informed or may not be fully aware of the consequences that have happened with respect to data breaches and violations of their privacy online. Currently, there is only a 45-day window when an individual Canadian can take an institution or a firm to court in order to get remedy with respect to the data breach that has taken place. We opened that from 45 days to one year, including empowering the Privacy Commissioner to take action on behalf of Canadians on an individual case or on a broader, more complex file. This is very important.

We want to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has this kind of power and kind of latitude to take action because 45 days is far too narrow a window. These are the kinds of powers that the Privacy Commissioner asked for, we listened and we have included them in this legislation. This would go a very long way to providing Canadians with greater certainty in a digital world. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, earlier, I found it interesting to hear the minister express his concern about MPs having the opportunity to participate in debates in the House.

It is rather ironic to see him rise in the House and be forced to defend the decisions of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons . I also find it ironic to hear him making disparaging comments about what members from the other parties are saying. I am going to be more respectful than he was and refrain from commenting on some of the speeches I heard from the members opposite that were written by the Prime Minister 's Office. Quite frankly, they were not very good.

Has the minister ever told his colleagues or the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons how uneasy he is with the situation that some members are facing, namely the fact that they are not being allowed to speak? He clearly stated in the House that he was concerned about this, given that the House will have even more members after the election. Has he ever expressed those concerns to his colleagues or to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons ?

Also, has he ever considered the impact that the repeated gag orders imposed by his government is actually having on the work that parliamentarians can accomplish in the House? Hon. James Moore : Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker and a member of the House of Commons, you are well aware that this is always a very important discussion to have at the beginning of each Parliament. In the future, it will be very important for every one of us to discuss the serious nature of our work in the House of Commons and the way that we are all going to participate in debate that is respectful to our constituents.

We need to have that conversation not just here in the House, as an institution, but also within our political parties. That discussion will be even more important when the number of seats in the House of Commons goes from 308 to 338 this fall. This is always a topic of discussion within the parties, particularly with regard to the House of Commons. In my opinion, our government is very serious about meeting the needs of Canadian taxpayers and having effective and respectful debates about the content of our bills. That is what we have done with Bill S-4 .

(1145) Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the word “debate”, since the minister always talks about debate, but that implies some sort of exchange. In this case there is no debate, which unfortunately is nothing new from this government. I would like the minister to tell us how many times the government accepted amendments and listened, analyzed and took action, instead of just exchanging words. On occasion, the opposition has admitted that some bills were good and that they could be improved. Bill C-51 was a prime example of a failure.

Even the government's witnesses said that it was not a good bill. However, the government systematically issues gag orders and shuts down debate. It shuts down the opposition, it shuts down disagreement and it shuts down any possibility for amendment. Why does the minister use the word “debate” when this government systematically shuns debate? Hon. James Moore : Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree. That is what we did with Bill S-4 . We had a very respectful and serious debate. We spoke about this bill in depth and talked about the implications of a bill as complex as this one.

In the debate in the House and in committee, and outside the House of Commons, we have had respectful exchanges with the government's partners that are affected by this bill, such as lawyers, representatives of the private sector and the Privacy Commissioner. We carried out analyses, we took

part in debate, and presentations were made to the government. We made decisions after truly listening to the people who had concerns about the status quo. We listened to them and that is why the chamber of commerce, former privacy commissioner Chantal Bernier and Daniel Therrien support this bill. I have a long list of people who support the bill. A large group of Canadians pointed out that our government listened.

We did our analyses, we did our homework and we came up with a balanced bill that not only meets the interests of our commercial and electronic future and Canadians' needs, but also meets the government's need to have a really effective bill on Canadians' privacy. That is what we did. There was debate here, in the House, at committees and outside the House of Commons, before we introduced the bill and while it was before the House. We continue to follow an approach that is democratic and effective, as part of a process that truly achieves results. [ English ] Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, could the minister expand on how the government will help to protect the personal information of Canadians by mandating that organizations inform their clients when their personal information is lost or stolen? Hon. James Moore : Mr. Speaker, the amendments in this legislation introduce requirements for organizations to report potentially harmful breaches of information security safeguards, like data breaches.

For example, if there is a data breach on credit card information on a website, they have to report that information to the Privacy Commissioner immediately and also notify the affected individuals. It is a dual track of accountability. If someone involved in e-commerce is purchasing something on a website and that website may have been hacked and the person's information has been potentially lost or stolen, there is an immediate responsibility for the firm that has lost the information to report it directly to the Privacy Commissioner and also to the people who are affected.

There is a dual track of accountability, and this is essential. Failing to report these kinds of data breaches to either the individuals or the Privacy Commissioner would result in facing a penalty of up to $100,000 per offence. If there is a data breach of, say, a few hundred customers whose credit card information may have been stolen and that data breach is not reported to both the Privacy Commissioner and the individuals, in every single instance, there is up to a $100,000 fine. That is a stiff penalty, but we think it is necessary.

As more and more Canadians are migrating their businesses and academic pursuits online, we need to make sure information is being protected, not only by the government but obliquely by firms, and that they take their privacy obligations very seriously, stay ahead of the technological curve, and stay ahead of those who would want to steal people's information and use it for violations of their privacy and self-interest. (1150) [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct some of the false information the minister has spread.

First, he said that we had enough time to debate Bill S-4 on Canadians' privacy. Unfortunately, we had just one day to debate this very complex bill that Canadians consider controversial. We have unfortunately not had enough time to study this bill thoroughly in the House. In his speech he showed contempt for the official opposition. He is wrong: all of the recommendations were proposed by the official opposition. This is not how our Parliament should work. He also mentioned the Information Commissioner. There has been a flagrant lack of respect for the Information Commissioner during this Parliament.

Not only did the government not accept any of the recommendations that the Information Commissioner made during the study of Bill S-4 , it also prevented the Information Commissioner from testifying before the committee during the study of Bill C-51 , a bill that, as we all know, is even more controversial than Bill S-4 . This is the 97th time they have invoked closure in the House of Commons. That is not something to be proud of. The government keeps breaking records when it comes to gag orders in the House. [ English ] Hon. James Moore : Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, quite frankly, I do not agree.

With respect to the Privacy Commissioner, I consulted with the interim privacy commissioner at the time, Chantal Bernier, before we tabled the legislation and I also had time to speak with Daniel Therrien. I had a good, long substantive meeting, one on one, with both of these commissioners, as did my officials and my staff, before we tabled the legislation. We did listen, and we did consult prior to tabling the legislation.

With a piece of legislation such as this, as complicated and far reaching as this, we do not arrive at the legislation on our own, sitting in the dark, working away, and trying to guess at what the best balance would be. We consult broadly. We consulted with the Privacy Commissioner before we tabled this legislation, and we have arrived at what is an appropriate balance, in my view, which is why the Privacy Commissioner said about the legislation: ...I am greatly encouraged by the government’s show of commitment to updating...[this legislation] and I welcome many of the amendments proposed in this Bill.

Proposals such as breach notification, voluntary compliance agreements and enhanced consent would go a long way to strengthening the framework that protects the privacy of Canadians... This legislation is supported by the Privacy Commissioner because we were respectful of the process, because we consulted before we tabled the legislation, and we were able to go forward. Equally, I know that the NDP critic on this matter, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville , when we tabled this legislation, said, “We have been pushing for these measures and I'm happy to see them introduced”.

We were very pleased to see the NDP support this bill when we first tabled it, and I hope that the NDP will vote in favour of its sentiment when we began this process over a year ago. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for attempting to continue debate on the actual bill during this question and answer period, which is really not about the bill itself but about the fact that the government has moved time allocation. The government has moved a motion to stop debate on a bill for the 97th time in this House. That is what this debate right now is about.

Sure, the minister may have had consultations with the Privacy Commissioner before bringing forward the bill, but after the bill was brought forward, the Privacy Commissioner brought forward amendments, which the government has chosen to ignore. The official opposition New Democrats and experts have proposed amendments to the bill because it is ill conceived. The government chose to ignore all of those, so let us not go to debate on the bill right now, because that is what we are trying to have, actual debate on the bill.

The government is stopping debate on the bill, yet once again, stopping debate on yet another bill. My question to the minister is this. Why do the minister and the entire government seem to have absolutely no respect and complete disregard for parliamentary process?

(1155) Hon. James Moore : With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to debate the bill as much as the opposition would want to. This is a 30-minute time for debate, of back and forth, basically a 30-minute question period on this legislation. If New Democrats want to use that time to ask rhetorical partisan questions, they are free to do so. I am happy to stand here and talk substantively about any

section of the bill for this half an hour. Equally, I was before the industry committee for a two-hour period, answering questions of great substance from the hon. member's colleague, whom I know has spent a lot of time on this legislation in a good-faith effort to contribute to public policy and to talk about it there. I have appeared before the industry committee, including this week. I was before the committee for an hour; there were no questions from the NDP on this legislation. I was before the committee on three other occasions. There were no questions from the NDP on this legislation.

The member opposite could easily have come to the committee. Other members were there. She could have come and asked me questions on this legislation. She was not there. Equally, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville —

Ms. Charmaine Borg : I asked a question. I was there. Hon. James Moore : Fair enough, Mr. Speaker, but the member opposite could have, of course, on any other occasion asked questions about this legislation, which she chose not to, and that is her prerogative.

However, equally, the member who just asked this question and others who have been in this House who claim to be so amped up about the importance of this legislation and having a meaningful discussion in a non-partisan way have never contacted me, have never sat down with me, have never reached out to me to get a briefing on this legislation or talk about it. Here we are, after more than a year of this bill being before Parliament, and these members have never, ever engaged in debate on this subject. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : Mr.

Speaker, I clearly heard the minister mention the absence of my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville in his answer. I believe we are not allowed to mention the absence or presence of members. Could you please clarify that? [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The rule prohibiting references to the absence of members specifically relates to members being in the House at this time. It does not apply to general comments in terms of what has gone on in the House. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments the minister has made. I will just use my time to ask a substantive question about the piece of legislation. When I sat on the ethics and privacy committee for a number of years, we did have substantive debates about these kinds of issues. We have had previous versions of this legislation, which has come forward in previous sessions of this Parliament. I am very glad to see the government moving forward in getting the bill passed. It has already been through the Senate and is now here in the House.

We have the opportunity to have this debate and get this legislation passed in a timely fashion. As a parent, something that concerns me is the amount of time my children spend online and the lack of rules and regulations in some instances that we know are there, some of the risks and some of the issues that are online, and the lack of clarity and the lack of standardization. We know full well some of the issues that pertain to that. I am wondering if the minister could speak to how Bill S-4 actually improves the online world insofar as protecting young people, vulnerable people, and especially children. Hon.

James Moore : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk to my colleague about the substance of the bill at any time. I would just say to my colleagues that this legislation has been before Parliament now for well over a year. A lot of people on all sides of this House have contributed greatly to the debate and the substance of this legislation. We think we have the right balance. I appreciate the support of the Privacy Commissioner as well as a number of organizations that recognize that this legislation is very much needed in Canada.

It bring us up to an international standard of privacy protection for Canadians, and I am looking forward to the passage of this legislation. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. (1200) [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1240) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 409) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Ambler Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goldring Gosal Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 137 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bellavance Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Cash Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Easter Eyking Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Gravelle Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Nantel Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Scarpaleggia Scott Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay Valeriote Vaughan -- 98 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Ways and Means Notice of Motion Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of the motion.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill S-3. Third reading Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill S-3 ,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. This enactment would amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to implement the port state measures agreement, to prohibit the importation of fish caught and marine plants harvested in the course of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to clarify certain powers in respect of the administration and enforcement of the act. The Liberal Party of Canada supports this bill because it would enable Canada to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, acts which undermine the livelihood of legitimate fishers and the fishing industry in Canada.

The bill would also help to meet our international obligations as laid out in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing leads to the depletion of fish stocks, unfair competition with illegal fish products and price fluctuations created by an unpredictable supply that can be caused by illegal fish products in foreign markets.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing undermines the livelihood of legitimate fishers, as I said earlier, both within Canada and around the world. It is estimated that it costs the global economy about $10 billion U.S. to $23 billion U.S. annually. Liberals believe in the vital role that the fishing industry plays in Canada's economy and culture. It contributes roughly $5.4 billion and 71,000 full-time jobs to the Canadian economy.

We believe that the federal government must play a strong role in cracking down on this type of fishing, and to protect fishing livelihoods, fisheries conservation and the Canadian economy. While we welcome the measures in this bill, the government has elsewhere undermined surveillance and monitoring programs for foreign offshore fishing vessels.

The Conservatives cut $4.2 million and 23 full-time equivalent jobs in Canada's offshore surveillance of foreign fishing vessels, which will result in a reduction of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization air hours from about 1,000 to 600, and NAFO sea days from 785 to 600. That is a serious undermining of the ability of those organizations to do their jobs and protect the Canadian fishery.

We are also concerned, because it was evidenced during the study of this bill in the House of Commons committee, that the government is seriously lacking information on the amount of possible illegal fishing happening, both within and outside of Canada's 200 mile limit, and on IUU products that may currently be entering Canadian ports. The lack of this information is made even more concerning when combined with the government's cuts to offshore surveillance. We believe that this is vital information that should be available to the Canadian fishing industry and to parliamentarians.

The port state measures agreement would contribute to harmonized port state measures and enhanced regional and international co-operation, and block the flow of illegal, unreported and unregulated caught fish into markets both domestic and abroad. It would also add to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act new prohibitions related to importing illegally acquired fish and marine products, as well as clarify in detail some of the act's administration and enforcement provisions. Bill S-3 was previously introduced during the first session of the 41st Parliament as Bill S-13 .

(1245) Bill S-13 was adopted by the Senate and was awaiting second reading in the House of Commons when it died on the order paper with the prorogation of Parliament on September 13, 2013. Bill S-3 was introduced in the Senate on October 23, 2013. In addition to the government witnesses who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the two non-governmental witnesses were supportive of the bill. The Senate committee reported Bill S-3 without amendment on December 9, 2013. The bill then came to this House and was supported on all sides by the committee.

Witnesses at the House committee were also supportive of the bill. The fisheries committee reported Bill S-3 with some amendments on April 29 of this year. The amendments that the government made were mostly to close some loopholes that the original wording had missed. These amendments gave authority to make regulations to require those who may belong to a regional fisheries management organization to which Canada is not a party to provide documentation or trade tracking requirements upon entering Canadian ports, to apply the fine and punishment to that

section should the proper documentation not to be provided, and to authorize the court to order the forfeiture of illegal goods related to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing seized in a place other than the fishing vessel itself. While the amendments were supported for the most part by members of the committee, the fact is that committee members had questions about details surrounding these amendments, but the government could not or would not provide the answers or bring in the appropriate officials who would be able to answer the questions that committee members had.

For example, we would like to know just how much illegal fishing activity is taking place both within and outside Canada's 200-mile limit. We have had no answers to those questions, and the government should be providing those answers. Could the government provide some detailed answers on this question? It is very important for Canadians to have answers. It is especially important for all those in the fishing industry, for the fish and seafood sector, and for anyone who lives in small coastal communities, such as the people I represent in the riding of Malpeque. Also, are the fines of $100,000 for a

summary conviction and $500,000 for a conviction on indictment really enough of a penalty? I raised this question earlier today. If a massive fishing vessel operating under a flag state is making millions of dollars in profits from illegal fishing activities, is a $500,000 fine enough? I do not believe so. Is there flexibility to allow the courts to look at the situation and levy a higher fine if it is warranted? We do not know, and the government has not answered.

A $500,000 fine in terms of the millions that can be made in profits from illegal fishing is really only a slap on the wrist for some of the major illegal fishing operations. That is not exactly what I would call tough on crime, coming from a so-called tough-on-crime government. The fines are clearly not high enough, and we do not know, nor has the government informed us, whether the court has the ability to expand that fine for those illegal activities in certain situations.

The government would not provide a legal expert or legal analysis to the fisheries committee, so perhaps it has the proper legal information and could provide it to the House through its spokesmen later today.

(1250) I have other concerns as well. On the one hand, the government is taking these steps to ratify the port state measures agreement to deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, which really sounds good, but at the same time, on the other hand, the very same government is slashing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' budget for offshore monitoring and surveillance. Conservatives have taken $4.2 million out of the budget for offshore monitoring and surveillance. It will mean very significant reductions in air and sea monitoring off our coasts.

On the one hand, the government seems to be showing it is doing something, and on the other it is actually reducing the money that is needed to do what it claims it wants to do. That is not unusual for this government. We have seen that happen many times in many areas. In the Liberal Party we have a proud tradition of standing up against illegal and foreign overfishing, and I am very proud of that. I have served as the chair of the fisheries committee, which I will admit was one of the highlights of my time in Parliament.

It was a committee that worked well, with all parties working together to make many recommendations. Even government members moved motions that were hard on government. We do not see that any more today. That is the way committees should work in this place. For a time, I also served as parliamentary secretary, and I was always proud to represent the fishing industry and the fishing community.

In terms of the Liberal Party and our time in government, whether was establishing the 200-mile fishing zone that protected fishermen from foreign trawlers; extending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to extend its application to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization regulatory area; the turbot war; or being an active member of the High Seas Task Force, an international task force that was committed to stopping illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in parts of the ocean that are not under the exclusive control of foreign states, Liberals have stood up for our fisheries against illegal and foreign fishing.

Many will recall how former fisheries minister Brian Tobin took that point to the global community. That was a government that would take action on behalf of fisheries. We did not just give the impression that we were doing so; we would actually provide the money and take the action to get the job done. It is vitally important for the Government of Canada to take action in the fishing industry. It is so important for the area that many of us here come from, Atlantic Canada, because so many livelihoods depend on a healthy fishery.

I know we all feel this is a very serious issue, and it is very important for the people we represent on all sides of the House, for that matter. Again I would refer to what I said in the beginning, and I re-emphasize this point: Liberals believe in the vital role that the fishing industry plays in Canada's economy and culture. It contributes $5.4 billion and 71,000 full-time jobs to the Canadian economy, and over $4 billion in fish and seafood products are exported every year. In fact, not long ago the fisheries minister was at the International Boston Seafood Show.

Many of us have attended this event over the years, and Canadian fish products are certainly profiled at that show in the Boston area. It has attendance from all around the world and it is a great opportunity for Canadians to profile the kind of high-quality fish products that we produce and export out of this country.

(1255) I am glad to see the government take some steps in putting this international agreement in place. I know the Conservatives are not big fans of international agreements, so it does come as somewhat of a surprise. They are not big fans of the United Nations. However, it is good that after so many years of sitting on this bill, they are finally moving it forward.

I wonder if further spokesmen from the government side could provide the House with details on when they expect the port state measures agreement to enter into force, how many countries are still needed to ratify it, and what countries are not overly interested in ratifying this agreement. I come back to the point that the committee did not allow enough time and did not allow enough witnesses to get answers to those simple questions.

Whether those orders came from the executive branch or elsewhere I do not know, but it was not through the fault of opposition members, This information is important, and it is important for Canada to do everything it can to ensure that all countries around the world and all regional fisheries management organizations are taking steps to ensure fishing is done in a proper manner. I know that here in Canada, bluefin tuna is a major species that has many benefits for many coastal communities. It is a well-managed hook-and-line fishery, and that is the proper way for this fish to be caught.

Hook-and-line tuna fishing is sustainable and it is good for the health of the resource. However, not all countries use hook and line to catch tuna. Some countries use very large boats and nets, or the longline method, or other unsustainable methods that are devastating for tuna stocks. It is a highly migratory species. We need to be doing all we can to ensure each country around the world is fishing in a sustainable and responsible way. Many stocks, such as tuna, are migratory.

These migratory fish could be caught somewhere else through the use of an illegal or improper method, and that for a certainty would hurt the tuna fisheries in our own waters. Ensuring sustainable and legal fisheries around the world will benefit our fishermen here at home, as well as the countries and colleagues with whom we operate in coordination. We need that information, and we need the clout to make those involved in improper and illegal fishing methods stop what they are doing and practise responsible fishing. This bill would help in that regard.

The bottom line is that this bill should provide help for the fishermen that we all represent. It should be good for our entire fish and seafood sector and for the future of all fisheries, both global and domestic, and it should be good for the Canadian economy and the environment. In closing, I am glad that the government has finally moved forward with this piece of legislation. I and our party are happy to support it, but we wish the government would provide the details and information that members have been asking for.

We are disappointed that the government has been cutting the budget for offshore surveillance monitoring, not to mention the many other cuts at DFO in areas such as science and research, oceans management, and enforcement. In

summary, this bill would prohibit the importing of illegally caught fish and marine plants, extend Canadian control over foreign fishing vessels seeking access to Canadian ports, and give Canadian fisheries protection officers greater authority and power of enforcement. As well, it would allow the minister to share information with regard to the inspection of foreign vessels and provide for greater sharing of information between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency in relation to the importation of fish and fish products. I want to reiterate that we will be supporting this bill.

We fully understand how serious this issue is and we welcome the passage of the bill in this House.

(1300) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and ask if he would elaborate on the impact that this kind of fishing has on the inshore fishery here in Canada, in his own riding. Does my colleague not think that creating a traceability and certification system for seafood products, as the European Union has done, would be worth considering? [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, the process they have in place in the European community, or that they are trying to implement in terms of traceability, is indeed a good one.

However, this bill, in and of itself, is a major step forward, because first and foremost, even with traceability, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing still has a very damaging impact. We have to take it a step at a time. This is a major step forward, as long as we can get it ratified and get other countries around the world to ratify it. It is for that reason we support the bill. In terms of the question he asked, those are next steps, I believe, that are important. I come out of the agriculture sector.

We have tried traceability in the agriculture sector, and in some commodities it has worked and in some i