OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 111 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, September 18, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 18, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 111 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 111 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 111 (Version officielle) 147 111 18 09 2014 2014/09/18 10:05:00 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

(1005) [ Translation ] Vacancy Yellowhead

The Speaker :

It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation: [ English ] Mr. Merrifield, member for the electoral district of Yellowhead, by resignation effective Wednesday, September 17, 2014. Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(

b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

Auditor General of Canada

The Speaker :

I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act of the Auditor General of Canada for the year 2013-2014. [ Translation ] This document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] Aboriginal Affairs

Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32.2, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

Business of the House

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I anticipate that if you seek it, you will receive consent for the following motion: Motion

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the remainder of the debates, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), on the motions to concur in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 and the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Wednesday, February 5, be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed adopted on division.

The Speaker :

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

[ Translation ] Petitions Canada Post

Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition addressed to the Government of Canada with respect to the cuts and reductions in services announced by Canada Post. The people in my riding will be adversely affected both in terms of community services and job losses.

[ English ] Foreign Investment

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I understand that earlier this week the Conservative government ratified the Canada–China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. Nevertheless, I can easily anticipate that the petitioners who signed this petition would want this House to hear that they call upon the Government of Canada to decline to ratify that agreement and to take immediate steps to limit the influence of state-owned enterprises over our democracy in the interest of ensuring that the power over Canadian laws remains in Canadian hands.

Criminal Code

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions here. First, I have four petitions asking Parliament to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, or others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.

The Environment

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition with quite a number of names on it from my riding and across the country, asking that the government regulate the use of and monitor the impact of neonicotinoids in agricultural applications.

Canada Post

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Newton—North Delta to present the following petition in protest of the Conservative government's decision to end door-to-door mail service for Canadians, increase postal rates, and close post offices across the country. Via this petition, my constituents ask the government to reverse these job-killing changes. They also protest against the negative impact these cuts are going to have on the most vulnerable in our community, including our seniors.

Foreign Affairs

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from Canadians from every province from coast to coast, calling on the government to create a department of peace in the interest of pursuing conflict resolution, peace, and non-violence in trouble spots around the world.

The Environment

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very timely, as next week is the special UN summit on climate solutions. This petition is from primarily constituents in my own riding, Saanich—Gulf Islands, calling on the government to put into place a meaningful climate plan and a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to no less than 80% of their 1990 levels by 2050.

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 Speaker :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate Seismic Surveys S. O. 52

The Speaker :

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[ Translation ]

Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my request this morning. During the early stages of seismic work off the coast of Cacouna, Canadians were initially provided a study that was never disputed by the NDP. The comprehensive study was requested by the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat and the responses were provided by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Science Branch. The report contains very important information, including this:

The Beluga population has been listed as “threatened”...The Government of Canada has a duty under this Act to protect this population and prevent the destruction of its Critical Habitat.

The conclusion states:

Should the noise generated by the surveys cause the Beluga to avoid this area, a large portion of the Beluga's spring habitat would be compromised. It is therefore important to limit the time span of the work and avoid sensitive periods.

This document was signed by six marine mammal and endangered species experts from the science branch. When the proponent sought permission to undertake drilling—which has begun—what Canadians got was this little document that you cannot even find on Google. You have to look hard to find it. You almost have to get it by force. It is signed by a single biologist who is not a marine mammal expert. Expert opinions from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch on the impact of this activity on critical beluga habitat are absent from this document, gone, kaput.

Worse still, provincial ministry officials testified before the Superior Court yesterday. According to various reports, they repeatedly asked for an opinion from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch. Despite their persistent inquiries, they never got an answer from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine mammal experts. Their questions were never answered.

In closing, one can only conclude that the government did everything in its power to prevent the endangered species experts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch from providing their scientific opinion on activities that could affect an endangered species. That is serious. It is bad for my region's reputation, and it is bad for Canada's reputation. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that violates the public's trust in government. Mr. Speaker, please give us a chance to earn that trust and let MPs, who were elected by the people, debate this issue in the House.

(1010) The Speaker :

I would like to thank the hon. member for his request. I have no doubt that this is an important issue to the hon. member, but I do not believe that this is a matter for an emergency debate.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders

[ English ] Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

Hon. Lisa Raitt (for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

moved that Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-3. Second reading

Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin this debate on Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act . Like other responsible coastal nations around the world, Canada is concerned about the economic and environmental impact of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. In fact, we have a moral and legal obligation to help stop these illegitimate practices. Today, with the amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act as outlined here in Bill S-3 , we have the opportunity to act. With the existing Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and regulations, Canada already has a robust control regime for foreign fishing vessels.

In recent years, the international community has been working diligently to strengthen tools to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and activities that support that practice. Improving controls over foreign fishing vessels in port through global standards is one of several important tools to accomplish this goal. I am proud to say that Canada has played an important role in this development. For that reason, I am proud to lend my support to the proposed legislation before the House.

Before we examine the bill, some background might help to put the proposed amendments into a larger context, which I think members might find helpful, and underscore why they are so important. For decades, the international community has developed laws and standards to protect the earth's vast marine resources. More than 30 years ago, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea confirmed that states have responsibilities for conservation. Then, several years later, the United Nations fish stocks agreement of 1995 emphasized the role and responsibility of states in conserving fish stocks.

This was also a very welcome measure. Unfortunately, the practice of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing has become big business. A study produced by the United Kingdom in 2008, for example, suggested that illegal fishing was costing the world economy up to $23 billion annually, representing between 11% and 19% of total reported catch worldwide. How does illegal fishing hurt the global economy? Fishing vessels that do not follow rules and regulations minimize their operating costs. They then sell fish at a cheaper price than legitimate fish harvesters, distorting prices and markets along the value chain.

While Canada diligently monitors and regulates fishing, we are not immune to the economic impact of illegal activities. Let us consider for a moment that we export up to 85% of our fish and sea products. In 2012, the last year for which the statistics are available, these exports were worth about $4.1 billion. This is an impressive figure, but it could be higher if markets were not distorted by illegal and unregulated catch. Let me give a real-life example. On the west coast of Canada off British Columbia, the sea urchin fishery has been in place since about the 1950s.

It started to grow significantly in the 1980s. Sea urchin was caught and urchin roe was sold to the Japanese market. It is a delicacy there, although I am not sure I understand why. By 2002 this fishery was thriving. There were 70 boats and $25 million in exports. However, almost right at that time, an illegal and unregulated fishery began around the Kuril Islands, an archipelago stretching from northern Japan to the southeast coast of Russia. This fishery was mainly operated by organized crime based in eastern Europe.

In 2003, for example, in just one day, the illegal fishery dumped the equivalent of B.C.'s entire annual green sea urchin quota onto the market. It was about 200 tons. In just one week, they dumped B.C.'s entire annual red sea urchin quota, about 4,500 tonnes, onto the market. The price fell, and B.C.'s export market to Japan all but collapsed. In British Columbia, this affected real people with families to care for and mortgages to pay.

(1015) Illegal fish harvesters do more than wreak havoc on the economy. Their practices harm efforts to protect ecosystems and habitat. Why? It is because they operate for short-term profit, not long-term sustainability. In 2009, the international community approved the port state measures agreement, technically known as the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. It was negotiated through the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which promised real and cost-effective solutions to the problem of illegal fishing.

The agreement requires port state measures for controlling the access of foreign fishing vessels to the ports of coastal nations like Canada. Improving these rules globally is considered a cost-effective way to fight illegal fishing. I might just say here that obviously the problem has two sides to it. Fishing vessels fly flags of the states from which they come. They have an obligation, as we do in Canada, to make sure those vessels follow the rules; but they also offload in ports, not necessarily their own, and it is these measures we are talking about.

Rest assured that Canada already has strong rules when it comes to foreign fishing vessels, but this would strengthen our point of entry checks on incoming fish and fish products. The port state measures agreement establishes minimum standards for states to deal with foreign fishing vessels implicated in illegal fishing activity. Canada signed the agreement in 2010, indicating our intention to ratify it. However, before we ratify it, we must shore up some gaps in our own domestic legislation related to monitoring, enforcement and information sharing. That is what Bill S-3 is seeking to do.

Once approved, the proposed amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act would allow us to meet our international obligations as a responsible member of the international community and to enhance the integrity of legitimate fish harvesting activities in Canada. With this context, allow me to review and provide some additional detail on the proposed amendments, which can be loosely grouped into three broad categories. The first concerns enhancing and fine tuning controls over foreign fishing vessels that are seeking to access our ports.

Under the current act, fishing vessels must apply for a licence to enter Canadian fisheries waters and to access our ports, at least 30 days before they arrive. Under the proposed amendment, the minister could allow a foreign vessel that has been directed by its flag state to enter a Canadian port even if it has not applied for a port licence, to the extent that the vessel has been ordered to port by its flag state for enforcement purposes. In this case, Canada would issue a specific permit for the sole purpose of inspection and enforcement.

While the port state measures agreement generally promotes refusal of entry to fishing vessels that have engaged in illegal fishing, there might be situations where the flag state—that is to say the country responsible for the fishing vessel—might want Canada's assistance to conduct an inspection and to gather evidence of a violation. It is not enough to direct vessels suspected of illegal fishing into our ports. We must then arm Canadian fisheries protection officers with greater powers to enforce the amended Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the regulations.

These amendments would thus increase the powers of Canadian fisheries officers to inspect a suspected foreign fishing vessel in port and to search for and seize illegal catch when that vessel is directed to port under the new permit regime. This would strengthen current prohibitions regarding the import of fish or marine plants that have been taken, harvested, processed, transported, distributed or sold in contravention of international law. I stress that officers would have to have reasonable grounds to believe the vessel had been engaged in illegal fishing activities for the exercise of these powers.

The second set of amendments involves information sharing. Without accurate intelligence about the activities of illegal fish harvesters, Canada's fisheries protection officers are at a tremendous disadvantage. If we do not have better information about the potential for illegal operations, illegal fish harvesters will quite literally leave authorities in their wake.

(1020) To meet the requirements of the port state measures agreement, the amendments provide clarity on the authority to share information. The amendments cover both the type of information and with whom it can be shared. First, the amendments clearly outline that the minister has legal authority to share information regarding the following: the inspection of the foreign vessel; refusal of entry to port to a foreign vessel; a change in decision regarding such a refusal; enforcement action taken; or the outcome of any proceeding relating to a decision on port access.

For example, we could access the results of any enforcement activity or the outcome of a legal proceeding. Knowing that a vessel has been involved in numerous offences also raises a red flag for our fisheries protection officers and would lead to a refusal of port access.

Second, the amendments clarify that the minister can share this information with the flag state of the vessel, relevant coastal states, regional fisheries, management organizations, states in whose fisheries waters the illegal fishing may have occurred, the state of nationality of the owner of the vessel, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and other relevant international organizations. It is a very broad power.

For example, if France refused entry to a foreign fishing vessel and then shared the name of the vessel with us, our protection officers would be on the alert if that vessel tried to enter port in Canada. Third, amendments to the act clarify that the minister may report, to other state parties, actions that Canada has taken with respect to Canadian vessels that have engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing or fishing-related activities in support of such fishing.

In addition, the proposed amendments would enable Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to share with each other relevant information related to the importation of fish, fish products and marine plants. That is an important initiative. Having information is one thing, and being able to act on it is quite another. That is why the third major category of amendments concerns prohibitions and offences and enforcement powers, providing an expansion of the powers of fisheries protection officers.

Currently, fisheries officers can only investigate seaports and wharves for illegal catch, but since illegal catch does not always come to port in fishing vessels, one of the important innovations in the agreement is to target illegally harvested living marine resources and products, including marine plants, that enter not only on a fishing vessel but in a shipping container on a large ship.

The bill would therefore prohibit the importation of fish, marine plants and products that have been taken, harvested, processed, transported, distributed or sold in contravention of international law—to use the language of the bill—in order to foreclose this additional avenue of illicit access to our market. The negotiators of the agreement wanted to ensure that strong actions taken against fishing vessels would not be circumvented by the use of other vessels to transport or transship the catch to ports.

These amendments would enable Canada to exercise appropriate border controls to close the front door when necessary, so to speak. With these amendments, Canada is once again assuming a leadership role in the fight against illegal fishing, by taking this concept a step further. These amendments take the measures in the agreement aimed at container vessels to the next level, as Canada is entitled to do.

They would enable fisheries protection officers to inspect any place, including containers, warehouses, storage areas and vehicles at all ports of entry, including airports and beyond—effectively, wherever such products may be found. This power would enable fisheries protection officers to support and enhance the work of CBSA customs agents. At the same time, fisheries protection officers would have the power to enter and search these places with a warrant and, if circumstances demanded, without a warrant, working in conjunction with customs officials as required.

These amendments would allow fisheries officers to seize illegal, unreported and unregulated caught fish, fish products and marine plants aboard the vessel or in any other place believed to be obtained by or used in the commission of an offence under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. However, further deterrence is necessary when dealing with illegal fish harvesters whose main concern is monetary profits. If it is shown that foreign vessels have been engaged in or have supported illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, substantial fines can be imposed: on

summary conviction, a fine of up to $100,000; upon conviction on indictment, a fine of up to $500,000; and on a second conviction, double these fines.

(1025) Moreover, if a court finds the person guilty of an offence under the act, the court could order the person to pay an additional fine equal to the estimated benefit they expected to gain from committing the offence. This structure would present a significant deterrent to this very serious crime and would demonstrate to illegal fish harvesters that Canada is serious about putting an end to their illegal endeavours. In addition to these broad categories, the amendments also cover several changes in

definitions required by the port state measures agreement. For example, the amended definition of “fishing vessel” could include any vessel used in transshipping fish or marine plants, but it would exclude vessels equipped to transship that are not involved in supporting fishing activity at sea, such as vessels transporting general merchandise. The proposed amendments would also redefine the term “fish” itself. In keeping with the port state measures agreement, “fish” would come to mean a species of living marine resources, whether processed or not.

The amendments would also add a definition of “marine plant”, because marine plants are also living marine resources. The port state measures agreement outlines cost-effective and practical solutions to the problem of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Bill S-3 would strengthen Canada's Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and enable Canada to exercise enhanced port controls and importation measures consistent with, and in fact even stronger than, the minimum standards established in the port state measures agreement.

These amendments would once again demonstrate Canada's leading role in the international fight against illegal fishing. These amendments are a step forward in that fight. These robust measures would limit the quantities of illegal fish that enter our market and other markets around the world where Canadian fish harvesters sell their products. Canada's fish harvesters stand to benefit from a more level playing field. To date, 11 members of the Food and Agriculture Organization have become parties to the agreement.

We need to maintain the momentum so that the 25 parties required for the agreement to enter into force will be achieved sooner rather than later. Today, by supporting Bill S-3 , the House has an opportunity to move Canada one step closer to ratification, one step closer to helping protect the livelihoods of legitimate fish harvesters, one step closer to effective conservation and management of living marine resources and protection of the fragile ecosystems that support their existence. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill S-3 . We can do no less.

(1030) [ Translation ]

Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. This is a very interesting bill, and I think that we should support it going to committee so that we can debate it further. This bill was introduced previously in the Senate as Bill S-13 . It was delayed because of prorogation. It took a long time to pass it there and introduce it here in the House. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary about the economic impact of such a long delay due to prorogation. Has Canada experienced any economic repercussions because the measures in this bill have not been implemented?

[ English ]

Mr. Randy Kamp :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We miss him on the fisheries committee these days. Clearly, this is an important piece of legislation, and it is moving through the parliamentary process as it should. Like many pieces of legislation, it was delayed by prorogation, and now we are moving it through as expeditiously as we can. I am happy to hear that this might well be supported by the opposition. It really is a good piece of legislation.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I too agree that Bill S-3 has to be brought forward and dealt with in order that the government can meet its international obligations. Of course, surveillance is so important, and the illegal fishery is one of the biggest problems we have in our country. I would like to ask this of the minister, but I will have to ask the parliamentary secretary. Why was $4.2 million removed from offshore surveillance? That is a large amount of money. We have lost surveillance, which is so important to make sure we know what is going on off our coast. Why did the government take $4.2 million out?

I agree the legislation is vital. We need it. It is good to have the legislation, but we have to have the clout with it. From what I can see, the government has removed a lot of the clout. Why?

Mr. Randy Kamp :

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I agree with the conclusion that the member for Cardigan has reached. In fact, with regard to the regional fisheries management organization with which he is probably most familiar, which we call NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, we continue to be a very important partner because, of course, there are straddling stocks that affect our fisheries. The enforcement and surveillance activities in which we have been engaged over the years have become quite effective. He will see, if he looks at the data, that the number of violations has continued to decline over the years as we get better at doing what we are doing.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, reviewing Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , is a very positive step forward. I am concerned, though, about process. I understand that this bill originated in the Senate. It was amended in the Senate. It has now come to this place, and as I understand the hon. parliamentary secretary, there will be further amendments put forward in committee. I assume it then has to go back to the Senate. I am wondering if the government can explain why a bill this important has taken such a circuitous route.

(1035) Mr. Randy Kamp :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that bills have to go through both the House and the other place, and sometimes they begin there and sometimes they begin here. I am hoping that the bill will pass at second reading and will be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We will give it due diligence there as well, review it carefully, and make sure that it gets passed as quickly as possible.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Philip Toone :

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this issue. Once again, I would remind the House of the possible economic impact resulting from the fact that this bill has not passed more quickly. I have the same concern as my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding how we seem to go around in circles between the House of Commons and the Senate. The question I have is this: Why did we have to go through such a ponderous process to ratify an agreement that is already supported by the United Nations? There is no doubt that the bill needs some improvement.

Every member I have spoken to so far really wants to be able to propose amendments. From what I understand of the parliamentary process, this means that the bill will have to go back to the Senate for a second time. This will have a serious economic impact. The delay matters. This is also true when it comes to income protection for our fishers as well as the protection of our fishing industry. We also need to honour our international obligations. That is why I think this deserves a little more support.

Personally, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans some questions. I do not necessarily need to ask the minister my questions, so I am glad the parliamentary secretary is here with us today. What will be done to accelerate the process? What will the Conservatives do at the parliamentary committee level? Will the witnesses be called quickly? Will the topics be added to the agenda as soon as possible? Will a substantive debate be held on this subject?

Time and time again, debates at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have been held in camera. Will this debate be open to the public? When we submit our witness list, will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans promise to listen to those witnesses?

[ English ]

Mr. Randy Kamp :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I think it is a fair one. The member knows that the committee is the master of its own destiny, so I cannot answer those questions. I can tell him, though, that the government has an interest in the bill passing as quickly as possible. Of course, it has not passed at this point or been referred to the committee, so his questions might be a little premature. With respect to his comment about the economic impact, I understand that, and that is obviously one of the reasons we are wanting to pass this bill to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

However, the point should not be missed that the act we already have and would amend with this bill is a robust one. It gives officials significant power to combat illegal fishing and the importation of illegally caught fish products. As well, we have a very well-managed flag state regime for our own fishing industry. That is a good thing. Really, this is an international agreement, because as an international community, we need to do better around the world at stopping these products entering port. However, Canada already does a very good job of that.

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting bill. It deals with two oceans that surround Canada, but a third ocean, the Arctic Ocean, is one that is not represented in this bill. Perhaps the minister could talk about the representation of the newest and least protected fishing area Canada may be participating in and how this bill could be modified to support the future likelihood of fishing in the Arctic.

(1040) Mr. Randy Kamp :

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the port state measures agreement applies to all oceans around the world, not just the Pacific and the Atlantic. It applies to the Arctic and the Indian Ocean as well as others. It is an important bill. With respect to the potential of fishing in the Arctic, it has always been our position that those decisions need to be based on science and very carefully thought out. There are not many fish species that would appear to lend themselves to a commercial fishery at this point, but those decisions will have to be made in the future based on scientific information.

We are co-operating with other parties in the Arctic to make sure that this is the approach that is taken.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honour of sharing my views on Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act . I listened carefully to the speech given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this bill, and I think that he raised some very interesting points. This bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for further debate. It should probably also be amended. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his colleagues will support these amendments. Nonetheless, there are some problems with this bill that should be debated here in the House of Commons.

My first concern is that this bill has already been debated in the Senate. Today, the government seems to be ignoring our parliamentary procedures and traditions. Usually, bills are introduced in the House of Commons before they go to the Senate, and there are several reasons for that. It is not just because members like debating these issues in the House of Commons. It is because we are the elected representatives of the people. We raise our concerns and those of our constituents in a place where they may have some bearing. We should therefore start with a debate here in the House.

People generally believe that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought and that it provides a second chance to ensure that we did not miss anything in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. This bill was introduced in the Senate, where the senators diligently did their job and proposed amendments. Now, the bill has come before the House of Commons, where other amendments may be proposed, and the bill will then have to go back to the Senate for a second time. This is a waste of time, and this way of doing things disregards the role of the House of Commons.

The House should have the right to examine bills first. The House is not supposed to oversee the Senate. That has never been its role. To be quite honest, I believe that the Senate should be abolished, end of story. This institution has no place in a free, democratic and modern parliament. To some extent, this institution is keeping us trapped in the past, but anyway. The fact remains that the bill has finally come before us. We are interested in debating it and either passing it as is or amending it. Personally, I believe amendments are needed.

I just want to point out that this bill does more than just amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The purpose of the bill is to ratify an international agreement adopted by a number of countries, including those of the European Union. The agreement that will be ratified by this bill is the port state measures agreement. This United Nations agreement shows that it is in our best interest to work with our international partners in order to achieve effective management of a healthy industry, management on which the nations of this world can agree.

I think it is great that the government before us is prepared to adopt an international agreement. We have often seen this government struggle with ratifying, adopting and honouring international agreements, except for those it makes in secret, like the free trade agreements that we still have not seen. I am talking about the free trade agreement with Europe. This government does not want Canadians to be able to read the text and decide whether they agree with it or not. Fortunately, the United Nations seems to be taking the right approach.

It is obliged to disclose agreements before those agreements are ratified. Our government could learn a thing or two from the United Nations.

(1045) I absolutely want this bill to promote a healthy fishery in Canada. It will certainly improve things. There have been many occasions when we have seen shortcomings in the tools available to us. The parliamentary secretary said there was already very effective legislation in place that might be improved by this bill. For the most part, I agree with him. However, if there is an international agreement, if other countries can teach us ways of improving our practices in Canada, then we should listen and adopt those practices, if they can help us.

According to the United Nations, illegal fishing has reached a pretty high level internationally. In 2008, pirate fishing was worth an estimated $10 billion to $23 billion a year. We know that related industries in Canada generate roughly $5.5 billion a year and that 71,000 full-time jobs are linked to the fishery and related industries such as aquaculture and processing. That is a lot of money. International fishing lowers the price of fish products. We know that the arrival of an illegal product on the market has a negative impact on the price.

There are already too many concerns about the price of fish products. Every year lobster fishermen in the Maritimes find it difficult to get a price that will ensure the economic survival of their industry. We have seen this many times in other industries as well. We really want to have the tools to ensure that prices are realistic and reflect the reality of the legitimate fishing industry. We do not want to subsidize the illegal industry. Unfortunately, today, there is still too much illegal fishing. This bill will help us eliminate much of this illegal fishing.

We should remember that there are elements of the bill that are of great concern. The tools we will provide to our officers will be helpful, but do these officers have all the tools they need? Are there enough officers on the job? In his question for the parliamentary secretary, my colleague from Cardigan did say that there were significant cuts to surveillance by Fisheries and Oceans. The parliamentary secretary replied that he was not worried about it and that even if there were cuts, illegal fishing in Canada has declined.

It is quite reasonable to suspect that, if there is a downsizing of surveillance personnel in Canada, we will not be able to properly assess illegal fishing because it is done at night. We need open tools. We need effective tools on the water in order to really control illegal fishing. I think it would be advisable for the parliamentary secretary to take his analysis further and determine what exactly is the actual reduction or perhaps increase in illegal fishing in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has suffered a huge number of cuts in recent years.

I suspect that the department is not capable of putting a figure on how much illegal fishing is going on in Canada. I am sorry, but I have a hard time believing the parliamentary secretary when he tells us that illegal fishing is on the decline. I do not think the data are there to support that assessment. I implore the parliamentary secretary to talk to his minister and ask her to increase the number of staff, not only in surveillance at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but also in all of the department's sectors. This department has probably gone through more budget cuts than any other department.

(1050) It is time for things to change and for the department to start increasing spending instead of always making cuts. We heard in the news that scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada were laid off. There is a lack of information on the studies that need to be done, including in the case of the port of Cacouna, an item that recently popped up in the news. We have seen repeatedly that Fisheries and Oceans Canada simply does not have the tools it needs. The bill will also give surveillance powers to our officers.

It is hard to justify these new powers, but I am waiting for the parliamentary secretary to explain where the government is going with this. I want to talk more specifically about the power being given to inspectors, who will be able to conduct searches at sea without a warrant. I doubt that this power will pass the legal test. I am not even sure that our border officers have this power. The government wants to give this power to our fisheries officers, when officers on land do not seem to have that power. I do not understand how this power is useful or valid.

Once again, I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary on that, especially if this bill makes it to committee, so that we have a better idea of where the Conservatives are coming from. If it is true that officers can conduct this type of search, we have to wonder whether they would be putting themselves in danger. That is something that these workers will have to ask themselves. The ocean is isolated. It is rather big. The officers are far from resources and support. It is a matter of safety for workers.

I am concerned about this power being granted to workers, but once again, I am looking forward to hearing further justifications from the government so that we understand where it is coming from. In addition, the bill poses a legal problem: it takes the new definition of justice from

section 2 of the Criminal Code. [ English ] According to the Criminal Code, justices include justices of the peace and provincial court judges. The problem we have with that in Newfoundland is that justices of the peace do not exist, first of all, and they certainly do not have the capacity to hand out injunctions and search orders. I am a little concerned that we are creating in inequality between the provinces when it comes to the bill. I want to hear more from the government side as to what it means to give this sort of power to a justice of the peace.

I will briefly quote a court case, which passed through the courts about 15 years ago, R. v. Saunders, 2002. From Carswell Newfoundland, this is

section 155, paragraph 19:

Search warrants are obtained on an ex parte basis.... They are often obtained from justices of the peace who have little legal training and they are often requested on short notice. ...many of them have received little if any training. This is unfair...and makes it impossible for them to fullfil their constitutional obligations. This search warrant illustrates that this is a situation that is no longer acceptable. If the power to issue is going to be granted, then at least a minimum level of training should be provided.

(1055) [ Translation ] A search warrant is a very powerful tool. People who are perhaps ill-equipped to issue one are being asked consider doing so. Issuing a search warrant to officers who will be isolated and unsupported when they go to sea might put them in a very dangerous situation. Unfortunately, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made a lot of cuts to the Coast Guard, which has put its employees in an increasingly precarious situation. The cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada might jeopardize the safety of mariners or Government of Canada officers at sea. We are concerned for their safety.

Unfortunately, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is moving in the opposite direction by cutting resources that would give these people the support they need. I am not interested in talking about recent situations where there were marine safety problems. I would simply like to say that since I was elected in 2011, there have been some fairly serious situations every year where people were in danger when they should not have been. We need to have tools in place to ensure their safety. Unfortunately, the government is moving in the opposite direction.

Not only does this bill jeopardize the safety of our officers at sea, but it also allows someone with little understanding of the potential risk to officers to grant the right to proceed with a search. It is a very perilous situation. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us more information on the direction the government intends to take with this. Why is it proposing such a bill? What will it do to ensure that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is equipped to protect officers and mariners in general? Today, we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the bill, and I am very pleased about that.

However, I doubt that any other members will come forward to debate this bill today. Frankly, I think it is a bit shameful that the government is not taking this opportunity to fully explain its viewpoint. It is unfortunate that the government is not asking members to go over Bill S-3 carefully and thoroughly. We are asking questions, but we are not getting answers. We expect the government to introduce and defend its bills, but all we get is radio silence. Today is no exception. I would be surprised if even one Conservative member made a speech today. It is unfortunate, but that is the way things are.

I will come back to the bill, which I think addresses some problems. Illegal fishing must certainly be stopped. Apart from conducting searches, officers will be able to inspect containers, even on land, and vehicles, which they were not able to do before. In fact, the legislation allowed them to inspect only vessels used directly for illegal fishing. Bill S-3 broadens the definition, enabling officers to conduct much more comprehensive inspections. Of course, the fact that they will be able to do so just on a hunch worries me.

The government must be very clear and ensure that Bill S-3 is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically paragraph 11( d ), which states that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by an impartial tribunal. This bill will give the minister the power to impose penalties, but those being penalized will not have the opportunity to defend themselves. We really have to be careful. This bill goes too far in some respects. Some of the powers it gives to the minister are justified, but others are not.

Once again, we are heading for court challenges that could take years.

(1100) The courts will probably shoot down parts of this bill. Once again, this is a waste of time. Taking this bill to the Senate wasted time, and now more time will be wasted because this bill will most likely go before the courts so that they can get rid of the parts that are unjustified. If we pass this bill, and that is certainly what I recommend we do, I hope that the parliamentary committee will pay close attention to the witnesses and think long and hard about amending it. That being said, on the whole, this bill deserves our attention and our support.

[ English ]

Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some issues in his speech that we will consider further at committee. I appreciate him outlining them for us. I want to clarify something and maybe ask a follow-up question on it. On the relevant provision of the bill, paragraph 7.4 about inspection powers, it applies only in the context of an inspection.

For example, if a flagged state contacts Canada and says that a vessel needs to be inspected or it has other reasons to believe that it might contain illegally caught fish, the provision allows a fisheries officer to enter a dwelling for the purposes of verifying compliance with the act. In that case, the officer might go to a justice of the peace, but only for the power to inspect.

If the protection officer then concludes that there may be a violation, then he would have to go to a justice of the peace, under the terms of the Criminal Code, to get a search warrant to gather evidence that could be used in a prosecution. Would the member agree that with fisheries violations like illegal fishing, that time often is of the essence and there needs to be a streamlined process for inspections and potentially searches to take place?

Mr. Philip Toone :

Mr. Speaker, it is a valid point that time is of the essence. If there is one thing that marks Canadian law, it is that it is generally pragmatic, and I would like to see that reflected here. However, the pragmatism has to go beyond the law. It has to also be the resources that are afforded to those inspectors. We need to know they are safe. We need to know they are well trained. We need to know they will have the backup they need. I have no problem with the bill giving the tools that are required.

Again, I am looking forward to hearing what the witnesses at the parliamentary committee have to say as to what those tools could be. However, I want to ensure that the parliamentary secretary is on board with the idea that his ministry needs the allocation of resources to ensure safety at sea is of paramount concern. Regrettably, with the cutback I have seen in the last three years, I have my doubts that the ministry is even capable of fulfilling its mandate in this regard.

(1105) Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this legislation is quite important. We have to meet our international obligations. We have to ensure the illegal fishing is stopped, or at least curtailed as much as possible. However, we look at the situation as it is today, with the major cuts that have taken place at DFO. We look at the surveillance cut by $4.2 million, the scientific cuts and all the other cuts at DFO. I would like the member to comment on it. I agree that it is great to pass the legislation, but the legislation is no good without teeth.

I am sure my hon. colleague would agree with that and I would like him to expand on how he feels about the cuts that have taken place and how devastating it is to DFO and our surveillance.

Mr. Philip Toone :

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will come as any surprise to the member for Cardigan that I completely agree with him on this point. We need to look at past and recent instances of failings on the part of search and rescue operations and inspection operations in our country. I will give the example of when we recently talked of possibly cutting the Maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City. We closed the one in St. John's, Newfoundland to have it centred now only in Halifax. There was a lack of resources to respond to an emergency call.

There is a service of last defence that exists in this world and it is located in Italy. It is not meant as a front-line service. It is meant as a service of desperation, if no one else can answer a distress call. Canada, a G7 country, was unable to take the distress call. We had to send it to Italy to a person who had no idea of the geography, who did not master the language. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Atlantic Canada, an Italian would have a hard time understanding the accent. We need to know that the services are available for our front-line workers. Frankly, the government is falling flat.

The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves in this regard, and they have a lot to prove to bring the respect of our workers back to the government. We need to ensure that the government understands the risk these people are under and this may be a tool in the right direction, but it is only one tool. We need the resources, and that is what is lacking. Perhaps the government could consider putting binding resources in the bill that would make it much more palatable.

Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I listened to comments of my colleague with interest. I thought he made some great points and good suggestions. Illegal fishing is a great concern for the country. We want to ensure we have as many protections and measures in place to prevent that, so this legislation, as outlined, is a step in the right direction. However, I am very concerned about the resources that are being provided to our departments to enforce the legislation. As we know, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has suffered cuts. We have cuts on the west coast.

Specifically, we have lost our Kitsilano Coast Guard station, which was another very important and vital resource on the west coast. We have had the shutting down of MCTS stations. Just recently we have learned that our two Hovercraft on the west coast are not in operation. They need to be repaired. For instance, if a plane were go down at YVR and, heaven forbid, land in the mud flats, which is right where a Hovercraft would respond, we would not have that kind of search and rescue available. We also have had scientific cuts. We have had enforcement cuts.

Should there not be a dedicated focus on resources provided along with this legislation so our Fisheries and Oceans officers can do the kind of rescue and prevention that is needed and required in the bill? I know it is focused on illegal fishing, but should it not contain the kind of resourcing that is really needed?

(1110) Mr. Philip Toone :

Mr. Speaker, I am detecting a theme, and that is that the capacity of the ministry has been diminished substantially in the last few years. People on the opposition benches seem to agree that we need to look at the aspect of the capacity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to deliver on the elements that are found within this bill, never mind the rest of the mandate. My colleague mentioned the closure of the marine traffic control centre in Kitsilano. Others are being closed elsewhere in the country. One will be closing in my riding, in Fox River, Riviere-au-Renard.

The plan is to replace it in a location on the other side of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in a town called Les Escoumins. The plan to diminish manpower is okay if there is a person who goes to the washroom and only one person taking calls. If two people are simultaneously having problems at sea, only one of them is going to be answered. I guess the other one is going to go to Rome, Italy to try to get a guy on the line there. The other problem with Les Escoumins is it is buying computerized equipment that is apparently supposed to be make things more efficient. Unfortunately the equipment does not work.

The closure of the marine traffic control centre in my riding will have to be put off because the plan in place does not work. There is a lack of resources that speaks to the fact that even when there is a plan, it cannot be put in place. The plan to close the search and rescue centre in Quebec City was given up, because the capacity was not available to have a search and rescue centre elsewhere. The problems at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are numerous, and the capacity is simply no longer there. The government should be ashamed.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act . Fisheries are so important to many areas of the country, and they are certainly important in my area in Prince Edward Island. Around Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, where I live and which I represent, every community depends on the fishing industry. This legislation is important. There are over 1,300 lobster fishers on P.E.I., 11,000 inshore fishers in Atlantic Canada, and another 20,000 crew.

That is well over 30,000 people involved in the fishery, just in the Atlantic region of Canada, not to mention the processing industry and other indirect jobs involved in the fishery. That is a lot in the inshore fishery. Fisheries are worth about $1 billion to Atlantic Canada alone. Canada's commercial fishery, aquaculture, and fish and seafood processing industries contribute $5.4 billion and 71,000 full-time jobs to the Canadian economy every year. There are many coastal communities that are equally reliant on having a strong fishery and effective enforcement against illegal fishing activities.

At times it can be difficult to get people outside the Atlantic region and the west coast to understand exactly what the value of the fishery is and how important it is to the economy. Fish does not come from a showcase. It comes from the sea, and it is important that we have the funds, the surveillance, and the protection to make sure that the stock survives. That is why I am so pleased to say a few words on this issue today.

This bill would allow Canada to meet its international obligations with regard to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or IUU fishing, undermines the livelihood of fishers who play by the rules, both within Canada and around the world. The global economic loss due to illegal fishing is somewhere between $10 and $23 billion annually and represents somewhere between 11 and 26 million tonnes of fish lost to illegal fishing activity.

That is a loss of 18% of the total fishery. This is a staggering number, and it is my hope that Canada, along with many other countries around the world, will continue its efforts to decrease this massive economic loss. We know that our inshore fishers are hurting, and we need to do everything we can to help them receive a proper dollar for the world-class product they produce. In a perfect world, there would be no illegal fisheries. Vessels would all be registered with identification numbers, making them identifiable and authorized to fish by their flag states.

It would also be possible to identify the owners of these vessels. However, the fact is, there is far too much illegal fishing across the world, which is having a devastating effect on fisheries worldwide. No matter where we fish, it has an effect, because it provides an illegal product that is competition. It is important that Canada play a strong role in cracking down on the illegal fisheries, not only to protect fishers' livelihoods but to help in the conservation of our fisheries and the entire Canadian economy, in which our fisheries and seafood industry play such a major role.

If there is any excess supply of fish on the market because of some illegal fishing activity, prices may be driven down, which would hurt our economy and coastal communities and the many thousands of Canadians who make their living on the sea. Canada has long been considered a leader in the fight to combat pirate, or IUU, fishing. I am extremely proud that the Liberals have taken many steps in past years to combat illegal fishing activity. As far back as 1956, Liberal minister of fisheries James Sinclair indicated that Canada favoured a 12-mile territorial zone.

In 1977, former Liberal minister of fisheries Romeo LeBlanc established the 200-mile fishing zone that protected fishermen from foreign trawlers. Mr. LeBlanc was instrumental in the establishment of the 200-mile limit and in shaping the international law of the sea.

(1115) Another Liberal minister of fisheries, Brian Tobin, mounted a fierce campaign through 1994 against foreign overfishing in waters in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, located just outside Canada's declared 200-mile zone. Canadians across the country took note of this new and aggressive posture, a posture that has not been taken by any minister of fisheries since the 200-mile zone was declared in 1977.

In 1994, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act was amended to extend its application to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, regulatory area, which is a very significant area of the Atlantic Ocean on the high seas. It was a Liberal government that amended that act. In April 1995, DFO was involved in the so-called “turbot war”, which pit Canadians against the European Union. Nevertheless, fisheries minister Tobin and the Liberal government of the day received the full backing of the United Kingdom and Ireland in this fight. Later that month, Mr.

Tobin held an international news conference from a barge on the East River outside the United Nations headquarters, where he displayed an illegal trawl net that had been allegedly cut from a Spanish trawler that was arrested outside the Canadian zone on international waters. In 1999, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act was again amended by a Liberal government.

This time it was to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 10 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks of 1995. These amendments in 1999 allowed Canada to further implement international fisheries treaties and added regulatory powers for the government. During this time, the minister of fisheries and oceans, my colleague from Halifax West , was a strong advocate for the elimination of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

Under his leadership, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans made significant investments to expand aerial surveillance and at-sea patrols in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization regulatory area. The increase in patrol and surveillance led to the reduction in non-compliant behaviour and a decrease of 29% in foreign fishing vessels in the NRA. My colleague from Halifax West was also an active member of the High Seas Task Force, an international task force committed to stopping IUU fishing in parts of the ocean not under the exclusive control of sovereign states.

In addition to this, he hosted an international conference on global overfishing, which attracted fisheries and oceans ministers from around the world. Therefore, we have a very proud tradition in this party of strong and effective leadership and action on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity. Canada is considered a leader in combating illegal fishing activities, and the Liberal Party and previous Liberal governments have made strong contributions in ensuring that our system is strong. I am pleased the government has brought this bill and intends to join the port state measures agreement.

However, I do wonder why the government recently took away $4.2 million from Canada's offshore surveillance of foreign fishing vessels. This will result in a significant reduction in Canada's monitoring capability and has been done as part of the government's gutting of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In fact, this will result in a reduction of the total of NAFO sea days from 785 to 600, and a reduction in NAFO air hours from 1,000 to 600, along with the loss of 23 full-time employees.

(1120) It is fine to bring forward this legislation that would let Canada meet its international obligations, but the government needs to put teeth in the bill. We need money to make sure we can enforce the legislation. I hope the government can respond and indicate why it made this cut to Canada's offshore surveillance of foreign fishing vessels and what effect it thinks it will have. Gutting DFO and taking a significant amount of money away from offshore surveillance was wrong, and I hope the government will re-think that and many other cuts it made at DFO.

The government has downloaded extra costs to our fishers such as tags, at-sea observers, and logbooks. It has made changes to quotas and taken them from fishers to pay for scientific research, which should be the responsibility of the Government of Canada, not fishers. It has made drastic cuts to DFO science, fisheries, and conservation officers; the Coast Guard, and small craft harbours. I has ignored the price crisis in the lobster fishery and has spent nearly a year considering whether it should eliminate the owner-operator and fleet separation policies.

However, I am pleased to say that we are generally quite supportive of the bill the government has brought forward and of Canada's ratification of the port state measures agreement. As I mentioned earlier, Bill S-3 has three points: to implement the port state measures agreement, prohibit importing illegal fish and marine plants, and clarify administration and enforcement powers in the act.

The bill contains a number of amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act so as to implement the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 2009 agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate the unreported and unregulated fishery. On November 22, 2009, a conference of the FAO approved the port stage measures agreement. Canada signed the agreement on November 19, 2010, but has yet to ratify it. The amendments to the act and regulations are necessary for Canada to meet its commitments to this important international agreement.

The agreement will enter into force 30 days after 25 countries have ratified it. I believe 11 countries have currently ratified the agreement and another 18 have signed on with the indication that they will ratify this agreement. From my understanding, government officials are hopeful that the PSMA will enter into force in one or two years. The application of the port state measures act would contribute to harmonizing port state measures, would enhance regional and international co-operation, and would block the flow of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fish into national and international markets.

Enhanced port state control can act as a disincentive to those who take

part in illegal fishing by increasing the cost of their operations. For example, if they are prohibited from coming into one port, they will have to find another port, and their costs will increase. Hopefully, we will have something in place to make sure they do not enter any port. That is what this agreement is all about. The FAO described the port measures agreement by saying this:

The Agreement aims to prevent illegally caught fish from entering international markets through ports. Under the terms of the treaty, foreign vessels will provide advance notice and request permission for port entry, countries will conduct regular inspections in accordance with universal minimum standards, offending vessels will be denied use of port or certain port services....

Information will be shared among the countries that have signed. IUU fishing poses a considerable threat to the conservation and management of many fish stocks. It can lead to the loss of economic revenue, impair the conditions of the stock, or at worst, can have a stock collapse. This is something we in this country need to be extremely vigilant about and guard against. Liberals support the main thrust of this piece of legislation and support sending Bill S-3 to committee for review. I do wonder why the government signed the port state measures agreement in 2010 and has waited four years before bringing this legislation to the House. Perhaps the government could shed some light on that.

(1125) Over the next number of years, there is going to be a major demand for fish products. It is estimated that the world cannot supply the demand for fish and protein that will be needed in the world in the next 25 years. That is why it is so important that governments invest in the protection of our fish stocks, our fishers, and the safety of our fishermen. As I mentioned, the downloading of tags, at-sea observers, and logbooks, all these costs go against our small fishermen. There has been a slashing of the small craft harbours budget. At one time it was over $200 million and now it is under $100 million.

I know the government announced $40 million over two years. I do not know when that will come, but I can assure the House that in the area I represent it is very much needed. There have been many other major cuts at DFO over the last number of years. By 2017, it will amount to about $300 million. DFO just cannot afford this type of slashing. It is awful hard for me to understand certain things. Number one, the government needed to bring this piece of legislation forward, but just before it did, it cut $4.2 million from offshore surveillance.

This will mean that NAFO sea days will be cut, as I said, from 785 to 600 days; the air hours will be cut from 1,000 to 600; and the employees who are desperately needed, not only there but in many other places, have been cut by 23 in this particular cut. That is only a small amount that has been sliced out of DFO. As other speakers have indicated, we have cut search and rescue offices on the east and west coasts.

Any sensible human being would think that on the coasts there would be search and rescue offices, but obviously the government does not agree that they should be on the east coast and off the coast of British Columbia. These are things that are so important and we need to take a strong look at them. Again I say that it is important that Bill S-3 goes to committee. Liberals would support it going to committee, where we will be evaluating it. However, the government must realize that if it is going to put anything in place in order to work with countries around the world, we have to take care of ourselves.

We cannot be continually slicing, cutting, and gutting the departments in charge of making sure we are observing. If we do not have the planes out to keep an eye on the foreign fishing vessels, how are we going to know what is going on? How are we going to know what vessels are coming in? We will not. The fact is—and I am sure the Minister of Foreign Affairs fully agrees with me—that we need to put more money into this.

Hon. John Baird: I agree with him on everything.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, we need to do this in order to make sure we are able to catch the people who illegally fish. Indeed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very concerned about the constituents in Cardigan, and they know that. In all fairness, this is a vital piece of legislation to deal with the world community, but we have a big job here at home. We cannot continually slice and cut the very requirements that we need in order to enforce this type of legislation. I hope the government will take a strong look at that.

(1130) Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one point. I know he and other members have referred to supposed cuts to DFO's enforcement powers, but the figures they are using are not accurate. I wonder if he knows that DFO has sponsored the fourth annual global fisheries enforcement training workshop. That is important because we need to realize, in the context of this issue, that fishing takes place on the high seas, outside of the 200-mile limit of any country, as he alluded to in his comments, and there is IUU fishing taking place there. This agreement would help regulate that fishing.

If there is no place where fishermen can legally land it, eventually the illegal fishing will dry up. However, a greater percentage of the illegal fishing actually takes place within the 200-mile limits of largely developing countries. Canada is playing a very significant role in the training of other jurisdictions because countries around the world look to us as a good example in terms of protection, conservation, and enforcement. That is a good thing, and I think he would agree with me on that.

I would ask him if he thinks there are any specific areas that would require amendment in committee, so that we can begin to think about those.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans . I also appreciate that we are still able to host a global training program for whatever part of the training we would be providing for the world community. However, as I said, my concern today is that I think that chance is dwindling because we are firing experts all the time. It is impossible to understand the rationale behind it. I think it is great that we have the expertise, but I wonder how long this would take place.

We had a world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area in northern Ontario that cost the government $1.75 million, and it cut it. The world community uses this research. We have some expertise left, and it is great that we do, but if we continue to fire or eliminate the scientists—those people who know what is happening in the fishing community in this world, the people who are renowned worldwide—if these people are no longer on our payroll under the Canadian government in DFO, we would not be able to provide the good program that the hon.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has just indicated. What I was trying to indicate to the House and to the people is that to be able to keep these programs in place, as well as keep the respect internationally, we have to be able to take care of ourselves at home. We will not be able to take care of ourselves if we continue to slice DFO and continue closing the offices on the east and west coasts. We cannot continue on this track.

(1135) [ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, naturally, the people of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher are concerned about the environmental situation with respect to waterways and fisheries. I would like to remind everyone that the week-long Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup begins this weekend across Canada. I encourage all of my colleagues and constituents to come out in force for this event. I am often in touch with Ciel et Terre, an environmental group that organizes the shoreline cleanup each year. Recently, a member of the group told me that he was very worried about overfishing, and rightly so.

Does my colleague believe that Canada is doing its fair share to tackle and eliminate this problem, particularly given that illegal fishing is contributing to the problem?

[ English ]

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first congratulate and thank my hon. colleague. Taking care of the environment is so important, and I thank all the people who are doing that. We need to be more aware. Cleaning up our coastlines is so important. I agree with the member, and as I touched on earlier, when the Experimental Lakes Area was hit by the government, it was impossible to believe that the likes of that would happen. It was a renowned area.

Most everything we drink, clean the floor with, liquids or invasive species, no matter what it is, worldwide, was dealt with in the 57 lakes in the Experimental Lakes Area, and I might add that it still is, but no thanks to the present Government of Canada. It had to pull out for the sake of $1.75 million. If my hon. colleague recalls, the government also started tearing down the buildings. However, we made a little fuss and I believe that stopped. My understanding is that one or two of the buildings have been destroyed, which is too bad, but we did get that stopped.

If we are to meet and deal with the world community, we have to do our share, but we have to do our share in this country. This legislation is important. We have to deal with it and comb through it in committee, but it deals with meeting requirements. We have to meet the requirements of DFO in this country. That is all I am saying. The legislation is excellent, but we have to meet the requirements in this country for surveillance and safety. One of the most dangerous jobs in the world is deep sea fishing. The government needs to realize that and put the money where it is needed.

Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I do not live on the coast. I live in Ontario. The freshwater fishery in Ontario is a very important part of our economy. There is always a need for resources for surveillance, to make sure there is not overfishing or illegal fishing. I also believe that this legislation is important. However, I would like to ask my colleague to expound a bit on the importance of having resources, and this means dollars, to do the surveillance so that the billions of dollars in value that are being lost can be protected

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

Mr. Speaker, the Great Lakes fishery is a vitally important fishery in the country. We deal with it at committee. One of the issues in particular that is so important is invasive species. We cannot deal with these issues unless we have the funds to observe what is coming in and going out of the Great Lakes. The problem that I see, and the problem that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has, is that the continual gutting and cutting of DFO means that we do not have the people in place to observe for invasive species that can come into my hon. colleague's riding and into the Great Lakes.

If we do not have the required investment in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or with the Government of Canada, we cannot make sure that these very important fisheries in the Great Lakes are preserved. I again urge the government to make sure it takes a long look at the loss there would be to our economy.

(1140) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Cardigan , for his speech here in the House today. There was a lot of history to his speech. He talked about long past triumphs, so I have to talk about my personal history. When I was in the air force, I had the pleasure of serving on HMCS St. John's and actually participating in some of our fisheries enforcement measures, along with fisheries officers who would come on the ship. Our Sea King crew would be on the Flemish Cap patrolling our exclusive economic zone. We saw some of those trawlers out there.

It is important that we enforce our sovereignty. We support the industry. I have a personal history that keeps me passionate, and that is why I support Bill S-3 fully. I have two questions for the hon. member. The first one is based on the port state measures agreement. Does he not agree that it is important for Canada to be part of that and to update global

definitions related to fishing vessels, fishing, and that sort of thing, to make sure we address the modern fleets out there? Second, the member spoke a lot about our small fishermen. These are some of the hardest working Canadians. I have seen them first-hand. Does he not recognize that our European trade agreement presents the most exciting opportunity for Atlantic Canada in a generation? Tariff rates in the double digits would drop for the lobster and mussels that I know his province sells well. Is that not a boon for our industry?

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. I appreciate the boats he was on. The only problem is that he arrived here the day the Conservatives formed a majority government. My concern is that the day he leaves there will be no boats. There will be nothing. My concern is, and I am trying to inform the House, that the path this majority Conservative government is on is one of total destruction. It does not seem to understand the value of the fishery, particularly on the coasts. He did indicate the importance of Bill S-3 and the port state measures agreement.

Of course we agree with the port state measures agreement. However, we are not doing what we need to do in our country to protect our own fishermen and to make sure we know what is going on out in the sea, that we know what boats are out there. We need patrols.

Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. I come from British Columbia and along the coast we have many families and fishermen who are supported by the fishing industry. The bill is extremely important to British Columbians and many people living in my constituency. The bill would require Canada to ratify the UN Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, which Canada signed in 2010.

I know that my colleagues in the House agree that this is a good bill and a sign of being part of and working with the international community to not only preserve but manage our fishing resources. The agreement was signed in 2010, yet it took the Conservative government four years to bring the bill to the House. Not only that, members will notice that the bill begins with an “S”. For people listening at home, that means the bill was introduced in the Senate, the unelected, unethical, unaccountable Senate. I would have preferred it if the bill was introduced here in this House, which is represented by the people.

It is a small issue but I do want to point it out. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing undermines sustainable practices of legitimate fishing operations, including those in Canada, and presents unfair market competition for sustainable foods. That is the issue. There are estimates from a number of different studies that point out the economic loss worldwide due to pirated fishing ranges from $10 billion to $23 billion annually. This represents approximately 40% of the catch. Commercial fisheries in Canada contribute about $5.4 billion in economic activity in this country.

Not only that, it generates approximately 71,000 jobs across this country, on the west and east coasts. There are a couple of issues that I want to point out. One issue is on conservation, because fish are not unlimited. We know that this is a limited resource. Obviously, we must make sure that we regulate and prevent this illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing in order to ensure the sustainability of this resource, which provides many jobs not only in Canada but worldwide. It is a source of food that is valued across nations, so we must work with other countries to ensure that this resource is sustained.

The other aspect is that not only do we have to manage and ensure sustainability but we also have to enhance fishing stocks. How do we do that? There are many ways, and I will get into that. However, the record of the current government in regard to ensuring the enhancement of the fishing stocks and the environment has been terrible. We have heard in the House of the cuts that are being made to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and to surveillance.

It is fine and dandy to bring in a bill to ensure that we would protect the fishery from illegal and unreported fishing, but if there is no substance or teeth to the bill, how would we ensure that the law would be implemented? What we have seen from the Conservative government over the last three years that I have been here, and before that, is cut after cut to the very people who enforce these laws and regulations.

(1145) In the House today, someone pointed out that there was a $4.2-million cut to surveillance. However, I heard the parliamentary secretary say that it was not that much. How much is it? Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has tried to get information from departments in regard to where the cuts are and who they are affecting. However, under the current government, government departments, whether it be Fisheries, the military or Defence, are all refusing to provide information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. On one hand the parliamentary secretary says that the cuts are not that much. How much are they?

Let us know. Let Canadians know how much the cuts are to these departments. I talked about sustainability. We have seen cuts to the environment. For example, 99% of our lakes, 99% of our rivers have been removed by the Conservative government from the Environmental Protection Act. On one hand, yes, we are trying to ensure we are protected against illegal fishing, unreported fishing and we curtail it. On the other hand, we need to ensure we provide environmental habitats for these fish to flourish and to come into our rivers.

However, we have seen cut after cut in these areas where the government is failing to protect. We have seen another side of things from the Cohen report. I come from British Columbia. This year we had a bumper crop of fish coming into the Fraser River. It was estimated that 26 million came into the Fraser River. In other years, we do not see as many fish coming into British Columbia, and that is because the government has made cuts to scientists. We need to understand what the oceans are all about.

However, the government has not only made cuts to the scientists who study the ocean to find out about fish habitat and fish behaviour, it has also eliminated a number of facilities that monitor these kinds of experiments. The Cohen report talked about fish coming into British Columbia through the rivers. We have seen that one year we get so many fish and another year we do not get as many. In order for us to protect our fishing resources, to protect and ensure that we understand the fish, we need to invest in science. We need to invest in enforcement.

However, time after time we have seen the government shirk its responsibility in regard to ensuring the well-being of our families. It should ensure not only that the jobs being provided are protected today, but are protected in years to come, generations to come. That is how ones works with the international community to ensure treaties like this are actually implemented, so I do commend the implementation by the House of the treaty to protect unregulated, illegal and unreported fish. We need to work with the international community to ensure more countries sign on to this treaty to ensure its implementation.

There are only a handful of countries that have signed this, and we need a minimum of 25 countries to ensure that this is implemented. Working with the international community is something the government has lost. I'll give you an example. Fish do not see boundaries. They travel around from one country to another, one ocean to another. Therefore, we need to work with other countries, but the record of the current government has been horrible.

(1150) There was a time when we were viewed as peacemakers. Canada was viewed as a country that would bring others together, but that is not the case now. I will give a prime example of that. In the history of the UN Security Council, we have always had a seat on a rotating basis. We ran, and other countries supported our position and voted for us to be on the Security Council.

For the first time in the history, the 50-odd years, of the UN Security Council, the government did not even want to run a candidacy for that seat because it knew we would not get the support of other countries to have that rotating seat on the UN Security Council. That is the government's record. On the other hand, the NDP leader was the Minister of the Environment in Quebec. He has worked with environmental organizations. He has worked for the sustainable development of our resources.

I can assure the House that the leader of the NDP will work with the international community to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries, sustainable resources, not only for this generation but future generations. I would encourage not only the Minister of Foreign Affairs but also the Prime Minister to work with other countries, to encourage them to sign this treaty so that we can sustain this very valuable resource for Canada and its future generations.

We have talked about this a little, but in order for us to implement this law, we need tools and people, initial resources, as well as surveillance tools to detect unreported, illegal, and unregulated fishing. However, we are seeing cuts under the government. Not only that, we have seen cuts to the scientific community. The government is cutting scientists who would help us enhance the fisheries and their related jobs and products. It is muzzling scientists. The government is not even letting them talk about some of the issues and problems we are facing and how we could solve those problems.

On one hand we need to protect managed fisheries, and on the other hand we need to enhance the fisheries. We need to enhance the habitat and ensure it is protected. Under the current government, 99% of our lakes and rivers do not have environmental protection. On one side we need to make sure we do not have illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, because we need to preserve and sustain those fisheries. On the other hand, we also need to enhance and ensure that we provide a place, a habitat for the fishing stock to grow.

For that, we need to make investments in habitat, science and other resources that will provide that habitat for fishing stock to flourish. Under the Conservative government, time after time we have seen cuts to our fishing resources and to the environment. Earlier I heard my colleague from Quebec talking about the east coast, and how we need to provide security and safety for the fishing vessels, the brothers and sisters who go out on the rough oceans to fish. It is a very dangerous job. We need to provide enhanced security for them in order to ensure that they bring in their catch.

(1155) I heard from my Quebec colleagues earlier and read in newspapers that sometimes when fishing vessels in rough waters on the east coast phone for help, the call is picked up somewhere in Italy. I am from the west coast of Canada, and even I do not understand the accent in the Maritimes. We need local people. I have colleagues from Newfoundland, and they have a distinct culture. We need to ensure that we do not send their distress calls overseas where their language will not be understood. On the west coast we have seen cuts to the Kitsilano Coast Guard.

My colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam pointed out that two hovercraft are out of commission now. On the one hand, cuts are being made to services that are required to support our fishing industry. One the other hand, we are not providing protection for fish in our rivers to make those fisheries sustainable over a long period of time and taking steps to protect them against unreported and illegal fishing. I would encourage the government to work with other nations, bring them on board, and provide the leadership role that the government has not provided in other areas.

We saw this not only last year when we lost a seat on the UN Security Council but in other areas where it failed to provide that leadership. On this side of the House, we have a number of issues with the bill that have been pointed out already. We hope that the government will listen to some of the amendments that we will offer to ensure the bill has teeth and will protect fishermen and communities and jobs in this country. I am hoping that amendments would be entertained at committee stage. Over the last number of years, we have seen many amendments to enhance various bills.

Sometimes the Conservatives rush bills through with typos in them. We have seen a number of bills at committee stage that Conservatives were told were unconstitutional. We pointed out at committee stage that the crime bill and a few other bills would be ruled unconstitutional, yet the Conservatives failed to take that into account. They not only failed to take that into account; they simply refused to entertain some of the recommendations that the opposition parties had. Those recommendations were based on facts, science, and legitimate concerns from communities and stakeholders.

I am not going to get into facts and figures, because the Conservatives do not believe in them. They do not believe in science or concrete numbers, so I am going to leave that for another day. In

summary, this is a good step. Hopefully we will get some amendments at committee stage to enhance the bill.

(1200) Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the last two speeches, I realized that it is clearly time to set the record straight. The member for Cardigan talked about the Experimental Lakes Area. It is now being run by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and will continue to provide world-class science. I would make the point that $18 million is being spent to rehabilitate Lake Winnipeg. That is real, on-the-ground environmental work. That is what this government believes in: on-the-ground environmental work. When members on the other side criticize our environmental record, all they talk about is process.

This government is actually doing things to rehabilitate and remediate the environment. I would also note that in 2010, under this government's watch, there was a record Pacific salmon run, and in 2014, again under this government's watch, there was another record Pacific salmon run. I notice how those members never talk about the actual fish and what is going on in the environment. I must also make this point. The member for Cardigan complained about the low price of lobster. The price of lobster is low because lobsters are extremely abundant.

My friend across the way talked about habitat enhancement, completely neglecting to mention that this government put $25 million into the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program, funding 400 habitat enhancement projects across the country. My question for him is this: is he against local angling and fisheries conservation groups doing on-the-ground conservation projects?

Mr. Jasbir Sandhu :

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what the Conservatives' record is on the environment, and it is not hidden: 99% of the lakes and 99% of the rivers have been taken out of environmental protection. That is the Conservatives' record. With regard to the run of 2010 and the run on the Fraser River of this year, we have had good runs in those two years. Is it because of the Conservatives? I can assure members that the fish were not listening to the Conservatives' calls to come into the Fraser River. What we need is sustainable, long-term planning and management of fisheries. The current government has failed.

It has cut funds to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Before the last election, the Conservatives announced the Cohen commission to study where the missing fish went in British Columbia, yet none of the recommendations from that commission have been implemented by the Conservatives. The report has been sitting on their table for over two years.

(1205) Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Surrey North spoke very well about the importance of investing in our fishery, about investing in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, about investing in enforcement and science and habitat. I wonder if my hon. colleague can comment about whether the government is adequately investing in those areas of our fishery. While some amendments may be necessary, we all agree that the proposed legislation in front of us is a step in the right direction. However, the investment that is needed and that the government should be providing to our fishery across the country and on the west coast is completely inadequate. Could my hon. colleague comment on that aspect?

Mr. Jasbir Sandhu :

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question. Somehow the Conservatives think that this fishing business is only one year at a time. Let me remind them that we need a long-term strategy in order to ensure that we have fish not only this year but also four years from now, ten years from now, twenty years from now. We need sustainable management of fisheries. This bill is a good step toward working with other countries. Fish cross boundaries, rivers, and international boundaries. We need to work with other countries to ensure that bills like this one are implemented.

However, we need to provide resources for that, and we have heard in this House that the Conservatives have made cuts to the very surveillance that is required to ensure that illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing does not occur. It hurts our economy and our families when those resources are depleted by this unregulated, unreported, illegal fishing. Under the current government, we have seen cut after cut to fisheries and to the environment, whether it is on the habitat side or on enhancing our fishing stock.

The government has not even implemented a number of reports that it commissioned in order to ensure we have a long-term sustainable fishery. All we have are the yearly investments that the Conservatives pretend they are making.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, to return to the actual bill, Bill S-3 , and the implementation of international measures to stop the importation of illegal and unregulated fishery products, I wonder if the hon. member for Surrey North would agree with me on something in “Prohibition—importation”, under proposed

section 5.6. It says:

No person shall import any fish or marine plant knowing it to have been taken, harvested, possessed, transported, distributed or sold contrary to...

It then lists a number of laws. We heard earlier from the parliamentary secretary that the definition of “fish” would be changed to ensure that it includes processed fish, as opposed to only fish that have just been caught in the nets. I hope this law will work to stop the massive injustice of using slave labour, literally slaves, on the fishing fleets of Thailand. Far offshore, they catch the majority of the fish meal that goes into the equally environmentally and horrific practice of shrimp aquaculture throughout Thailand.

This is one of the most ecologically devastating practices, as it begins with clear-cutting mangrove forests. I think that doing something to protect the mangrove forests while at the same time ending the practice of slavery on the high seas would be a legitimate application of this treaty.

(1210) Mr. Jasbir Sandhu :

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in regard to the definition of “fish” that is being proposed by the Conservatives. I hope that we could look at that in detail at the committee stage. I have mentioned before that the Conservatives usually do not entertain legitimate concerns from the opposition. I hope that they will look at this bill in detail to ensure that the bill has the teeth to implement its purpose. I hope that the Conservatives will entertain some of those concerns. We should absolutely all be concerned about labour practices, not only here in Canada but around the world.

We should be co-operating with other countries to ensure that labour and environmental practices are in line to ensure that we have long-term, sustainable fisheries not only for Canada but around the world. As I said before, fish do not see borders. They do not see one ocean or the other. They swim all across the world, so we need to ensure that we work with other countries and our partners. Unfortunately, I am quite doubtful about whether we can do so under the Conservative government.

I can assure members that the Leader of the Opposition works with countries around the world to ensure that we have long-term, sustainable practices in place to ensure long-term prosperity in Canada's economy.

Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northwest Territories . Bill S-3 would amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to implement the port state measures agreement. This is largely a housekeeping bill that so Canada can ratify the UN Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, which Canada signed in 2010. The purpose of this agreement is to prevent illegally caught fish from entering international markets through ports. It is an important agreement and it is important that Canada ratifies it.

Canada's NDP support the bill at second reading, but we intend to introduce several amendments at committee stage to strengthen it. We feel legislation like this should be introduced in the House, not in the unelected, unaccountable and still under investigation Senate, as my colleague mentioned. Canada should be a world leader in encouraging policies that promote healthy oceans and sustainably managed fisheries. I would like to talk about the international commitments approved by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the FAO, of the United Nations in 2009.

Twenty-six countries plus the European Union have signed on to this agreement and it will take effect once 25 states ratify it. It is important that Canada ratifies this. I would like to offer some background information about pirate fishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. It is a major concern. It is a major problem threatening the health of the world's oceans. Pirate fishing fleets are difficult to hold accountable. They obscure their identity. They fly flags of convenience. They are profit-driven and their owners are savvy, wealthy business people who know how to evade detection.

As well, their workers face hazardous conditions and slave wages. Let me offer a few global statistics in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. It causes an annual financial loss of about $10 billion to $23.5 billion. It accounts for up to 20% of all wild marine fish caught. Pirate fishing produces 11 million to 26 million tonnes of seafood annually. These are alarming figures. It is important that Canada does what it can to stop illegally caught fish from entering markets through our ports. My colleague from Surrey North spoke about elements of the fishery. He spoke about the Cohen inquiry.

He also spoke about the lack of resources that the government had put into the fishery and the fact that it had actually taken away from the fishery. I would like to talk about another important element of the fishery, and that is sharks. IUU fishing is an issue I became familiar with while working on my private member's bill to ban the import of shark fins to Canada. Shark finning is strongly tied to illegal fishing. Over 100 million sharks, many of which are threatened and endangered, are illegally caught every year for their fins. That is an alarming and huge number.

It is surprising to see Conservatives so keen to tackle IUU fishing, yet most Conservative MPs could not bring themselves to stand up to the PMO and vote in support of my shark fin bill at second reading last year. It lost by five votes, a very close vote. With the overwhelming support of Canadians who supported this, this should have been a no-brainer for many Conservative members. Across the country many felt that the legislation should have been passed quickly so it at least could have gone to second reading and on to committee stage. It is very unfortunate that did not happen.

It is important that Canada tackle global shark finning. As I mentioned, 100 million sharks each year are killed, many for their fins alone, and many are threatened and endangered. One-third of all shark species is threatened with extinction due to shark finning. Evidence of pirate fishing fleets that return to ports with boatloads of shark fins has proven this is an incredibly tough task and that countries need to invest in resources to tackle this problem.

(1215) Shark finning is a prime opportunity for Canada's government to take a leadership role in the global fight against IUU fishing. One way we can combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing for sharks is by encouraging all countries to adopt a fins-attached policy. Although we do not have a problem with shark finning in Canadian waters to a large degree, many would be surprised to learn that Canada's shark-landing policies are not as strong as they should be.

I am hopeful the government will follow through on its promise to introduce stricter shark fin import regulations, yet its silence on this issue has been deafening for me. I have tried over the months to not only contact members, but also the CFIA to see how it is moving forward with the promise the government made to improve regulations. This is the critical element and the heart of what we are talking about today, proposing amendments to legislation like this.

It needs the commitment of the government to go forward with making changes not only in the legislation but in the resources needed to ensure we are able to make changes in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Let me talk about some of the other pressures of global concern on oceans and our wild fisheries. We certainly have an all-party oceans caucus at the House. We are tackling this issue by coming together to look at some of the issues that threaten the health of our oceans. The all-party oceans caucus is playing a very positive role.

I have intimate knowledge of the Fraser River, one of the world's greatest salmon rivers, located in my home province of British Columbia on the boundary of my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam. It is an important fishery. It is an incredibly important river. We expected a large return this year, but, as members have pointed out, if we look at these runs pre-contact, they were normal. We have seen a trend downward. Even though we think 20 million to 26 million is a large run, pre-contact there were runs of 100 million sockeye to the Fraser. Therefore, we have to keep it in context.

Real fundamental issues must be looked at which require science and enforcement. There are other pressures on our oceans, such as warming waters and ocean acidification. I want to mention that we have the Bacon and Eggheads breakfast coming up on Thursday next week. The topic will be “Ocean Acidification: the other carbon dioxide problem”. I encourage all members to go to this important meeting to hear and learn about ocean acidification. This is another issue that our fishery is facing. Oil spills, large and small, from tanker and marine traffic are another problem that threaten the health of our fishery.

Our scientists would argue that the oil spilling into rivers and storm drains that combine into creeks and rivers and then into larger rivers and eventually into our ocean is a huge problem, as well as the oil from tanker traffic around the world and in our oceans in Canada. Pollution threatens the health of our oceans, such as industrial waste. We are familiar with what happened at Fukushima a few years ago. Nuclear waste entered into the ocean, and is bringing debris and material over to our coast. The oceans are connected and there is quite a link.

Some would argue that we really have one ocean, but our oceans are definitely connected.

(1220) There are certainly garbage islands. The gyre has been reported in the ocean and is an increasingly huge problem with the amount of plastics facing our fishery. These potential impacts, including those from aquaculture, are all playing a key role in monitoring and taking care of our oceans. In

summary, the threat of the IUU, or the illegal, unreported and unregulated, fishing is important. We need to address this legislation in committee. We need to address pirating fisheries and tackle it together, but we cannot forget investing on the resources to tackle that problem.

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on this, especially given the region he represents and the work he has been doing in the House and in his riding. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, and I know my colleague is already aware, the leader of the NDP is very knowledgeable when it comes to the environment and the important relationship between environmental protections and a healthy fishing industry in Canada. The New Democrats think this bill is going in the right direction. However, there needs to be a couple of amendments. We are concerned that the bill came out of the Senate, but we think we can play a very important

part in strengthening the legislation. Could my colleague elaborate a bit more with respect to the need to consider regulations that are similar to the EU which would require all fish and seafood products entering the Canadian market to be certified and their origins traceable? How important is that?

Mr. Fin Donnelly :

Mr. Speaker, that is really a two-part question. One is that certification is very important. How we label, approve and certify fishery products is critical. How those products enter the country is really important. As I mentioned in my speech, the amount of fish that is being caught in the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing industry is huge. Therefore, certification is critical to allow consumers to know what they are actually consuming. The member also mentioned the leader of the NDP being committed to a well-managed fishery and ocean.

We are talking about the importance of fundamental protections to the environment and the ecosystems, which then provide jobs and spinoff benefits for tourism. Millions of dollars are invested in tourism each year, providing thousands of jobs. This is all connected to a well-managed fishery and ocean. It provides food for many first nation communities along the Fraser River. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we need to take a long-term view of managing the fishery, not this short-term view that has put us into this problem.

(1225) Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has worked in the area of dealing with the problems of illegal fishing as it relates to sharks and the horrible practice of shark finning. Could he elaborate to some degree on whether he sees this bill as having any impact on that whatsoever and whether, having had conversations with government members, he sees any urgency for government to try to deal with that unfortunate practice?

Mr. Fin Donnelly :

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech the importance of healthy oceans and sharks and that the illegal practice of shark finning does occur, unfortunately. It takes so many sharks out of the water. Sharks are top predators and play a key role in balancing and maintaining the health of our oceans. The private member's bill I put forward went to a vote last year and failed, unfortunately. We had a commitment from the government that it would change the regulations. Unfortunately, there has been no action on that. I am very concerned about that. I have talked with members on the other side.

I have been very keen to hear what has happened since that vote and that promise to address the regulations, but I have not heard anything. I really hope the government will act on it. I believe it has heard strongly from Canadians from coast to coast to coast about the importance of this. This is connected to the issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. If we were to see a commitment, it would really be on issues like this, like shark regulations or banning the import of shark fins. These are serious commitments the government could play a

part in.

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand up and speak to this particular bill. In my time in Parliament, this has been a new approach the Conservatives have taken of bringing forward bills through the Senate, which is supposed to have a sober second look at the bills that we create. We are putting the cart before the horse, in many ways. It is really unfortunate that the Conservative government has chosen to make this change in parliamentary procedure. Making appointed people the standard-bearers for government bills is completely inappropriate.

This is a housekeeping bill that gives the government the authority to ratify the UN Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. It was signed in 2010, and we are getting around to it, which is great. It regulates foreign fishing vessels fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and harvesting sedentary species on the continental shelf beyond Canadian fisheries waters. That is good.

It also extends the application of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization regulatory area and prohibits specific classes of foreign fishing vessels from fishing for straddling stocks. The act also prohibits fishing vessels without nationality from fishing in Canadian or NAFO waters. All these things are good. My concern in regard to fishing, and the concern I bring today, is about our Arctic Ocean. Measures like this are needed in the Arctic to protect fish stocks now and fish stocks that we really do not understand very well at all from overfishing in the near future.

Climate change is rapidly melting permanent ice in the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean, an area as large as the Mediterranean Sea called the “Arctic donut hole”. The Arctic donut hole is the area within the Arctic Ocean that does not fall within any national boundary. It is open for any type of exploitation by foreign fishing fleets. Until now, the ice that has existed has blocked large-scale commercial fishing vessels, but with currently limited scientific data and no management measures in place, commercial fishing could pose a major threat to an ecosystem already stressed by dramatic warming.

We see things happening around the world in northern waters. Iceland and Britain are fighting over mackerel stocks that are moving into different locations in those waters. In the summer of 2007, 40% of the Arctic donut hole was open water. In the middle of the Arctic Ocean, where there is no regulation and there are no territorial waters, 40% was open and could have been vulnerable to overfishing. Mobile fleets of large factory processors range the world for fish and other sources of marine protein. For example, factory trawlers from Chinese ports travel 12,000 kilometres to catch krill near Antarctica.

It is only 8,000 kilometres from China to the part of the central Arctic that was ice-free in 2007. Today we heard the government say that it was not too concerned about the Arctic. It does not think anything is going to happen there. Wake up. The government needs to wake up and realize that the world is short of protein and it is going to go wherever there is protein available. In 2011, a senior researcher from South Korea's government-run Korea Maritime Institute said that “Arctic fisheries can become the centre of world fisheries in the near future ”.

He extolled their potential to not only meet Korea's high demand for fish when there are declining stocks elsewhere but to rescue the Korean fishing industry from its financial troubles. The researcher said:

In the near future, the thawing of the Arctic Ocean will influence the fisheries by creating more fishing opportunities....

...[T]he Arctic Ocean coastal states and other states like China, Japan, and EU have competitively established and announced their development policies for the Arctic including those related to fisheries....

...it is no doubt an opportunity for the Korean fishing industries as well as those who are seeking new fishing grounds abroad due to diminishing fishing resources....

Usually international fisheries are regulated through agreements like NAFO.

(1230) In the 1980s, unregulated fishing by Poland, South Korea, Japan, and other countries in the international waters of the Bering Sea severely undermined pollock stocks in just a few years. Russia and the U.S. persuaded these nations to sign the Central Bering pollock agreement to close this area to fishing until scientific data and management measures could ensure a sustainable approach. There is currently no international fisheries organization like NAFO covering the Arctic donut hole, which is precisely why some fear overfishing there.

There is, however, an international body that considers sustainable development in the Arctic within its remit. Moreover, it counts aboriginal peoples as permanent participants. It is, of course, the Arctic Council, which Canada right now is the chair of. Six years ago, the U.S. began discussions on creating a fisheries management regime in the Arctic donut hole. Canada has not used its chairmanship of the Arctic Council to support and accelerate these talks. This is required.

Interestingly enough, when our Prime Minister goes on and on about Arctic sovereignty, he does not take into account that in 2008, the U.S. put a fishing moratorium on the largest disputed area in the Arctic, which is some 7,000 square kilometres in the Beaufort Sea. The U.S. is setting itself up to take those waters away from us by doing the work that needs to be done in th