13577 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 209 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 7, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 7, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 209 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 209 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 209 (Version officielle) 147 209 07 05 2015 2015/05/07 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Commissioner of Official Languages The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 66 of the Official Languages Act, to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages covering the period from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation in the 23rd annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, APPF, in Quito, Ecuador, January 11 to 15, 2015. That conference is coming to Vancouver next January.

Addiction Recovery Week Act Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) Bill C-674. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-674,

An Act to establish Addiction Recovery Week . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am humbled and honoured to stand in this place today to introduce

an act to establish addiction recovery week. This bill would recognize the week commencing on the fourth Saturday of September as addiction recovery week. As a person in long-term recovery, I say we must remove the stigma that is attached to addiction recovery and celebrate those who have taken the long road back to prosperity and a healthy life. This bill would be a significant step forward in doing just that. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to present several petitions signed by hundreds of Albertans who are calling upon the government to implement new mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of impaired driving. The petitioners also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death, as vehicular homicide.

[ Translation ] Taxation Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition. Hundreds of Canadians are calling on the government to reduce taxes on feminine hygiene products because many impoverished women cannot afford them. That would be a positive thing.

[ English ] Impaired Driving Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today that sadly informs this House that Karmen Meyers and Lee Meyers, a brother and sister, were tragically killed 10 years apart by two separate drunk drivers who chose to drive while impaired. The Meyers family was devastated. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired-driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is: vehicular homicide.

It is the number-one cause of criminal death in Canada. More than 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers. Families for Justice is calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for this Parliament to support Bill C-652 , Kassandra's law.

Taxation Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is calling upon the Government of Canada to cease taxation on menstrual hygiene products. The paying of this tax contributes to the financial burden on Canadian households, particularly of women who are struggling financially. It is an essential product and we and the undersigned want the Government of Canada to extend a 0% GST rate to these important products. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too rise with petitions from people from across the country asking that there be a 0% GST rate on menstrual hygiene products.

AIDS Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is from residents primarily in my own riding but also from the Vancouver area. They are concerned about HIV-AIDS treatments being made available to everyone who needs them. We might have thought this was dealt with, but the petitioners point to a particular highly active antiretroviral drug therapy, a strategy known as “treatment as prevention”. The petitioners urge the House of Commons to recognize that this is an important aspect and to put forward a national AIDS strategy designed around treatment as prevention.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is related to the ongoing issue of marine protected areas: how we get them formed and how we take care of them once we create them. The petitioners call on the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to work with all relevant government branches to simplify communications and responsibilities.

[ Translation ] Taxation Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I also have the honour to present a petition against the sales tax on feminine hygiene products. Hundreds of people all across Canada are calling for this. We hope the government is listening. [ English ] Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to join many of my colleagues from the NDP today as we rise to present our petitions from men and women across the country who have participated in a campaign to draw attention in the House, through petitions, to ceasing the taxation of menstrual hygiene products. As has been pointed out, these are essential products to Canadians and there is a disproportionate financial burden. New Democrats are very happy to present these petitions today from right across the country. The signators of the petition I have are from Toronto.

We think it is a very important campaign and hope this petition will be visible and accepted and that the GST will be zero for menstrual hygiene products. The Speaker : I see many members rising, and there are only 10 minutes left for presenting petitions, so I will ask members to be mindful of their colleagues and provide very brief summaries. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also join my colleagues in presenting a petition calling for a 0% GST rate on menstrual hygiene products.

This is a sexist tax and heavily burdens women. (1010) [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues and present a petition to eliminate the sales tax on feminine hygiene products. [ English ] Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from men and women across Canada asking that the government remove the GST on menstrual hygiene products. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to present a petition signed by people who believe that feminine hygiene products are necessities and therefore should not be taxed. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present a petition in support of eliminating the GST on menstrual hygiene products. [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues and the women and men from all over the country who have mobilized and are calling on the government to remove the federal sales tax on feminine hygiene products.

The status quo is really unfair to women. It is a tax that targets only women, and we want it removed. Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in calling on the government to stop taxing feminine hygiene products. This tax is a heavy burden for some households. Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am also calling on the government to remove the GST from feminine hygiene products because we did not choose to have a menstrual cycle every month, so it is an unfair tax. These products are basic necessities. Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I rise alongside my colleagues to present a petition signed by many Canadian men and women who want the government to eliminate the GST on menstrual hygiene products. [ English ] Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am also tabling a petition that asks the Government of Canada to cease taxation on menstrual hygiene products, because women face a disproportionate financial burden because of this tax. I would like to congratulate everyone who is participating in this mobilization, and I hope the government will listen to them. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I too present a petition on behalf of Canadians seeking to cease the taxation of menstrual hygiene products. This is a disproportionate financial burden on women, and the petitioners feel there should be zero GST on menstrual hygiene products. [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this morning I join my colleagues in presenting a petition signed by many Canadians calling on the government to stop taxing feminine hygiene products. The petitioners believe that this is an extra burden on women. Mr.

Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too am presenting a petition signed by hundreds of Canadian men and women to eliminate the GST on menstrual hygiene products, a tax that places an unfair burden on women. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the people of Edmonton who signed my petition to eliminate the GST on feminine hygiene products. It constitutes gender-based discrimination. [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first calls on the Government of Canada to extend a 0% GST rate on menstrual hygiene products.

Child Care Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition calls upon the Government of Canada to implement the NDP's plan for affordable $15-a-day child care.

[ Translation ] Health Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on another topic, I have here a petition signed by more than 300 people from Quebec and across the country. They say that 3% of the population immediately experiences undesirable effects from wireless radiation. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to immediately implement an official process enabling Canadians to report undesirable effects of exposure to wireless radiation.

Taxation Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too join my colleagues in presenting a petition with dozens of names. These Canadians are asking that feminine hygiene products be exempt from the GST. The tax is discriminatory and creates financial stress for many families. Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in presenting a petition from citizens who want the government to eliminate the federal tax on feminine hygiene products.

Agriculture Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting another petition on behalf of over 360 people from my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who are calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed.

Taxation Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in presenting a petition on eliminating the GST from feminine hygiene products.

(1015) Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in calling on the government to eliminate the GST from feminine hygiene products. I have three daughters and one of them has four daughters. Imagine how much that costs in GST every month. Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am presenting a petition calling on the government to eliminate the GST from feminine hygiene products. [ English ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of southern Ontario residents who add their voices to the campaign involving millions of Canadian women and their families. The petitioners' message to the Government of Canada is very simple: take the GST off menstrual hygiene products. That is the message. Let us have the government do it.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 1121 and 1125 will be answered today. [ Text ] Question No. 1121-- Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Kellway (Beaches—East York) — With regard to the Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) ethical procurement of apparel: (

a) what are the details of information collected by PWGSC from suppliers and industry associations on their current practices concerning ethical manufacturers and sources of supply in the Request for Information on Ethical Sourcing of Apparel (E60PR-140001/A), published October 30, 2014, broken down by (

i) company name, (ii) company’s answers provided for each questions; (

b) what information has the Federal Task Force (FTF), which was established by PWGSC, to undertake research on the ethical sourcing of apparel in other jurisdictions as well as the practices of apparel suppliers in Canada with offshore production collected since the FTF was established; (

c) which individuals make up the FTF, including (

i) their qualifications, (ii) the decision-making process behind each of their appointments; (

d) what companies or stakeholders has the FTF consulted; (

e) what information has the FTF shared with the public on current sourcing policies; (

f) according to the FTF, what constitutes an ethical supplier and what criteria or standards are used to evaluate whether a supplier can be considered ethical; (

g) what options has the FTF put forward to buy clothing from ethical suppliers and enhance PWGSC’s procurement practices with regard to ethical sourcing of apparel; (

h) what companies does the Department plan to consult regarding the options outlined in ( g ); (

i) how does PWGSC plan to measure the effectiveness of their procurement practices with regard to ethical sourcing of apparel going forward; and (

j) what is the estimated cost of establishing the FTF? Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) (i) (ii), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. As a result, this information cannot be released on the grounds that it constitutes third party information.

With regard to (b), the mandate of the task force, which is an ad hoc working group, is to consult with suppliers and industry associations about their practices, and analyze ethical procurement approaches of other government organizations as well as prevailing international standards.

The working group has collected information in the following areas: metrics on PWGSC apparel contracts; international conventions, principles, standards and guidelines related to corporate social responsibility and ethical sourcing; related Government of Canada initiatives; practices of other jurisdictions within Canada and abroad; and supplier practices and experiences in relation to corporate social responsibility and ethical sourcing.

It is important to note that currently, almost 90% of garments purchased by PWGSC are for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Department of National Defence, and 98% of those garments are made in Canada.

With regard to (c) (i) (ii), the working group is composed of PWGSC procurement and procurement policy officials as well as a consultant contracted to coordinate and help conduct research. The group is led by the senior director, consumer and commercial products directorate and the senior director from the acquisition program’s policy directorate. Members of the group have experience and expertise in the areas of apparel procurement and policy development.

With regard to (d), the working group collected information from various apparel companies, industry representatives, non-governmental organizations and other levels of government.

With regard to (e), effective April 1, 2014, an origin of work provision clause, country only, is included in all solicitations for apparel. In August 2014, PWGSC began posting the manufacturer’s country of origin on its Buy and Sell website.On November 29, 2013, PWGSC published on Buyandsell.gc.ca the national goods and services procurement strategy for clothing and textiles: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-13-00541965. All PWGSC procurement policies are available online through the PWGSC Internet site: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/dpa-ppd-eng.html. With regard to (

f) to (i), the findings of the working group are currently being reviewed. PWGSC will consult with industry stakeholders on any proposed procurement practice revisions.

With regard to (j), the working group is funded from within existing reference levels and largely using resources simultaneously working on other related files. As a result, the precise costs associated only with the group’s activities cannot be estimated.

Question No. 1125-- Mr. Sean Casey : With regard to the application of the Access to Information Act and the Open Government portal: (

a) what are the privacy, confidentiality, and security standards which must be met before government data can be released in an open format; (

b) what are the basic quality checks which must be performed before government data can be released in an open format; (

c) what are the release criteria and global standards for open data which must be met before government data can be released in an open format; (

d) what are the dates, titles, and file numbers of all directives, memoranda, regulations, instructions, or any other documents in which the conditions in (

a) through (

c) are set forth or promulgated; (

e) what are the titles or descriptions of data sets which have been either refused for release under the Access to Information Act, or rejected for proactive disclosure through the Open Government portal, at any time since January 1, 2011, for failure to satisfy any of the conditions described in (

a) through ( c ), specifying in each instance the reason for the refusal or rejection, as the case may be; and (

f) which of the conditions described in (

a) through (

c) have been used, at any time since January 1, 2011, by way of justifying the refusal, in response to a request under the Access to Information Act, to release data sets or other information in electronic form, specifying in each instance (

i) the body to which the request was made, (ii) the reason for the refusal, (iii) the file number of the request, (iv) the subject matter of the request? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, data sets released in open format must adhere to the Privacy Act, the Treasury Board policy on privacy protection, the Treasury Board directive on privacy practices, the Treasury Board standard on security organization and administration, and the Treasury Board directive on open government.

The links to the above-noted documents are found as follows: Privacy Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-21/; policy on privacy protection: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12510; directive on privacy practices: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=18309; standard on security organization and administration: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12333; and directive on open government: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=28108.

When federal departments proactively release data sets, a review for compliance with the Access to Information Act is not required unless a formal access to information request is made. However, before posting, data sets must be verified against a defined set of legal, security and policy requirements to ensure they do not contain sensitive information, such as identifiable personal information. [ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, if Question No. 1120 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 1120-- Mr. Matthew Kellway : With regard to the New Building Canada Fund (NBCF), between 2013-2014 and the current fiscal year: (

a) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what is the total number of applications submitted under each of the following components of the NBCF, (

i) the National Infrastructure Component, (ii) the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component--National and Regional Projects (PTIC-NRP), (iii) the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component--Small Communities Fund (PTIC-SCF); (

b) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what is the total amount of money requested under each component identified in ( a ); (

c) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what are all the approved projects and the total amount of funding allocated under each component identified in ( a ); (

d) broken down by date of application, individual project, province, and municipality, what is the total number of applications submitted for (

i) public transit infrastructure projects, (ii) highway, bridge, and major road infrastructure projects, (iii) inter-city and regional rail infrastructure projects, (iv) disaster mitigation infrastructure projects, (

v) port, maritime shipping, and marine infrastructure projects, (vi) airport, helipad, and aviation infrastructure projects, (vii) information technology infrastructure projects, (viii) wastewater management and sewage infrastructure projects; (

e) which provinces have submitted applications to Infrastructure Canada under (

i) PTIC–NRP, (ii) PTIC-SCF; (

f) which provinces have yet to open the process for municipal applications under PTIC-NRP; and (

g) will delays in processing applications under PTIC-NRP cause any municipalities to miss the 2015 construction season and, if so, which municipalities will be affected? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Ways and Means Motion No. 22 Hon. Peter Van Loan (for the Minister of Finance) Motion for concurrence moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures be concurred in. The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Speaker: Call in the members.

(1055) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 399) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Fortin Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Pacetti Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 146 NAYS Members Adams Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Easter Eyking Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Papillon Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay Valeriote Vaughan -- 111 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Kevin Sorenson (for the Minister of Finance) Bill C-59. First reading moved that Bill C-59,

an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures , be now read a first time and be printed. (Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act Bill S-3. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , as reported (with amendments) from the committee. The Speaker : There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Hon. Rob Moore (for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Rob Moore (for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) Bill S-3. Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in this House in support of Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Bill S-3 complements our unwavering commitment to sustainable fisheries by ensuring economic opportunities for our fishermen. Throughout our country's rich history, fisheries have always been a cornerstone. In fact, some Canadian communities have been sustained by commercial fisheries for close to 500 years. Our commitment to sustainable responsible fishing both at home and in support of global efforts will ensure that this tradition continues for centuries to come.

The fishing industry is a critical economic driver in Canada's coastal and inland communities, providing jobs and other opportunities for generations of Canadians. More than 80,000 Canadians earn their living directly from the sea, on inland waters, in processing plants, or in aquaculture operations. The health of this industry is dependent on effective and responsible management of our fisheries. By ensuring sustainable fisheries, our government is investing in the economic prosperity of current and future generations.

To support the fisheries, our government conducts extensive research to make informed fisheries management decisions and activities. For example, our fisheries science and the application of the precautionary approach assist in the setting of catch limits for Canada's fisheries. We also ensure that Canadians can have their say. We work as closely as possible with industry and other stakeholders to make sure our strategies and plans are practical and effective to ensure both sustainable fisheries and the maximum economic opportunities for harvesters.

We announced as part of economic action plan 2015, funding that will support fisheries, foster trade, protect Canada's environment and create jobs in small communities. As an example of an investment that will support fisheries research, our government has committed $2 million to the Pacific Salmon Foundation to support the Salish Sea marine survival project. As a British Columbian, I was very pleased to see that.

Also, our government has increased the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of fishing businesses, which will keep more money in fishermen's pockets and support the creation of jobs in rural and coastal communities across Canada. In addition to working with industry and conducting scientific research to ensure sustainable fisheries, we also have a strong enforcement system in place to protect our fisheries from those who do not want to abide by the rules, and unfortunately, there are some.

That being said, we know that fish do not stop swimming at the 200 nautical mile limit of the exclusive economic zone, which is why Canada must remain engaged with the international community to ensure global fisheries are managed sustainably. We work with our international partners through regional fisheries management organizations, often called RFMOs, to ensure a consistent, effective approach to the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks that traverse Canadian waters and upon which our harvesters rely.

However, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, often called IUU fishing, remains a worldwide problem which affects the prosperity of our fishing communities. This brings me to the amendments before us in Bill S-3 and why it is important that Canada amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The amendments support two objectives: first, strengthening an already robust regime for Canada's ports in order to further close the net on illegal fishing operators; and second, by doing that, enabling Canada to ratify and implement the international port state measures agreement.

Fish are a major commodity and a source of economic opportunity and trade throughout the world. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, of the approximately 158 million tonnes of fish and other aquatic animals that are wild caught and grown in aquaculture operations each year, 37% are traded in international markets. This is a large share of the total fish production that is going into international trade, especially when compared with 21% of wheat being traded internationally, or only 10% of meat products.

The value of the international trade in fish products is almost $130 billion U.S. annually.

(1100) As a major exporter of fisheries products, Canada is inevitably affected by international trends, policies, and the enforcement activities of other nations. Canadians are not immune from the economic impact of illegal fishing on international trade. Around 85% of Canadian fish and seafood products are exported, to the tune of over $4 billion annually in export value. Global illegal fishing activities undermine the livelihoods of legitimate fish harvesters, both in Canada and abroad, by distorting prices and the profits that legitimate harvesters receive.

Our industry has to compete in a global market, where illegal fishing activities manipulate international pricing, so we must stand up for our hard-working fish harvesters by supporting the international effort to end illegal fishing. Canada also imports fish and seafood from around the world, and as a responsible fishing nation, we want to ensure that the fish on our plates comes from legal and sustainable sources, those that respect the environment from which the fish are harvested and that also respect the rights of the crew on board these vessels.

Preventing illegally taken fish and seafood products from entering the market has been a priority for Canadians and is also a priority for Canada's key trading partners, such as the European Union and the United States. Making these changes would ensure that Canada is on the same page as our key partners in this endeavour. If enforcement on the high seas is lacking in some areas, then strong port state measures ensure that nations can take action in their ports to ensure that illegally harvested fish are not traded. If there is no trade then there is no profit for the illegal fishing operators.

The port state measures agreement creates a global standard for what actions should be taken in ports to combat illegal fishing. This new international treaty aims to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal fishing through the implementation of effective and globally consistent measures. That is a very important point. In 2009, Canada and other countries approved the port state measures agreement that had been negotiated at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The goal of this treaty is to make it extremely difficult, and ideally impossible, for a fishing vessel to land and profit from any illegal catch. Canada signed this agreement in November 2010 to signal our commitment to the importance of taking strong action in ports to prevent illegal fishing. Passing Bill S-3 is the next step toward ratifying the port state measures agreement. Eleven countries have already ratified or otherwise become party to the treaty, and another 16, including Canada, have indicated that they intend to become parties as well.

For example, the United States is in the process of passing ratification legislation, and it is expected that other countries will soon follow suit. The agreement needs 25 parties for it to come into force. I am pleased to say that the world has seen the results of strong international enforcement efforts. Recently, a fishing vessel called Thunder was not able to enter nearby ports to offload its catch. It had been identified as possibly fishing illegally in the Southern Ocean off Antarctica, and countries in West Africa, a long way away, agreed to take action once it tried to enter their ports.

Facing few alternatives, the vessel was seemingly abandoned by the crew. It is important to note that Canada already has a robust system in place to manage foreign fishing vessels. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and its regulations contain a range of prohibitions and controls in relation to foreign fishing vessels entering Canadian fishing waters and ports. However, in order to ratify the port state measures agreement, Bill S-3 proposes some amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to further strengthen these important controls.

(1105) There are three major groups of amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act proposed in Bill S-3 . First, the amendments would ensure that Canada has clear authorities in relation to inspecting, searching and seizing, and other enforcement activities when a foreign vessel is directed to enter a Canadian port by its flag state for enforcement purposes. The port state measures agreement normally requires that fishing vessels engaged in or supporting illegal fishing be prevented from entering a port, as in the case of the Thunder , for example.

However, there are occasions when a flag state might need help with enforcement. As a strong and responsible fishing nation, we do not want to encourage moving the problem to other jurisdictions. However, our current rules under the current Coastal Fisheries Protection Act require a ship to voluntarily apply for a licence to enter Canadian waters. In the case of a ship being directed to port by a flag state for enforcement purposes, it is highly unlikely that it would wish to apply voluntarily for a licence.

The bill before us today would resolve this issue by allowing a vessel into port for enforcement purposes at the request of the flag state. Second, fisheries enforcement relies on sharing information with other appropriate legal authorities. Bill S-3 proposes amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that would clarify the powers of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to share enforcement information regarding illegal fishing vessels with other federal agencies, with other countries, and with international organizations.

This information-sharing would allow countries to recognize offenders and take action to protect their fisheries and marketplaces. Third, the amendments propose common-sense prohibitions against imports of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fish and expanded powers for enforcement officers. As enforcement for fishing vessels increases, illegal operators might want to transport their harvests by means other than ships, for example.

In this regard, the amendments would broaden enforcement powers for fisheries officers beyond fishing vessels to areas where illegally harvested fish could be stored, such as in container ships or vehicles. Finally, there are several amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to align domestic legislation with the international agreement, namely in relation to

definitions. Furthermore, during the study of the bill in committee, additional technical amendments to Bill S-3 were proposed to further strengthen it. The first new amendment that was introduced would enable Canada to make regulations that could specify documentation requirements for imports of fish and seafood products from fisheries management organizations to which Canada is a not a party. These amendments would protect the Canadian marketplace from illegally harvested seafood in parts of the world where Canada does not fish but from which it imports.

If a regional fisheries management organization in another corner of the world implemented new certification measures for fishery imports, Canada would also be able to require this documentation. This change would further strengthen Canada's import controls and would support its international partners. The second committee amendment is a technical clarification of the amendments to ensure that seafood that has been seized would not be required to be returned to the offender upon conviction. It is clear that countries have to co-operate to manage fisheries and oceans resources.

Regional fisheries management organizations have been established to meet this challenge. These organizations present a realistic means of governing fish stocks that occur either as straddling or shared stocks between zones of national jurisdiction or between these zones and the high seas. Regional fisheries management organizations apply global standards to the conservation and management of fish stocks. Canada is active in several regional fisheries management organizations and constantly promotes science-based decision-making and the precautionary approach.

As I have stated, the port state measures agreement has introduced new global standards for the fight against illegal fishing. Regional fisheries management organizations are aligning their port state measures with the agreement as part of their overall fisheries management. In addition, some of these organizations are now developing trade tracking systems, such as mandatory catch documents for key species like tuna.

(1110) Canada can continue to play a leadership role in these organizations by ensuring that our domestic port state measures set an example for other responsible fishing nations worldwide. Canadian communities have a large stake in our fisheries and in the health of our fish and seafood exports. Strong port state measures are one tool in the fight against illegal fishing, but we must and will remain vigilant on all fronts.

Canada is recognized as a global expert in the areas of intelligence-led enforcement and the use of advanced techniques, including forensic analysis, and Canada is committed to working with other countries to share our technical expertise to build global capacity to fight illegal fishing. When we work to combat illegal fishing that takes place elsewhere in the world, it has far-reaching, positive effects here in Canada in the long term. Our government is committed to protecting Canadians' interests at home and on the world stage.

We need to ensure that the responsible harvesters who play by the rules and compete in the global marketplace are on a level playing field. The bill, along with the additional amendments presented in the committee report on the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that are before us, will strengthen our ability to protect fishermen's interests. The bill ensures that we have a consistent framework in place to work in collaboration with other responsible fishing nations to fight illegal fishing.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking action against this global problem and that stands up for fishermen here at home. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest. He talked about the government's commitment to protecting Canada at home and on the world stage in terms of our fishery and strengthening our fishery. I want to ask the member then, why the government has gutted our Fisheries Act, which should normally be handled through a committee and looked at separately, and has done this through an omnibus budget bill.

I am very concerned about how that was done and how the government went after a specific

section of the Fisheries Act. The government has also cut resources to DFO, especially for habitat and science. Why has the government not implemented the 75 recommendations from the Cohen inquiry, on which the government spent nearly $30 million? I remember this inquiry well, because when I was first running, it was a huge issue in my riding and on the west coast. We had just had a collapse of the sockeye salmon. That was almost six years ago, and we have had no action from the government on the 75 recommendations. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary on that.

(1115) Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise the member to know that I disagree with the premise of all of those questions. With respect to the Fisheries Act, we put in place common-sense provisions to focus on the fish and the habitat that supports them. In fact, as we have introduced these new changes and have developed the policies and structure around those changes, I think it is going very well. I encourage him to speak to some people who are working on the ground.

In fact, in our committee, even at this very moment, we are hearing from people who are engaged with the Fisheries Act in real life situations. They are involved in stewardship and in using their voluntary activities in co-operation with the federal government to improve fisheries habitat. We asked them this question. Although they admit that it is a work in progress, I think it is going in the right direction. With respect to the Cohen commission, of course, it was back at the beginning of my career here, when I first moved a motion to put in place a judicial inquiry.

In fact, I think if the hon. member looks carefully, he will see that the minister and our department have already begun to implement the changes that were recommended by Cohen in our day-to-day activities. Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague in his statement mentioned that this was before committee. It was brought to my attention that, during committee, there was a lack of information on the amount of possible illegal fishing that is happening within and without the 200-mile limit.

Therefore, if it was before committee that there was no information, that is very concerning because of all the cuts to offshore surveillance. How are the Conservatives going to back up the bill if there are not more resources put in to gathering up the information needed to implement the bill or make sure it has any teeth without that information being gathered? Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, I assume he is referring to activities on the east coast. In fact, we are still a very important partner in NAFO and we make a very large commitment to the enforcement activities off the east coast.

Although there was streamlining there because we needed one less vessel, we are still engaged in still very effective enforcement activities. If he looks at the results he will see that over the years the number of serious infractions has been considerably reduced as we have been involved in those activities. We have no concerns about the ability to enforce the changes that are proposed in the bill. Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is worthy of support, certainly, but there are some questions that were raised at committee.

I want to raise one point that he raised during his speech, that currently ships need to voluntarily request a licence to be able to come to Canadian port. With the bill, we could react to a flag state making that same request of a ship that is possibly carrying illegally fished product. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how often a flag state actually asks Canada to inspect one of its ships? It strikes me from the reports that were brought to committee that this never happens, or if it does it is extremely infrequent.

What would the bill actually do regarding bringing ships to our ports for inspections?

(1120) Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, technically, what the bill does is provide authorization for the minister to allow these ships into port, even if they have not voluntarily applied. If the flag state hears from whatever sources, international organizations for example, or perhaps an RFMO, that a particular vessel that flies its flag is engaged in illegal activity and that state wants the vessel into port, with the proposed legislation, even without application from the vessel owner, the ship could be directed into port. We hope, of course, that there is no illegal activity.

As it becomes less profitable over the years, as there is more of collaborative approach to solving the problem, as the port state measures agreement is intended to do, we hope there is no illegal activity. However, in the, I hope, rare cases where a vessel is identified this would allow that vessel to come into port and be involved in enforcement activities here in Canada. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians trust the leader of the NDP to manage the economy while protecting the environment.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing hurts Canada's economy and fishery. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the government introduced this bill in the Senate instead of in the House? [ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, I know they have some aversion to the Senate over there, but it is part of the Parliament of Canada and bills are introduced in both places and have to be considered in both places, wherever they are introduced. In fact, Bill S-3 was originally introduced as Bill S-13 and made it most of the way through the process before having to be reintroduced as Bill S-3.

We are pleased by it, and we are pleased for the support of the NDP on the bill as well. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, having been Quebec's environment minister for years, the leader of the NDP understands the significance of the relationship between sound environmental protections and a flourishing fishery. That is why I am asking my Conservative colleague the following question: what is the Conservative government doing to stop illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing?

Even though this bill is a step in the right direction, it will not completely stop unregulated and unreported fishing. [ English ] Mr. Randy Kamp : Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is difficult to argue with that point. It is difficult to stop illegal, unregulated and unauthorized fishing. The only hope of stopping it is to have a global approach to it, and that is the approach that Canada is taking. It is a relatively small problem within the Canadian jurisdiction, but it is a large problem around the world.

If nations around the world can make it difficult or impossible for illegal operators to land their fish and sell it, then I think everyone will see that we are going to make some very serious progress on this. [ Translation ] Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise to comment on Bill S-3 . As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this is the act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, also know as the port state measures agreement implementation act. The title does not really explain what the bill does.

It is not really about protecting the coastal fisheries, but rather controlling illegal fishing as well as unregulated, illegal and unreported fishing. That is a good thing. The bill goes in the right direction and it deserves our support. It is about time. As the parliamentary secretary said, certain aspects of the bill were already brought forward by the United Nations several years ago. Now with Bill S-3 , we can ratify the UN agreement. That makes me very happy, and I am very grateful to the government, which rarely acknowledges the United Nations and its agreements.

I am very pleased that today the government is prepared to support an international agreement. It seems to me that the Conservative government is uncomfortable with international agreements, and it is about time that it took them seriously. Before I continue with the rest of my speech, I want to point out something that the parliamentary secretary said about the ships entering our ports. As he clearly indicated, in the past and even still today, until this bill is passed, ships that come into port undergo inspections on a voluntary basis.

It is true that, with this bill, the minister will have the discretionary power to authorize an inspection. However, once again, he can do so only if the state that issued the vessel its licence gives its approval and requests an inspection. It is not just a matter of ministerial discretion. The foreign country must first authorize the inspection. I would like to come back to the testimony we heard when this bill was sent to committee. It is extremely rare for a country to ask Canada to inspect a vessel because of the possibility of illegal fishing.

I do not see anything in this bill that will really improve the situation. Other members have mentioned it and it is true that illegal fishing in Canada is mostly under control. It is mainly a problem in the Canadian areas outside the 200 mile limit. I am thinking, for example, of the Grand Banks off the eastern coast of Newfoundland, which are outside the international limit of 200 miles. Canada does not really have surveillance powers and cannot prevent ships from engaging in illegal fishing there.

Even though Canada has had a moratorium on cod fishing since the early 1990s, illegal cod fishing continues outside the 200 mile limit. I do not see anything in this bill that would give us the tools we need to better control the situation and ensure that this fishery is managed properly. The parliamentary secretary was saying that the bill would help achieve a sustainable fishery. It will support over 80,000 jobs in Canada that depend on the fishery, but once again, it will not help reduce illegal fishing in Canada's offshore waters.

I would have liked to see a much better international agreement than what we have in Bill S-3 , since illegal fishing will continue on the Grand Banks even if this bill passes. We missed a golden opportunity here. However, once again, I will say that this is certainly a step in the right direction. I would like to point out a few facts. A 2008 study commissioned by the United Kingdom estimated that the global economic loss due to illegal fishing is over $23 billion per year, representing 11% to 19% of total global reported legal catch.

(1125) This is obviously something that we need to get under control. A few minutes ago my colleague mentioned that illegal fishing has an effect on prices. This is true. The facts show that illegal fishing drives down the prices of fish products. Passing Bill S-3 will finally help bring about better control of the prices on the international market. That is certainly a good thing. However, one of the big problems with this bill is that 25 states will have to ratify it before it becomes binding. Just 11 states have ratified it so far.

I have not heard anyone talk about any plan the government might have to ensure that enough other countries support the agreement to make it binding. I am confident that Canada will ratify this agreement if we pass the bill. However, we need quite a few other states to make it binding, and there is no plan for that. I did not hear the parliamentary secretary to the minister say anything about a plan to make the agreement binding on the international stage. I hope that the government will provide more details about that because the clock is ticking.

This agreement has been awaiting ratification for several years, and we will have to keep waiting until 14 more countries ratify it. Let us remember that the bill amends a number of Canadian bills. Bill S-3 itself will not create a new law. It will ratify the international agreement and amend existing Canadian laws. Since that has already been covered, I will not talk about the bills that will be amended. I might get back to that in a few minutes. I would like to reiterate a point made by my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam a few moments ago.

It is fine to amend the laws in order to ratify the international agreement, but Bill C-38 , an omnibus budget bill, amended the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The amendments went so far that we wonder whether the government is serious about protecting the environment and the fishery. With the amendments in Bill C-38, we have reached a point where the federal government is shirking its responsibilities with respect to protecting the fishery, and with Bill S-3 the government is saying that we will have a sustainable fishery.

I find it very hard to believe that we can have a sustainable fishery in Canada if we have reached a point where we cannot even report on the state of the species in our waters. During debate in committee, we heard that the bill did not address the problem of the cuts made to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in recent budgets. The budget for monitoring illegal fishing, the focus of Bill S-3 , was cut by $4.2 million. Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not have the tools to do what it is being asked to do in this bill.

It is all well and good to say that we want a sustainable fishery, that we want to more closely monitor illegal fishing in Canada, but we need the tools for that. With budget cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard, we suspect that our ability to perform these roles will diminish. I would also like to point out that marine communications and traffic centres are being closed. The government wanted to close the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, but fortunately the NDP was there to defend it.

(1130) All of these valuable tools allow better surveillance of our waterways and illegal fishing. However, when these surveillance tools are eliminated, any legislation we pass becomes meaningless. We should reject bills that are of no real substance. There have been too many cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and this government has basically gutted the Fisheries Act. We all remember how much frustration there was when Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 passed. Fishers, coastal communities and the fish processing industry are being asked more and more to be the only protection officers.

They are being asked to do what Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be doing. All of those people pay taxes and expect certain services, but unfortunately, those services have been eliminated. The role of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in coastal communities is diminishing every year, and now we have a bill before us that claims to increase surveillance of our waters. The people of my region would therefore be right to question how this is going to be done. How can our waters really be monitored with so many cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and, more importantly, the Canadian Coast Guard?

To come back to the bill and the amendments it will make, it is important to note that this bill is not just about surveillance and control. There are some aspects of the bill that we did not talk about today but that deserve our attention. For example, the bill will change the definition of “fish” and add a definition of “crustacean” and other species that will now be subject to the protection regime set out in the international agreement signed through the United Nations. That is a good thing. We need to broaden the definition so that it covers more than just traditional products.

Things are not at all like they were in the 1980s, when we could fish large quantities of cod. Crustaceans have become much more popular on the international market, and the government is right to add them to the definition to widen the jurisdiction. However, where is the support? This year, coastal communities had a lot of problems because the winter was so cold. Unfortunately, the Canadian Coast Guard and icebreakers were not around very much to help coastal communities prepare for the shellfish season.

In eastern Canada, the start of this fishing season was significantly delayed, which will affect the industry's profitability and the income of many fishers. We can do as much as we want to control illegal fishing, but if our fishers are the last ones to get their products on the international market and that market is already flooded with legal products from other countries, it will be difficult to remain competitive internationally. The bill supposedly enhances protection for legal fishing, but fishers need certain tools in the field to benefit from that protection.

I am wondering why this government believes that this bill will be enough to help coastal communities. Even today, fishers in the Magdalen Islands think that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not consulted with them enough regarding a number of aspects of the fishery. That is something that I hear often. There is almost no consultation. Consultation was conducted fairly regularly on this bill. For example, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans examined it and heard from witnesses, which is a good thing.

However, when it comes to consulting coastal communities on the real impacts of legal fishing, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is basically missing in action.

(1135) I am very grateful to the parliamentary secretary and the members of the standing committee for studying this bill so thoroughly, but I would like them to go much further. When the parliamentary committee is called on to discuss the impact of a bill on the other changes Canada has made to its laws, then maybe it should focus on that, especially on the changes made by Bills C-38 and C-45 . Let us come back to the bill before us today. The international fish trade is worth roughly $130 billion. International fishery is a highly valuable industry on the world market.

However, there is practically no illegal fishing in Canada according to testimony in committee. When departmental representatives were asked the question, they were unable to describe the extent of illegal fishing in Canada. They said it was hard to put a number to it because there were very few facts available and, if I understand correctly, little to no monitoring. Again, we would be hard-pressed to improve our ability to monitor and quantify illegal fishing in Canada with this bill, if the resources are not on the ground to truly assess the extent of illegal fishing.

It is all well and good to give the minister discretionary power, but, to start with, the government always grants fishing vessels a licence. The licence request is key in ensuring that Canada can monitor and search a ship suspected of fishing illegally. This bill goes in circles. I would have liked to see measures that were much more beneficial to the fishery. The testimony in committee was given by a Fisheries and Oceans Canada representative, Allan MacLean, on March 12, 2015. That was not that long ago.

A question was asked in English by an NDP member: (1140) [ English ] If the purpose of this is to prevent illegally caught fish from coming into Canada, don't you have any estimates on how much fish is coming into Canada, or any idea of what kind of problem it is, or the extent of this problem? [ Translation ] Mr. Rosser replied: [ English ] —it's hard to be certain about the level of illegal activity. [ Translation ] Once again, the department is simply not able to tell us the extent of the problem.

Today we are debating a bill that the parliamentary committee spent a lot of time studying, and the department itself cannot answer a simple question about the extent of the problem. The department does not even know. I think it is important to ratify United Nations agreements, and I am pleased that the Conservatives are ratifying an agreement, because I think they have some reservations about ratifying UN international agreements. Nevertheless, they will do so with this bill and that is very good. However, I do have to wonder something.

If the government does not even know the extent of the problem, would it not be a good time to conduct an investigation? Should we not beef up resources at Fisheries and Oceans Canada so that the department can do the work this bill is asking it to do? The government cut $4.2 million from surveillance, maintenance and marine traffic and rescue centres. We should beef up these resources. We are jeopardizing mariners' lives and the outcome and value of the fishery if we do not improve the resources at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Unfortunately this is not addressed in the bill, but the bill is a step in the right direction. The government should start investing in the fishery instead of just passing bills that have no substance. [ English ] Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in the House about this important matter. I have two questions pertaining to the committee. He mentioned quite a bit about the committee seeming to have a hard time trying to get the scale and scope of what is happening out there with illegal fishing. The first question is this. What was the problem there?

Was it a lack of witnesses, or did the witnesses not have the knowledge? Did the committee ask any international witnesses to come forward? My second question is this. Why has it taken so long for this bill to finally come forward? Has the committee been pushing over the years to get it? It seems that this could have been done a long time ago, because other countries seem to be ahead of us.

(1145) Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, starting with the last question, the committee could have moved this forward. We remember that this bill was initially presented to the House as Bill S-13 but, due to prorogation, the bill died on the order paper. Certainly when it comes to ratifying international agreements, we should be more timely. It would be best to ask the parliamentary secretary why the government has not been more forthcoming in bringing these bills forward.

Going back to the member's first question, when Fisheries and Oceans officials are brought to the committee and asked direct questions on the impact of this bill and the value of illegal fishing in this country, it is abhorrent that they cannot answer. It is unfathomable to me that our ministries do not have the resources at their disposal to be able to know the state of the fisheries in Canada. If we ask them specific questions, they should be able to come up with specific answers. To this date, they still have not.

I am still waiting, and I would love to hear more precision from the government regarding fisheries activities in this country, because I know the Conservatives have gutted the Fisheries Act and they have gutted resources to the ministry. It is about time they started investing. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague make some excellent points about this bill.

While he acknowledged we are supporting it and it is a small step in the right direction, he listed quite a few concerns in terms of illegal fishing, what our government is doing, and what could be done, including increased surveillance and the lack of surveillance that we currently have. The member talked about the cuts to the Coast Guard. Certainly on the west coast, in the busiest port in the country, we have lost the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. It was shut down. He also pointed out the Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres being shut down, on the west coast again.

We have had five centres consolidated down to two. We have lost three centres. The question is to the point of surveillance. The member mentioned that, when the officials came to committee, they were not able to provide the answers needed by the committee. I want to know from my hon. colleague if he believes the government is serious about protecting our coast and about monitoring our fishery and providing the surveillance needed in terms of investments and resources.

I also want to ask, finally, if he could comment on this: while there is a 200-nautical-mile limit on the west coast, late last year the government quietly reduced from 50 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles our responsibility and jurisdiction. Could the member comment on either of those two questions? Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the questions. They certainly merit a lot of attention. In the few minutes I have in front of me, I do not think I could do them justice.

Certainly, the government has been seen, over and over again, to reduce its responsibilities as much on the international scene as locally. Bringing us back to a 12-nautical-mile limit, instead of the more modern 200-nautical-mile limit, shows that the government is looking back and not forward. It needs to improve its responsibilities.

With respect to protecting our coasts and fisheries, I think actions speak louder than words when we close Maritime traffic control centres, close Coast Guard stations, and challenge communities themselves to replace the work that Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard are supposed to do on our behalf. We are asking people to do things that they simply are not equipped to do. Government is the best vehicle to protect our coastlines and to ensure our fisheries are sustainable, and we need to have bills in front of us that reflect that engagement on the part of our government.

Unfortunately, what we have seen from the government are bills that gut fisheries protections and coastal protections. Its priorities are upside down, and they certainly are not sustainable.

(1150) Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-3 ,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The fishery is the biggest employer in my riding and also provides many of the fresh fish products to the states and throughout Asia. The fishermen back home are trying to get out on the water, but they are surrounded by ice.

It is a pleasure for me to speak on this bill today, a bill that would prohibit the importation of illegal codfish and marine plants, extend Canadian control over foreign fishing vessels seeking access to Canadian ports, give Canadian fisheries protection officers greater authority and powers of enforcement, and allow the minister to share information with regard to the inspection of foreign vessels, as well as greater information sharing between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency related to the importation of fish and fish products.

As the Liberal critic, the member for Cardigan , said when he spoke on this bill at second reading, the Liberal Party supports this bill and the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement. On November 22, 2009, a conference of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations approved the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, or Port State Management Agreement. Canada signed the agreement on November 19, 2010, but it has yet to be ratified.

The Port State Measures Agreement would contribute to harmonized port state measures, enhance regional and international co-operation, and block the flow of illegal, unreported, and unregulated—which we abbreviate to the IUU—codfish into national and international markets. As discussed previously in the House and at committee, this is a good bill. It is good that the government is signing on to the Port State Measures Agreement and making the proper legislative amendments needed to do so.

On the other hand, however, Liberals wonder why the government has taken so long to move on this important legislation, a question I asked of the member earlier. Proroguing Parliament takes this all away, sometimes for political gain, and the government should look at the situation and how it is putting the fisheries in jeopardy. This was first introduced as Bill S-13 at the end of 2012. Then it was brought back as Bill S-3 in October of 2013. It is difficult to understand why the Conservatives let the bill sit so long before moving it forward if they place any importance on this issue.

The major problem we have on this side is that, while the government is finally putting this legislation in place, which is a good thing, it is taking away the other areas that are so important in this fight against illegal fishing. While Liberals welcome the measures in this bill, the government has undermined surveillance and monitoring programs for foreign offshore fishing vessels. It has cut $4.2 million and 23 full-time jobs in Canada's offshore surveillance of foreign fishing vessels, which will result in a reduction of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or as many of us know, NAFO.

NAFO air hours will go from 1,000 to 600 and its sea days will go from 785 to 600. That is a big reduction. If we are going to implement this bill, we are going to need more resources, but the trend now is that we are getting less. That is very concerning. It is hard to see how this would help in the fight against illegal fishing activities, both within and outside of Canadian waters. The government also has no information on what illegal fishing is taking place, both within and outside of Canada's 200-mile limit.

Despite repeated questions at committee stage of this bill, the government could not provide the proper answers to members of the committee or provide the witnesses who would be able to answer the committee members' questions with knowledge and authority. For a country that relies so much on fisheries, having such a large fisheries department, and taking

part in international agreements, one would think the committee would have been able to get the proper resources and people to answer those questions. We can see the scope of how important this bill is.

(1155) The lack of this information is made even more concerning when combined with the government's cuts to offshore surveillance. These are serious concerns. Illegal fishing inside or outside waters and illegally caught fish entering our country are very serious issues. I wish the government would take these things more seriously and have the proper answers as to what kind of activity is taking place and what is going on in these areas. Members of the House and Canadians deserve answers to questions like this. We are all here to represent people who sent us to the House of Commons.

If the people in our ridings depend on the fishery, they deserve to have more answers. As I stated before, in communities that I represent all through northern Cape Breton, it is a lifeline. Tourism is important in our area, but fishing is the mainstay, and it always was. People originally came to Cape Breton for the fish. Before coal and steel, fish were the thing. They came for the groundfish, now it is shellfish. Whether it is crab, lobster or shrimp, these are the big fisheries in our area. The fish move, so when they move in and out, and people catch them offshore, it is a problem.

People involved in the fishing industry and all those concerned with illegal fishing activity deserve to have answers. If the government has some details on these questions, perhaps it could provide them to the members here today. How much illegal fishing activity is taking place in Canadian waters? How much is happening outside the 200-mile limit? I was very concerned with some of the members bringing up how our surveillance was getting shorter and the limit was being expanded. How much illegally caught fish and seafood enter into our ports?

These figures are very important to members of the House and anyone involved in the fisheries. If the government could shed some light on that, it would be much appreciated. As long as I have been in the House, I have been involved in the fisheries. I have represented men and women living in my area. In my area of northern Cape Breton, there are at least 20 fishing communities from Pleasant Bay all the way to New Waterford. The average community would probably have 20 or 25 lobster boats, but they also catch crab, groundfish and halibut. In addition, we have four fishing plants there.

If we take everyone who is involved, whether it is the skippers on the boats, or the helpers, or the guys and girls on the wharfs sorting the lobsters, or the people who bring ice or the truck drivers, the fisheries are very important in my area. These fishers employ thousands and people in Cape Breton rely on that, whether the fishermen are buying trucks, or rope from our rope manufacturing plant. Therefore, it is more than what we see down at the harbour or at the port. There is more of an impact directly and indirectly from all those jobs in the fisheries.

It was such a big thing for us at the time to get the 200-mile limit, but now we have to go one step further. We catch mackerel in our area, but they swim outside the 200-mile limit and come back. If they are getting caught outside that limit, we are not going to catch them. We use them not only for eating but also for bait. Sometimes it can be hard to get people in central Canada and people in the west, who are thousands of miles away from our coasts, to fully understand just how important the fisheries are to us down home. Many come there during our tourist season and see it.

We appreciate it when they come to the east coast to see not only our beauty, but our small fishing communities. It is not by coincidence that we still have those small fishing communities. It is part of what was installed years ago by the late Roméo LeBlanc when he set up the quota system and the owner-operator system. Those are key pillars to our fishing communities. Sometimes we have to look at it. It is a major economic driver, not only to my province, my riding and Atlantic Canada, but to all of Canada.

(1200) We have some of the best seafood products in the world down home, and it is very concerning that if there is illegal fishing taking place, it could be contributing to lower prices for our products or weaken demand at home and abroad. Therefore, not only is it taking the fish away, but it is dumping them on markets and bringing the prices down. The government made some needed amendments at committee, which brings the bill in line with what it sets out to do.

However, I would like those on the government side to clarify that the fines set out in their amendments would have a cap for fines and punishment of at least $500,000 upon conviction, or impose heavier fines if needed. Members of the fisheries committee tried to get these answers last week. However, since the Conservatives were unable to let the committee hear from any legal experts on this, I am sure they were been given the proper legal opinion. It is great to catch people, but what will deter them? There has to be major fines.

For example, imagine if the amount of illegally-caught fish was in the millions of dollars. It is like catching people speeding. They could be doing it all time. Therefore, if the catch is $1 million, those convicted have millions of dollars in capital, and a fine of $500,000 might not even be enough to deter them from doing it again. It is one thing to catch people, and we would need to have the surveillance and people there to catch them, but when they are caught, there has to be a quick process, such as major fines and being blacklisted around the world for illegally catching fish.

Many times, illegal fishing hurts the fishermen in these areas, but it could also decimate some of the fragile fish species. The government and the courts need to have the flexibility to make the punishment fit the crime. Far too often, members of Parliament and members of committee ask questions but get no answers from the government. I hope the Conservatives can clarify these issues in the House. The amendments made at committee were okay, and we support them and the bill.

However, I wish the government would be willing to provide further information and clarification for members who have questions on these issues. However, the port state measures agreement implementation act is important and it needs to be passed into law so Canada can do its

part in the international fight against illegal fishing. Canada needs to take a leadership role in the fight against this kind of activity, both at home and around the world. As a country with the world's largest coastline and so many people relying on fisheries to make a living, it is our duty to be a leader on this. We took the leadership on the 200-mile limit, and we should take leadership on these measures. The Liberals believe in the vital role the fishing industry plays in Canada's economy and culture. It contributes over $5.4 billion and 71,000 full-time jobs to the Canadian economy, which is big.

In Canada, over $4 billion, including $1.3 billion in my province of Nova Scotia alone, in fish and seafood products are exported each year. This number could be even higher if Canada and the global community came together to effectively crack down on the illegal fishing happening here and around the world. We believe the federal government must play a strong role in cracking down on illegal, unreported and unregulated, or IUU, fishing to protect the livelihoods of fishers, fisheries conservation and the Canadian economy.

It is important to note that illegal fishing activities cost the global economy up to $23 billion per year. I am proud the Liberal Party has a strong record when dealing with illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. As many in the House know, former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, made a very good point to the world when we caught a Spanish trawler off the coast of Newfoundland. It was shocking to see the small fish the trawler caught, which I think were turbot. Mr. Tobin took the net to the UN in New York and held it up. The world could not believe how small the mesh was, so no fish would get through.

(1205) It really woke up the international community at the time, and Canada took a big lead in that. However, it was under the leadership of Mr. Brian Tobin and the Liberal government of the time. We had communities, whether they were in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada, or P.E.I., that lost a ground fishery because there was overfishing. It was not just because of international causes, we were one of the culprits. We were catching too many fish. We were going through a phase when we were trying to get our fisheries back, so we took strong steps. We had the cod moratorium, so we closed our fisheries.

However, lo and behold, others did not. Others were fishing outside of our limits. It was very important that to manage our fisheries, protect them, save them and rebuild them everybody around the world also had to do it. However, that was not happening, so what Mr. Tobin did was a good thing. We established the 200-mile limit fishing zone that protected the fishermen from foreign trawlers. We also amended the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to extend its application to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, regulatory area. Then there was the turbot war, as I mentioned.

We are an active member on the High Seas Task Force, an international task force committed to stopping the IUU fishing in parts the ocean that is not under the exclusive control of sovereign states. Our party has taken a strong lead in protecting our fishing communities and helping them rebound. Fish, especially wild fish, is in great demand around the world, not only for its taste but for its health. It is only going to be maintained if we regulate it properly, if we catch the bad guys who are catching too much of the wrong species or the wrong size and not reporting it.

In my community, and in many communities, we are now seeing a process in place where people are certified in managing and monitoring their fisheries properly. Many countries in Europe and around the world, and many of the buyers of fish are looking for that certification. That will also be a deterrent in preventing illegal fish or the wrong fish getting into the market. We on this side the House are pleased to support the bill and to fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, both here at home and around the world. Mr.

Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the whip of the Conservative Party. I am certainly pleased to be here today to speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act . As has been stated by my hon. colleagues, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a very serious problem both around the world and here at home. It is one of the main impediments to the achievement of sustainable fisheries worldwide, and it depresses the market prices for our fisheries exports. As a Nova Scotian and a former chair of the fisheries committee, I understand the critical importance of our fishing industry and the role it plays in our economy, both at the local level and national level.

Hard-working, law-abiding fishermen are committed to ensuring that Canada's marine resources are sustainably harvested and continue to be available for future generations. We invest in extensive fisheries science and monitor the status of fisheries and make decisions on how much catch can be allowed in a given season to ensure the health of the fishery. However, those vessels that undertake illegal fishing operations have no regard for the sustainability of the fisheries they target. Their only concern is fishing as much as possible and selling that catch in the global market.

We must stand up for our fishermen by supporting efforts to combat illegal fishing. We need to pass Bill S-3 . In Canada, we appreciate the critical importance of protecting our shared fishery waters. This includes our leadership efforts to ensure sustainable fishing practices and enforcement in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and let me be clear that the bill before us today would not impact the management of NAFO, as the amendments relate to the activities at port, not at sea. Plus, our leadership in this organization demonstrates our country's commitment to sustainable fishing.

As part of our NAFO enforcement efforts, our inspectors make use of a comprehensive approach, including the use of satellite vessel monitoring systems, port inspection, daily catch reports and surveillance overflight information to target offenders. We are seeing results. Due to our conservation measures, illegal fishing has been deterred, and the number of citations has been decreasing overall in the last 15 years, with only nine citations issued in 2014.

Turning back to the bill before us, the international community has been working to develop global tools to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. I am proud to say that the Government of Canada is part of this global movement. As a nation with a robust fishing industry, Canada has a strong interest in protecting fish stocks and ensuring that fishing regulations are respected. The goal of the port state measures agreement is to prevent a vessel that has been fishing illegally to land its catch and for the illegal catch to enter the market.

The agreement needs 25 parties to come into force. So far, 11 countries have taken the steps needed to ratify or otherwise become parties to the treaty, and another 16, including Canada, have indicated they will become parties as well. With the existing Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and its regulations, Canada already has a robust port state control regime for foreign fishing vessels, and these amendments would make our regime even stronger. Even without the agreement, these amendments are important for improving Canadian fisheries enforcement efforts.

The proposed legislative changes have a practical necessity as well. The first concerns authorities related to the port access of foreign fishing vessels. As my hon. colleague has stated, the proposed changes establish an enforcement system that would apply when a foreign vessel has been directed by its flag state to enter a Canadian port. In this case, Canada would issue a specific permit for the sole purpose of inspection and enforcement.

(1210) It may be the case that the flag state may want Canada's assistance to conduct an inspection and to gather evidence. In such cases, allowing a vessel into our ports to gather this evidence would be more effective at combatting illegal fishing than keeping that vessel out of our ports. As illegal fishing is a global threat to sustainable fisheries, the sharing of information on illegal fishing operations is essential for our partners to work collectively to address this international threat. We need to know who the criminals are to ensure that they are prevented from landing their catch.

The amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act would clearly lay out information to be shared with our international enforcement partners. Here at home, Bill S-3 would give clarity to the ability of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to share information related to the importation of fish and seafood products. Another category of changes contained in Bill S-3 concerns import prohibitions and related authorities. Under the proposed changes, it would give authorities new, practical tools to enforce prohibitions on illegal fisheries.

Currently, fisheries officers are limited to inspecting wharves and ships. Obviously, global trade is changing and fisheries officers need to be able to inspect all areas where fish may be kept. Those areas include warehouses, vehicles, or through a point of entry, such as an airport. These amendments would allow fisheries protection officers to seize illegally caught fish in these places and seek their forfeiture in the event of conviction for their illegal transportation. The amendments would also ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

If a court finds the person guilty of an importation offence under the act, significant fines would apply. Over and above these penalties, the court could also order an additional fine equal to the financial benefits the defendants gain from committing the offence. This would ensure that fines do not simply become a cost of doing business. Fishing is a global industry, and our government recognizes this reality. Some of our key fisheries export markets, such as the European Union, have already ratified and implemented the port state measures agreement. Others, such as the United States, will soon be on board.

These amendments would apply the same global standard in our ports as our key trading partners. In conclusion, Bill S-3 would strengthen the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, aligning it with the new global standard articulated in the port state measures agreement as part of meeting our international obligations. The bill would allow us to protect the livelihoods of legitimate fish harvesters in Canada more effectively by limiting the amount of illegal fish that enter the world markets and that undermine the profits of responsible law-abiding fish harvesters.

Our government is committed to ensuring sustainable fisheries and maximizing economic opportunities for our harvesters. Part of that commitment is supporting the global fight against illegal fishing. In closing, I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting these critical amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. This is a piece of common sense legislation that I think all sides of the House can support.

It would enable our fisheries officers to actually board foreign vessels not just at the wharf, but also when that fish has been landed at the wharf and is en route to a market somewhere in Canada or North America. The importance of this should not be understated. It would be one more tool in the tool belt of our enforcement officers. They have a tough job as it is. This would enable them to shut down overfishing, and specifically foreign overfishing. It would allow them to go on board foreign vessels.

It would encourage those flagged owners of those vessels to force those vessels to port in Canada, and would allow our fisheries officers to go on board. This is a win-win not just for enforcement in Canada, but it is a win-win for the global fisheries and sustainability everywhere. (1215) [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I agree that this bill is a step in the right direction to protect our fishing industry. However, this is a global issue, and we do business with economic partners.

Will the Conservative government ask other countries in the international community to sign and ratify the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing? Canada does business with some countries, such as Mexico, Spain and Panama, whose vessels are known to practise illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is a global problem.

This problem is not as bad in the North Atlantic as it is in some areas of the world's oceans, especially off of Africa and in Southeast Asia, but it is not as if it is not a problem off the east coast and west coast of Canada. It is a problem. What the bill would allow is for the first time we would be able to encourage those countries where the vessels are flagged to force the owners, through pressure from international agencies, to bring those vessels ashore. If there are no illegal fish on board, good for them. If there is, it could be seized and reasonable penalties could be applied.

(1220) Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, we certainly support any measures that we can take to combat illegal activities in our waters, illegal fishing, unreported and unregulated foreign fishing. However, my question goes back to the cuts we have seen in the fisheries sector, in particular in surveillance, monitoring and other services. Throughout Atlantic Canada we have seen fisheries offices close and many people who were in enforcement positions lose their jobs. We have seen the government cut about $4.2 million from offshore resources for surveillance and monitoring.

It has also cut 23 positions in foreign monitoring and surveillance of the offshore fishing vessels. In developing these new measures, is the government also prepared to put adequate resources in to ensure that the job gets done properly? Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the largest and most valuable fisheries ridings in the country. Our landed catch, along with West Nova, the neighbouring riding, is somewhere in excess of 20% of the entire Canadian fishery on all three coasts. If the member were to ask the fishermen in my riding, they would tell her that there is lots of enforcement.

There is a process in place, which the hon. member is very aware of. They have to hail out before they leave to go fishing and they have to hail back in. There are on-board inspections. There is an inspection when they come to the wharf. It is very difficult to break the rules in Canada. Also, there is much more electronic surveillance available. A good part of the fleet carries a black box, so they have geographical positioning at all times, so fisheries and oceans can track those vessels.

They know if they are fishing up against the line, if they are not allowed inside the 30-mile line, or if they are supposed to fish outside the 50-mile line. We know where they are at all times. In answer to her question, enforcement is extremely important, but enforcement tools are more robust and far reaching than they have ever been. Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our fish harvesters work tirelessly on the seas to make a living, often in challenging conditions.

Through their determination, these efforts support the economies of coastal communities and, more broadly, a multibillion-dollar seafood industry for Canada. Therefore, it is completely unacceptable that international poachers are ignoring national and international rules and regulations that allow them to avoid the true cost of fishing. They leave distorted market prices and missed profits in their wake, which undermines the livelihoods of our legitimate fish harvesters and threatens the stability and the sustainability of global fisheries. That is why I am pleased to support Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act , which would give Canada additional tools to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. Our government has embarked upon the most ambitious trade agenda in our nation's history. This is important in the context of this bill. Through our comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the EU and the Canada-Korea free trade agreement, we are opening up new markets and economic opportunities for all Canadian industries and sectors.

Our fish and seafood producers will be able to benefit significantly from these agreements with the reduction and removal of tariffs on our world-class products. However, as we gain increased market access, it becomes all the more important that we support global efforts to fight illegal fisheries. According to a 2008 British study, the impact of illegal fishing activities is staggering. The global economic loss from these fisheries is estimated at $10 billion U.S. to $23 billion U.S. annually. The impact of global activities by illegal fishing vessels on the high seas does affect Canadians.

After all, Canada exports 85% of its fish and seafood products. This generates a healthy $4 billion for our economy every year. However, if we could curtain illegal fishing internationally, we would do even better. As a British Columbian, I know how illegal fishing half a world away can have a real impact upon Canada's bottom line. In British Columbia, our once-thriving red and green sea urchin fishery severely declined when illegally harvested products entered international trade and flooded the market.

These short-sighted actions by criminals looking to make a quick profit have caused massive damage to this fishery. Illegal fishing is not just some far-off issue. It has real economic impacts for those who make their living from the sea and the communities that depend upon this income. The strong economic argument is one reason why Canada joined other countries to adopt the port state measures agreement. There are strong environmental reasons why Canada supports the agreement.

Illegal fishing undermines the sustainable management of both fisheries and the ecosystems and habitants upon which those fisheries depend. The port state measures agreement is a logical step in the global effort to improve fisheries' conservation, by ensuring that only legally harvested fish can enter ports for domestic markets and international trade. That is what Bill S-3 is all about. Canada already has many of the core requirements in place to ratify the port state measures agreement. However, there are a few areas where we need to align our legislation with the new global standard.

Specifically, these amendments would expand inspection and enforcement powers beyond the traditional fishing vessel; strengthen prohibitions and international enforcement against imports of illegally harvested fish products; and create an enforcement regime for foreign fishing vessels ordered to port by the flag state for enforcement purposes.

(1225) I will speak to two of these important amendments: the ability of flag states to order their ships to port; and improved information sharing among enforcement partners. Under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations, a foreign fishing vessel must apply for a licence to enter a Canadian port at least 30 days in advance of its entry into Canadian fisheries waters. However, a vessel that has been fishing illegally has good reason to avoid our ports and therefore the vessel is unlikely to apply for entry.

Even if the nation responsible for the vessel, the flag state, orders the vessel to enter a Canadian port for inspection, the current legal system requires that the vessel itself apply for a licence. To address this, Bill S-3 would authorize fisheries protection officers to take appropriate enforcement action when the circumstance is such that the vessel is directed to port by its flag state solely for inspection purposes.

It is important to note that this amendment would not change Canada's ability to refuse port access to any illegal fishing vessel that violates conservation and enforcement measures of regional fisheries management bodies. What it would do is implement a key provision of the port state measures agreement. Generally, the agreement requires parties to refuse entry to vessels involved in illegal fishing.

This would now be an exception in order to enable a party to allow such a vessel to enter port for the purpose of inspecting it, gathering evidence and taking other appropriate enforcement action on behalf of the flag state. To crack down on illegal fishing internationally, we need intelligence and better sharing protocols among our enforcement officers at home and leading nations when it comes to tracking offenders. That is why the second area of amendments focuses on improving information sharing.

Through this bill, for example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency would gain new and express authority to share information with each other. Similarly, Canada would gain clearer authority to share information regarding actions taken against illegal foreign fishing vessels with other responsible states and regional and international organizations. For example, the information could include the fact that we denied a foreign vessel entry into a Canadian port, any enforcement action that we might take, the results of any inspection and the outcome of any legal proceedings.

Experience tells us that globally strong port state measures can deter illegal fishing. The port state measures agreement represents one of the most efficient and effective approaches to deal with illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing across the globe. Supporting Bill S-3 would allow Canada to follow through on this important international commitment. I urge all members to support this bill.

(1230) Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments on this act and the amendment and proposed changes. He did talk about illegal fishing, as did the parliamentary secretary earlier. My question is in terms of illegal fishing. We are well aware that one of the worst offenders is the shark fishery. Scientists tell us that over 100 million sharks a year are being fished out of our seas. They are being targeted for their fins.

It is a very brutal fishery where the fins are cut off and the shark is then tossed back into the ocean, often alive and left to suffocate. It is a brutal way for this fishery to do that to these animals. As members know, sharks play a key role in maintaining the health of our oceans. If the government is serious about illegal fishing, I am wondering why we have not been able to make more inroads. For instance, I put forward a private member's bill to ban the importation of shark fin to Canada. The government had an opportunity to vote on this to make a difference in illegal fishing.

We know this fishery is mainly composed of illegal fishing. The Conservatives could have made a difference by voting with me and with the opposition but they did not. I wonder if the hon. member could explain why they did not do that. Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, there are amendments to Bill S-3 that allow the government to make documentation requirements for seafood imports consistent with the catch document requirements of regional fisheries management organizations around the world. Therefore, once we pass this bill, any illegal fish in any part of the world would then be illegal in Canada.

I think that addresses the concerns that the member has just expressed. Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the Liberals would certainly support any measures that help prevent overfishing and illegal fishing in our waters. After all, we were the people who introduced the 200-mile limit off Canada to protect our fishing industries. We were the ones who fought the Spanish in the turbot wars to protect the Canadian fisheries and to shut out foreign interests. However, we also know it is equally important to protect our own fishing people in this country.

The government opposite has cut things like marine Coast Guard centres in St. John's, Newfoundland and Coast Guard radio operations in places like St. Anthony, where people in the industry depend on it. When the member spoke, he talked about protecting our fishermen who put their lives on the line and go out there on the sea. Therefore, I would ask him if he supports reinstating those services so that we can ensure that the lives of the fishing people are protected in this country.

(1235) Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, like the member from Atlantic Canada who spoke before me, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's , I come from a large coastal riding with a lot of commercial fisheries. I am also host to the Canadian Forces air base in Comox where we run aerial surveillance right out into the mid-Pacific and ensure that the use of the long nets that had been used throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to intercept valuable fisheries pretty much comes to an end due to the aerial reconnaissance that Canada has carried out and continues to carry out.

We have done a lot of good things on the fisheries resource. Many of our salmon runs are coming back. We have put individual quotas in place on most of our groundfisheries and commercial harvesting is now in a very sustainable place, so I am not finding the same findings that the member for Labrador is alluding to. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is privilege to stand on behalf of the official opposition New Democratic Party of Canada and speak to this important Bill S-3,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act . Behind that rather anodyne title I think reside some very important principles. I should say at the outset that I am proud to be sharing my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam . The bill essentially deals with an extremely important industry for Canada, which is our fisheries, and the very important need to protect the coastal communities and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on that fishery, and the many jobs that come with it, for their livelihoods.

A couple of statistics show the importance of the problem the bill aims to address, which is illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. A 2008 study estimated that the economic loss worldwide due to pirate fishing ranges from U.S. $10 billion to U.S. $23 billion every year. Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing produces between 11 million and 26 million tonnes of seafood annually and can represent as much as 40% of the total catch in some fisheries.

Canada's commercial wild capture fisheries, aquaculture, and fish and seafood processing contribute $5.4 billion in total GDP annually and support 71,000 full-time equivalent employees in this country's economy. The official opposition New Democrats want to focus on the importance of the bill in protecting our fisheries resources and in starting to tackle illegal fishing, because it undermines conservation and management efforts put forth by Canada and others to ensure that the fishing industry remains sustainable. Of course, underlying everything is the important need to protect our ocean ecosystems.

The changes proposed in the bill will help protect fishers and their communities from unfair competition, and we support the bill accordingly. Bill S-3 has been a long time coming, and if there is one criticism we would make of the government is that it has taken an unacceptable amount of time to bring this legislation before the House. With the numbers I just went over, we see that every year of delay costs our economy billions of dollars and harms the ecosystems of the world. The bill was introduced in the Senate and passed third reading on March 7, 2013, some two years ago.

After prorogation, the bill was reintroduced as Bill S-3 , and it passed through the Senate again. It was introduced in the House of Commons on February 11, 2014, so it has taken the government a number of years to bring this legislation before the House, and I have not heard any acceptable reason for that. I want to go over some of the provisions of the bill so that we can get an idea of why the bill is important and what it actually does to change Canadian law.

The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, one of the pieces of legislation the bill amends, regulates foreign fishing vessels that are fishing in Canadian fisheries waters and are harvesting sedentary species, like oysters and clams, on the continental shelf of Canada beyond Canadian fisheries waters. The act also extends its application to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization regulatory area, and it prohibits specific classes or sizes of foreign fishing vessels from fishing for straddling stocks, that is, fish that move between international waters in the regulatory domestic area.

The act also prohibits fishing vessels without nationality from fishing in Canadian or NAFO waters. I will stop there for a moment, because this reminds me of a very concerning provision in the comprehensive economic trade agreement, CETA, that is currently being discussed between Canada and the European Union. By the way, contrary to what the Conservatives say, that treaty is not concluded. We have no final official text yet. It is still being worked on, although it is expected to come some time this year or perhaps next year.

(1240) There is a provision in CETA that deals with cabotage that has many people in this country in the seafaring industry concerned, and that is the provision that would allow European flag vessels to move containers on inland Canadian waters, primarily between Newfoundland and Montreal. The seafaring industry and the seafarers' union, in particular, are very concerned that permitting foreign flagged vessels on inland Canadian waters represents a threat not only to their jobs but to the security of Canada.

I should point out that the United States has the Jones Act, which prohibits any foreign flagged vessel from anywhere from plying American inland waters. Only U.S. flag vessels can do that. It is so the U.S. can keep control of the crews and the security of their ships. However, the Conservative government wants to allow foreign flag vessels to ply Canadian inland waters and seas. I would point out that this is a concern the New Democrats will be bringing up if CETA ever comes before the House in legislative form.

The port state measures agreement is an agreement that aims to prevent illegally caught fish from entering international markets through ports. Under the terms of the treaty, foreign vessels would provide advance notice and request permission for port entry, countries would conduct regular inspections in accordance with the universal minimum standards, offending vessels would be denied the use of ports or certain port services, and information-sharing networks would be created.

The reason this provision is important is that Canada should be a world leader in preventing illegally caught fish from entering international markets through our ports. Here is another irony. About six months ago, I raised in this very House the practice of illegally caught fin whale meat entering the Port of Halifax, being transported across Canada, and leaving the port of Vancouver. Fin whale meat is an endangered species, and Canada is a signatory to international conventions that prevent us from engaging in the trade of fin whale meat.

I raised in the House that Canada was being used as a conduit by a Scandinavian country to ship its illegally caught whale meat through Canada to Japanese markets, and the government has done nothing since to stop it. Therefore, it is ironic that Conservatives stand in the House and try to look like they are preventing illegally caught fish from entering Canada or markets through our ports, when they are permitting endangered whale meat at this very moment to go through our ports. I also want to point to the government's failures with regard to taking care of our oceans and fisheries.

My hon. colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam has already brought up his excellent bill that would prohibit the importation of shark fins into this country, because, of course, there is an absolute crisis in our oceans with illegal shark finning, and the Conservatives refuse to act on that. In addition, it has been pointed out that the government has closed Coast Guard stations and maritime communications centres on both coasts, including in my city of Vancouver, where it closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

I have already seen the foolishness of that decision, because there was just an oil spill in English Bay, right off the coast of Vancouver. Everyone in Vancouver and British Columbia knows that had the Kitsilano Coast Guard station been open, there would have been a quicker response time, and that oil spill would have been contained better and more quickly. Yet as a result of the Conservatives' mismanagement in this area, they actually caused toxic damage to be done to the ocean off the coast of Vancouver because of their shortsighted decision. I also want to talk a little about fish stock conservation.

The fishery on both coasts, in fact, on all three coasts in this country, is extremely important. It is important to aboriginal people, coastal communities, Canadian consumers, and the fishing industry. Yet the government has not taken adequate steps to protect fishery stocks in this country. On the coast of British Columbia, its iconic species of salmon is critical to the economy of British Columbia and in fact to the culture of British Columbia.

I know that the people of British Columbia want to see their federal government take every step possible to make sure that there are sustainable fish stocks of every species, on all coasts, today and for generations to come. With an NDP government, which will happen this fall, they will see a government that will actually take better steps to conserve fish stocks on the east coast, the west coast, in the north, and in the inland waterways, where the current government has gutted navigable waters protection.

They will see a New Democrat government that will protect all waters in this country and all of the life within those waters for the benefit of future generations and our economy.

(1245) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the NDP will be supporting this bill, so I congratulate him on that. I want to ask him a question on a separate but I think related topic, because he touched on it somewhat in his words. Under the previous Liberal government, there was the complete destruction of the ability of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard to respond to a number of issues on either coast.

We have embarked on a national shipbuilding strategy, which would renew the fleets of both the Royal Canadian Navy and the Coast Guard. A large part of this is the reconstruction and rebuilding of yards on both the east and west coasts, potentially very close to the member's riding. I wonder if he might comment on how important it is that we get these vessels completed and on the importance of these vessels not only in securing our borders from illegal fishing but in helping to improve the local economies of British Columbia and our Atlantic provinces. Mr. Don Davies : Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I would congratulate the government on its made-in-Canada procurement solution to our navy needs. I am very happy to see that the government has done that. The NDP has been calling for that for decades to make sure that we stimulate the Canadian shipbuilding industry. The member is quite right that on the north shore of the Lower Mainland we have Seaspan, which is going to get, I think, several billion dollars of work. That will not only help British Columbians and the British Columbia shipbuilding industry but will provide what we all believe we need to have a well-equipped navy.

I want to just for a moment address his reference to the performance of the previous Liberal governments. Under the previous Liberal governments, and we have heard some bragging here, we saw the collapse of the cod fishery. We saw the mismanagement of several species of fishery stocks in this country, which created crises in many provinces. We saw an infrastructure deficit build up under the previous Liberal governments, which basically balanced their budgets by ignoring important infrastructure and pressing social needs.

Again, with a New Democratic government this October, Canadians will have a chance to see a government that actually invests in infrastructure and does not allow such a deficit to build up only to pass on that responsibility to future generations.

(1250) Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is always great to have dreams, I say. Liberals believe in the vital role of the fishing industry. We know the number of Canadians who are dependent on this industry. Protecting this industry is why we brought in the 200-mile limit. It is why we challenged the Spanish in the turbot war. It was so we could protect the Canadian fishing industry from foreign fishing. We support the bill before us today.

However, the problem I see, and I ask the member if he shares this, is that it was the Conservative government that cut $4.2 million and 23 jobs in Canada's offshore surveillance of foreign fishing vessels. Today they are talking about giving more powers to Canadian fisheries protection officers and greater authority for enforcement, but do they not also need to give them the resources and tools to do their jobs appropriately and not cut the people who are out there enforcing these policies already? Mr. Don Davies : Mr.

Speaker, the member is correct in the sense that we can pass all the laws we want in the House, and we can put words on paper, but it really comes down to providing the actual resources on the ground to the civil service and the regulatory bodies that are charged with actually making the goals of these pieces of legislation a reality. I want to stop for a moment, because my hon. colleague mentioned that it is good to have dreams, and it is. Tommy Douglas, one of the founders and towering figures of Canadian politics, said do not dream little dreams.

What we saw yesterday in Alberta is what happens when people come together and choose the politics of hope and a politics of investing in our communities. They chose a New Democratic government that will provide a better form of government, not like the Conservative and Liberal failures that have marked this country for far too long. It will change this October. Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westmin