FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 4, 1998

• 1542

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I bring the committee meeting to order.

We are here pursuant to an order of reference of the House dated Thursday, April 30, 1998, in consideration of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act, and so on. We are on three frequencies on the FM dial today.

We have a couple of witnesses I'd like to introduce to the committee. We have Mr. Clyde Sanger, who is well known as someone who has written extensively on the law of the sea, and is presently semi-retired.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: Only semi-retired.

The Chairman: We have a point of order.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, this is on this issue of Bill C-27. As you know, we're trying to get more witnesses before the committee.

I would like to move, and the clerk can record my motion, considering that the Premier of Newfoundland, Premier Tobin, wrote to the committee with very real concerns—the same that have been raised before this committee previously with respect to this legislation—that we subpoena the premier to appear before the committee. He has now declined an offer to come by invitation, or at least that's my understanding. So I would like to move that we subpoena Premier Tobin to come before the committee.

I would just like to get that on the record so we can deal with that motion, and then carry on with these witnesses for the rest of the day.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer and then Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this is getting to be a habit where the member opposite at the beginning of every meeting puts forward a motion when we've invited witnesses in good conscience to hear them. I would suggest that the motion is inappropriate at this time. Let's hear the witness. If we have to deal with the motion at the end of committee after we've heard the witness, maybe we will. If we're going to deal with it now, we'll get into a debate on it and it will take some time. I would prefer to do it later. Let's hear the witnesses we all came here to hear.

• 1545

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, this motion, as I've seconded it, is extremely important. I think the sooner we can deal with this the sooner we can move on, and then everyone will know where we stand, whether Mr. Tobin shows up or not.

Mr. Tobin is a major player in this Bill C-27, and I personally suspect he's been ordered by the Government of Canada not to appear before this committee. Why else would he not show up? That's why Mr. Lunn and I presented this motion today. We've already discussed it and we already know what's going on. We know very well where you're going to stand, and I respect that, but let's do the vote and move on with this meeting. It's as simple as that. We need him before this committee, otherwise why would he have written that letter asking for amendments to this bill? He's an important player and he needs to be here.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just for the record, I have a quick point.

The Chairman: Mr. Lunn, you moved the motion a moment ago and I'll get back to you in a second. What is the urgent clarification, Mr. Lunn?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I meant to state this was a joint motion put forward by myself and Mr. Stoffer.

The Chairman: That's quite obvious from what we heard from Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to the witnesses, we have times and agendas. We're already 15 minutes late and we have a witness who I'm sure was very generous in coming before a committee to offer some very important information in considering this bill. I really don't see the relevance of waiting another hour or hour and a half to consider Mr. Lunn's motion.

If the committee is to work that way from day to day, where we have an agenda and suddenly try to start a new agenda in the middle or at the beginning of the meeting, in all good faith, we certainly won't have witnesses coming to meet with us.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard, I wonder if we could perhaps terminate the intervention on the point of order. The motion itself will have to wait until we hear an opening statement from Mr. Sanger, unless the committee wishes to do otherwise.

I wanted to air the different arguments first, because, as committee members know, a motion cannot be moved on a point of order. Unless the committee wishes to do it by unanimous consent now and get it out of the way, it's only possible to move a motion when the mover is recognized during the proceedings as part of the testimony, when asking questions or making comments.

I'm in the committee's hands. Does the committee wish to deal with this motion now, or do you wish to hear Mr. Sanger and then deal with it on the first round of questions? Because it will go to the Reform Party and the NDP and they will only move the motion all over again. But I'm in the committee's hands. It needs unanimous consent. If one committee member objects, we'll have to go to the normal procedures. Do we go to the normal procedures or not?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Normal procedures.

The Chairman: We have one committee member who is saying no, so we go to our test.

Mr. Lunn, do you understand the ruling I'm making? You cannot move a motion on a point of order, but you have the right to move the motion immediately when the floor comes to you, and you're the first party to be recognized following an opening statement by Mr. Sanger.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I just want to make this quick and then we can move on. Are you telling me that once a meeting is called to order and I'm recognized, that motion is not valid until we've heard from one speaker? Is that accurate?

The Chairman: No. When the meeting is called to order, the chair outlines the purpose we are here, recognizes the guest, and the intervention is brought via a point of order. In the House of Commons or in committee, one cannot move a motion on a point of order; one must be recognized as a speaker.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I understand.

The Chairman: Okay.

First of all, let's go to Mr. Sanger. I don't think I mentioned he's written a book called Ordering the oceans, the making of the law of the sea, which he is advertising openly here at the committee meeting in time for Christmas. It's out of print.

• 1550

We've asked Mr. Sanger to come here because of his expertise on the Law of the Sea. We will ask Mr. Sanger first if he has an opening statement, and then we can go to our questions and answers.

Mr. Sanger.

Mr. Clyde Sanger (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman.

I'm rather overwhelmed with the expertise around this table and the very close interest that a number of members have, coming from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the west as well, and living in central Canada.

I thoroughly support Bill C-27, and my main purpose in coming here is to urge as much speed as possible in passing this; in ratifying the UN Fisheries Agreement, or UNFA, which is on straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; and in going on from that as quickly as possible to ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention. I regret it's taking so long. I realize it was because an election was called a year ago today and it died on the earlier order paper.

I'm really glad that in the title of Bill C-27 there is a reference to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, because that is my starting point.

If one goes back to December 1982, when Alan Beesley signed the convention in Montego Bay, it was a moment of great pride for Canada. Canada led in broadening the whole discussion at that time from what the Maritime powers wanted—a very narrow focus of freedom of passage—to fisheries management, pollution management, and so on. And Canada went on from there to form really interesting, thoughtful alliances and make bargains, and were right at the forefront of the Law of the Sea Convention at that time.

We were concerned at that time that the Law of the Sea Convention as it stood did not deal properly with highly migratory stocks, even though people such as Len Legault and Roderick Haig-Brown did remarkable work on the migration of salmon, back in the fall of 1975.

I think you probably know the weaknesses in the Law of the Sea Convention. Articles 63 and 64 simply urge nations to seek to agree and cooperate on these stocks. And indeed UN documents say that the phrasing in the Law of the Sea Convention is very general. Then, when you get to articles 117, 118, and 119, they simply talk in very general terms about cooperation on the high seas as far as living resources are concerned. So there was that really big gap.

Then there came the Rio Summit, and Canada again led with a motion to start the conference on straddling stocks, which began the next year, 1993. We did have allies at that time: Argentina, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, and countries of that sort.

That's nearly five years ago now. My view is that we need to ratify this at all speed. Ideally we would have done well to ratify it before Spain takes us, as it is taking us next week, to the International Court on a jurisdictional matter over Bill C-29 and the seizure of the Estai in March 1995.

We're really into a pickle over ratification at this time, falling down from a position of great pride when, as I say, we led on the Law of the Sea Convention and started the straddling stocks conference. The only way to get out of this is to move fast on Bill C-27 so we have something in place that can supersede Bill C-29. Then we can move also to clearing up views on the situation on the high seas and we will be free of anxieties about ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention.

• 1555

I really feel for Philippe Kirsch, who has done wonderful work, together with Len Legault, Paul Lapointe, and Alan Beesley, in all this work in those years back, when he has to get up next week in The Hague and argue that he and Canada do not accept the jurisdiction of the court in front of him. I think that's a difficult case to argue. We didn't have to argue it over the earlier time that we took unilateral legislative action.

By the way, I was in favour of Bill C-29 when it came in. I thought it was a matter of importance, and urgent importance, to stop those 40 Spanish vessels at that time. But now we have under the UNFA an alternative arrangement by which you go to the flag state and give them three days' notice to get their ships out of that range, and then you can take the measures that you would take under Bill C-29.

So I think it covers all those matters well, but if we in fact lose the jurisdictional case in The Hague next week and the case then has to go to the merits of Bill C-29, I think we have a real problem on our hands.

If Mr. Tobin were here, I think he would say we should wait until the UNFA is proved effective as a way of producing measures of management, and even the dispute settlement side is proved to be effective. I just don't think that's the way to proceed.

To take another analogy, would we have ever had medicare if we had waited until medicare was proved to be effective in all the provinces of Canada? Would there have been police forces? When police forces were established, would vigilantes have been disbanded before police forces were shown to be effective? Sir Robert Peel in Britain, back in 1830 something or other, might have had views on that.

So it seems to me it's not a leap in the dark. You have a very good agreement, and we would be the 19th country to ratify UNFA. I think the European Union ministers are meeting either this month or early next month, and if they act together, they can bring UNFA into force. It needs 30 ratifications, and if we have that there, then we've got ourselves out of the pickle we've found ourselves in.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sanger.

Before we go to questions, I want to ask you one point of clarification from the chair. You mentioned that our Canadian experts on the questions of the law of the sea will be before the international court next week. You made a statement there that perhaps you could elaborate on as to why they would be testifying, as I think you put it—I'm not sure of your exact words—in opposition to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: If I can clarify what I said, Spain has brought this case to the World Court, and this is a preliminary hearing to argue whether or not the World Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case.

When we passed Bill C-29, we did the same as we did in the 1970 Arctic Waters Pollution Protection Act and said that we would not accept the jurisdiction of the World Court. Well, now we're being taken in front of the World Court, and Spain is saying that Canada should accept this jurisdiction. Frankly, I don't think that's a very comfortable position to be in, to appear in The Hague and say to the judges in front of you, sorry, but we're not accepting your jurisdiction.

In the 1970 case, we were not taken by the Americans. It was a matter between us and the Americans over the Arctic Waters Pollution Protection Act. In fact, the Americans implicitly excepted us with the clause, article 234, the Arctic exception, in the Law of the Sea Convention.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sanger.

• 1600

First of all, before we go to questions, do we have Mr. Patrick McGuinness here with us yet? We don't?

We'll now go to questions. For those listening on FM radio, we have representatives from all of the political parties present with us today. We'll first of all go to the official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada, and Mr. Duncan, who is the official spokesperson.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Let Gary do what he wants to do—

The Chairman: We'll go to Mr. Lunn.

Mr. John Duncan: —but I do have questions.

Mr. Gary Lunn: First of all, I'll indulge the chairman here.

I'd like to question you, Mr. Sanger, on this one issue I'm concerned with. I have the enabling legislation that was brought in by the previous Minister of Fisheries, which is Bill—

An hon. member: —C-29.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, it's Bill C-96, on April 17, 1997, in the last Parliament, which was the enabling legislation for this very same agreement that's now coming in under C-27. The clauses with respect to enforcement are completely different. And before you answer, that's why we brought this motion forward.

Mr. Chairman, I also have in front of me a letter. I called the office of the Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, and asked for a copy of this, which is addressed to the committee. He raises the exact same concerns: “It is critical that Bill C-27 not limit the ability of Canada to exercise the C-29 provisions.” Now, the C-29 provisions were the provisions that Premier Tobin brought in when he was the Minister of Fisheries, which allowed him to pursue the Estai, this very case we're talking about, which is now in the court at The Hague. He says:

I recently wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to emphasize this point and request a further review of the bill to ensure it's consistent with Bill C-29.

And he is asking for amendments.

So that was the basis for this motion, with all due respect to the witness. We have some very real concerns in this area.

I'm going to go ahead with my motion, Mr. Chairman, if I can. I think the issue is very straightforward. We believe that Brian Tobin, the Premier of Newfoundland, who was then the Minister of Fisheries and who has a lot of knowledge with respect to all of these bills—Bill C-29, Bill C-27, and Bill C-62, for that matter—could have something to offer. I understand, as Mr. Stoffer has pointed out, that he wished to come before the committee and that it was the wish of the Government of Canada not to have him brought before the committee.

Again, I move that motion. We see quite clearly what's happening in the committee: the Government of Canada has managed to bring in quite a few more members since my motion was brought. But I think it's important to have it on the record, and Premier Tobin's contributions will be very valuable to this issue and this concern. So if the government does not wish to question it, I guess we don't have to take up the witnesses' time. I'm prepared to call the question on my motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, NDP.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'd just like to second those remarks. Everyone in the committee received those letters that Mr. Tobin had.

And just for those people listening on the FM band, I find it most unusual that a government would present a bill and then send in their chief regional enforcement fellow, Mr. Wiseman, and say that we can't allow amendments because it'll weaken our international treaty negotiations on UNFA and the straddling stocks. Then there's a letter from the Premier of Newfoundland and all of a sudden it's “Oh, yes, we'll accept some amendments”.

So really, we're just asking what the hell is going on with this bill. That's why we need to speak to all the players in this game, and Mr. Tobin, whether he likes it or not, is a major player in the role of straddling stock protection, which we all want to have happen, but we want to make sure that we have an agreement and have all the information at hand before we sign on the bottom line.

The Chairman: We're going to go to Mr. Easter, but first I have a point of clarification, which doesn't—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'd like to add one other little point. Again, we're trying to really understand what's going on, because I've spoken at length with Mr. Stoffer. This letter was dated May 27 and was not delivered to the committee. In fact it was the Reform Party of Canada that had to deliver this to all committee members. We're not too sure whether it was kept under wraps. We understand that's what happened. But that only raises our suspicions even more so as to why this letter—a week after it was received—was not delivered to the committee members.

• 1605

We've been told that it would be very embarrassing for the government if in fact he did come and testify. We'd really like to know the truth and what's going on.

The Chairman: First of all, in relation to any letters to the committee, the premier did notify the committee that he was interested in appearing before the committee. But when the premier's office was contacted by the clerk, by a spokesperson for the premier, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Sean Dutton, he verified he's declined and that the letter he has sent to the committee, which Mr. Lunn refers to, will suffice as far as his intervention is concerned. I just want to put that on the record.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, that was the one question I had for either you or the clerk, Mr. Chairman, to see what Premier Tobin's views were on this matter... I really think—and just to put it on the record, Mr. Chairman—that what we have is a couple of... I really think that Mr. Lunn is playing political games here and on a very important international issue—

A voice: And you're not?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, we're not. We're taking this issue very seriously. We want to ensure that we get Bill C-27 through so that we can protect the straddling stocks in this country and we'll not play any political games in terms of doing it.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, as well, since then, there have been, as you know, I think, discussions going on with Premier Tobin to see if there's any way we can allay his concerns through amendments. In fact, Mr. Lunn stood up in the House today in a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans himself and accused the member from Victoria... The question was about who the fisheries minister was, whether it was Premier Tobin or the member from Victoria, because supposedly the minister was looking at amendments from Premier Tobin. And the fact of the matter is that we are, but it will be the committee's decision as to whether we pass those amendments. There are discussions, and if we see fit as a committee—and certainly as a government—to bring forward those amendments, which will match the needs that Mr. Tobin believes should be in this legislation to protect the straddling stocks and some of the authority that he brought forward when he was fisheries minister, then the committee will have to make that determination down the road.

I think it's absolutely inappropriate when those discussions are going on... And I understand that the premier himself, in discussions with the clerk or someone, sees it as not necessary at this time to come forward before the committee. I think it's inappropriate for the committee to subpoena him to come forward at this time.

The Chairman: Any new discussions?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I do not understand the government's rush to get Bill C-27 adopted. The committee members are refusing to hear all the witnesses who have participated in promoting fisheries protection legislation in Canada, including Mr. Tobin, who was an ardent advocate in the last legislature.

It should be pointed out that Bill C-29 was passed in record time with the support of the Official Opposition, the Bloc at the time, and the Reform Party. The issue today is whether to hear Mr. Tobin. We co-operated fully with him at the time, and I still believe that the aim of Bill C-27 is to mitigate or to take the bite out of the former Bill C-29, even though I thought that Bill C-29 was not particularly strong.

There is another thing that I don't understand, and perhaps our expert could reply. Don't try to tell us that you have to get Bill C-27 passed in order to be able to sign the UNFA. Mr. Wiseman told us: “You don't need Parliament's approval to sign the Agreement.”

• 1610

What is the big rush to amend the Canadian legislation when the government has the authority to sign the UNFA.

I repeat that it is necessary to hear Mr. Tobin and that we have to take the time to study the bill properly. Three years ago, we were asked to co-operate to pass the bill in record time. I will not undo what we did. The opposition is going to block you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

We'll go to Mr. Sanger after we dispose of this motion. Mr. Sanger, you understand what's going on here, and that is—

Mr. Clyde Sanger: Indeed I do.

The Chairman: There's a difference between the legislation introduced last year and the legislation introduced this year, and that's why they're up in arms here.

We'll go to Mr. Stoffer next.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Again, to reiterate the comments of the honorable parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he says that we're not playing any games here—well, this is the very first time in a year I've seen the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport at a fisheries meeting. I wish to ask the clerk if his papers are in order, in order for him to sit at this table.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): I wouldn't be here if they weren't.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. I just wanted to put that on the record, that—

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a great interest in the fish stocks in this country.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Exactly, but games go both ways, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary. When you say you're not playing games, for the transport parliamentary secretary to be here, we know very well what's going on.

That was just to put that on the record. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the PC critic for transport is already here, and it's certainly good to see that the transport is of great interest in the fisheries.

The Chairman: This is getting a little bit out of hand. We'll hear from the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the transportation of fish across straddling borders here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Casey: I find it almost impossible to believe that the committee would consider this bill without hearing from Captain Canada, who became Mr. Fish of Canada, and who has made a presentation to the committee. If the intent of the committee is to learn as much as it can about Bill C-27, I don't see how you can really have an intelligent discussion without having him come and make his presentation and share his wise counsel. So I would certainly support the motion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casey, but of course the motion is to subpoena him. He doesn't want to come, and the committee has the power to subpoena the gentleman.

Mr. Bill Casey: But it still doesn't change the additional information he could and should provide to the committee.

The Chairman: Absolutely. Mr. Lunn, next.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel compelled to respond to Mr. Easter's comments. With all due respect to Mr. Easter, we've had a very good working relationship, and I'm sure we will continue to do so after today.

Mr. Stoffer and my colleagues Mr. Hilstrom and Mr. Duncan and the other members of the opposition and I have discussed this at length, and I want to assure Mr. Easter that our intentions are only for the interests of Canadian fishermen.

What has gone on here... There is no one in this room, including all the media, who would disagree that Captain Canada, as my colleague at the other end of table has referred to him, has more knowledge on any of these three bills than any other single person we could bring before this committee.

He expressed an interest. He has written a letter to this committee and has brought up the very same concerns, without being spoken to by anyone, that were brought when this was first presented in the House. Of course, these were laughed off by the government. In fact, the minister is on record as stating there will be no amendments.

We're not playing political games here. This is a very serious motion. It's very important that we have the entire picture. In fact, if they want to get into political games, the fact that there was a letter by Premier Tobin and it was kept under wraps by the Government of Canada—and we were told that in fact this was the case, because it would embarrass the government and they did not want it released—is all the more reason to bring Mr. Tobin. I'm sure he'd be delighted to be subpoenaed, because then he would have an opportunity to come and say what's on his mind.

Having said that, I would call this to question, so we can get on with our witness Mr. Sanger.

The Chairman: Just a second now. We have Mr. Canuel.

Mr. René Canuel (Matapedia—Matane, BQ): No.

The Chairman: Mrs. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): I'm sure Mr. Tobin is very knowledgeable, as former minister of fisheries. However, if we insist... We know from the clerk that he already indicated he does not wish to come. We should not insist, and subpoena him. I do not think it is a good idea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1615

The Chairman: Are there any further comments before we take the vote on this question?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I have a final comment to add to what Ms. Leung said. I don't have a crystal ball, but if Mr. Tobin, who had already expressed his interest, told that he does not want to come... I don't want to put words in Mr. Tobin's mouth. However, it may be a fortunate coincidence that the Atlantic Fisheries Strategy negotiations are going on at the same time. I hope that Mr. Tobin was not asked to stay home and that he was not told that if he made a statement in Ottawa, his AFS would be cut. If we want to be sure that that wasn't the case, then let him come. Vote with us.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I just have one last point, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure there are many of us who certainly sat in the last Parliament who know Mr. Premier Tobin well. I think if the Government of Canada told Premier Tobin he wasn't allowed to come before this committee he'd be writing a letter of request to come before the committee. As I said earlier, he has expressed an interest, in terms of some amendments. If those discussions do not go where he perceives they should go, I'm sure other avenues would be open to him. I think the premier's a busy man and he doesn't have time to be jumping to the whim of the Reform Party, and we're not going to allow that to happen on this side of the House.

The question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We're going to have to put the question. Mr. Lunn, perhaps you could, if your emphasis in this bill differs from the same bill introduced less than a year ago—

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's the point.

The Chairman: No, just a second now. We've heard all the arguments. Why don't you simply pursue that with the witnesses? Or we can call an expert witness from the Department of External Affairs who's in the room with us here today, if you wish, but perhaps give him some notice on the question. Why not pursue it following the vote?

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Yes, I just have a comment, Mr. Chairman.

The problem with the management of the fish stocks over the course of the last 10 or 15 years has been precisely what we're talking about here today: the ignoring, or the failing to accept, that there's a valid point of opinion and expertise out there that should be heard when decisions are made. And we're going through, as a committee here today, ignoring history. That's my comment on that.

The Chairman: Having heard all the statements from everybody concerned, we're now going to put the motion. It's been moved by the Reform Party of Canada and seconded by the New Democratic Party of Canada that this committee do subpoena—the motion was to subpoena, and summons is the same way, but since we have more lawyers on this committee than any other committee on Parliament Hill, we're going to use their word, subpoena—the Premier of Newfoundland to appear before this committee to give testimony regarding the bill under consideration.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I would like to have a recorded vote. There are a lot of ghosts at the other end. I would like to know their names.

[English]

The Chairman: That's the motion. Does anybody object to it?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Would I be in order to make an amendment?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In view of the fact that Quebec also is so important in terms of being out there on the Atlantic, I would also move that the Premier of Quebec be subpoenaed before this committee.

Some hon: members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If you say yes to ours, we'll say yes to yours. How's that?

An hon. member: Sure. That's a deal.

The Chairman: We're dealing with this motion first. Let's do it one motion at a time. If anybody wishes to put a further motion, they can. The suggestion has been made for a recorded vote. Is it the wish of the committee to have a recorded vote?

• 1620

Some hon. members: Yes.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

The Chairman: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment.

Mr. Sanger and Mr. McGuinness, with all due respect, we have the highest respect for everything you've done and we've read your work. That's why we asked you to come before this committee. But I believe—and this is not something that was planned—we are very frustrated with what the government has just done, silencing and using these kinds of tactics. So we are going to be leaving the meeting. It has nothing to do with you.

Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll now go to questions, first of all to Mr. Sanger.

Mr. Easter.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: As you can see, all of the Opposition MPs are leaving the table. In accordance with our regulations, you are no longer authorized to hear witnesses today. Mr. Lunn explained to the witnesses that they are not the object of our action. So, please proceed accordingly. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: I believe we had a motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: The motion that was moved by this committee on the first sitting day is that it does not require a person from the opposition party to be here.

Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Sanger, one of the concerns expressed by several members of the committee is a question of whether there are enough teeth in Bill C-27 to do the job. It relates basically to a couple of sections in the bill in which you have to notify the other country in terms of the activities you're proceeding with. So in terms of your experience in both the law of the sea and the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, do you see that Bill C-27 has the teeth in it to do the job we want to do in terms of protecting the straddling stocks and ensuring that other countries are going to abide by those rules as well? Are the teeth there?

Mr. Clyde Sanger: Mr. Easter, I think you're in particular referring to proposed section 7 or the amendment to section 7 where the phrase has been put into it that a protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a fishing vessel of a participating state—and this is the phrase—“found in the area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii) has engaged in unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters may, with the consent of the participating state”... I think that's what, on the other side of this table, they felt is weakening Bill C-29. In Bill C-29 the protection officer may board without asking anybody else, assuming that he's got the measures by order in council.

I think that clause has to be in there in order to meet the UN Fisheries Agreement. The measures under it are that you give the participating state up to three days to call off the vessels or you can act on your own. It's not unilateral because it's by default of the participating state doing the action itself. I think that's an absolutely essential part of the bill.

• 1625

The Chairman: Before you go on, Mr. Easter, we're still here on FM radio, and we need the testimony from both witnesses as part of this procedure. We may even have to call them back before we dispose of the bill. So I wonder if we could hear from Mr. McGuinness before we continue.

Again, the committee moved to invite both Mr. Sanger and Mr. McGuinness and to hear their opinions concerning this bill. Mr. McGuinness is vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada.

Mr. McGuinness, I wonder if you'd like to have a few words on the record.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness (Vice-President, Fisheries Council of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My comments will take about ten minutes, if that's okay with you and your committee.

We thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure for the Fisheries Council of Canada to appear before the committee to discuss Bill C-27, an act that will allow Canada to ratify the United Nations Fisheries Agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, normally called UNFA.

First of all, the Fisheries Council of Canada is a trade association representing provincial fisheries associations of Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. As well, the Fisheries Council of Canada represents two major fleet sectors, the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, which basically is the deep sea groundfish fleet, and the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers, which is the deep sea northern shrimp fleet.

In summary, members of the Fisheries Council of Canada harvest and process roughly 100% of Canada's share of the straddling stocks managed by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, otherwise known as NAFO.

It is both a pleasure and an embarrassment to be here today to discuss the ratification of UNFA. It's a pleasure because UNFA is truly one of Canada's major, major diplomatic achievements. UNFA was Canada's idea. Federal ministers and officials from the departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Environment; provincial ministers and officials from the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; and industry officials representing diverse visions of Canada's fisheries policies—all worked together in a concerted effort, in meetings and workshops in capitals throughout the world, culminating in marathon sessions at the United Nations in New York.

We in industry take great pride in our role in the mission. We formed an organization called SONAR, Save our Northwest Atlantic Resources. We organized workshops in Belgium and in London, England, with the World Wide Fund for Nature to pressure European politicians to get on board, and organized a workshop in Washington with the United States International Law Society at a time when the United States was trying to decide whether its interests lay with coastal states, such as Canada, or long-distance fishing states.

It's an embarrassment to be here because there already have been 18 countries—18 countries—that have ratified UNFA, including the United States and other major fishing nations such as Russia, Norway, and Iceland. The agreement was completed in August 1995, and Canada signed the agreement in December 1995, when it was open for signature. We were first in line to sign. It is unfortunate that ratification will take three years.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to ratify UNFA immediately so that the Canadian team of federal, provincial, industry, and environmental representatives can start a legitimate international campaign to get the required 30 ratifications so that UNFA quickly becomes part of international law.

Why is UNFA so important? Because, ladies and gentlemen, without it, Canada's straddling stocks have no real long-term protection. The United Nations' Law of the Sea gives us nothing.

With respect to straddling stocks, the Law of the Sea Convention simply says that when difficulties occur, nations should seek to agree upon measures necessary for the conservation of these stocks. No criteria are established and no timeframes are identified. As we know in the fishing industry, during the 1980s dialogues between Canada and the European Community brought us nothing.

The Law of the Sea is like reading a book with the last chapter missing. UNFA is that last chapter. That is why the Fisheries Council of Canada has been a strong voice against the ratification of the Law of the Sea. We did not want Canada to ratify the Law of the Sea and possibly jeopardize our ability to develop details in the Law of the Sea that would provide specific protection for straddling stocks.

• 1630

Mr. Clyde Sanger, who made the presentation before me, surely explained why it is important to wider interests of Canada to ratify the Law of the Sea. Our industry has waited three years for ratification of UNFA. Mr. Sanger and others have waited sixteen years for Canada's ratification of the Law of the Sea.

With the coming into force of UNFA, the Fisheries Council of Canada will withdraw its objection to the ratification of the Law of the Sea.

Ladies and gentlemen, if the Law of the Sea gives us nothing, what then are the important measures in UNFA? In our view, the full ratification of UNFA has become a necessary condition to fix NAFO. NAFO has had a moratorium on fishing most of the straddling stock. During this period of limited fishing activity, Canada's strategy has been to fix NAFO's conservation and management procedures so that the uncontrolled fishing of the 1980s does not reappear when the stocks occur. Progress has been slow.

With UNFA in place, NAFO would have to ensure its conservation and management measures are, one, compatible with the measures Canada sets for these straddling stocks—in other words, the no-less-onerous rule—and two, NAFO conservation regimes would not be able to undermine the effectiveness of the measures Canada sets for these stocks—in other words, the no-adverse-effects rule. If NAFO does not adhere to the above requirements, Canada, under UNFA, can quickly go to the UNFA dispute settlement mechanism.

With respect to enforcements on the high seas, under UNFA, where Canada has evidence a vessel has committed a serious violation of NAFO conservation and management measures, and Canada believes, after three days' notice, the flag state has not complied with UNFA's flag state compliance enforcement obligations, Canada can detain the fishing vessel and bring it into a Canadian port.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I know there has been discussion in the committee regarding Bill C-29. I want to remind the committee that at present, Bill C-29 only authorizes action by Canada on the high seas against fishing vessels flying flags of convenience. To use Bill C-29 to detain a Spanish vessel from fishing on the high seas, for example, an order in council would be required to amend Bill C-29.

I suggest that in the current milieu, it would probably require the approval of full cabinet. On the other hand, with UNFA in place, UNFA would allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to order such action to be taken against the Spanish vessel under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, under the conditions prescribed in article 21 of UNFA.

We're really here to discuss Bill C-27, however, and we have one major comment with respect to Bill C-27. We fully support the intent of Bill C-27 to ratify UNFA. However, Bill C-27, in our view, has a serious flaw.

Bill C-27 proposes section 7 be amended to read:

has engaged in unauthorized fishing in Canadian waters may, with the consent of the participating state, take any enforcement action that is consistent with this Act.

First of all, Canada needs no consent of the participating state regarding enforcement action against unauthorized fishing in Canadian waters. We do not need that consent. These waters are sovereign to Canada, and Canada can take enforcement action, without reference to a third party, against foreign or Canadian vessels.

• 1635

Secondly—and this is important—with UNFA, Canada will not need the consent of the participating state to take action on the high seas. There is a notification requirement and a three-day waiting period. If the participating state does not take action consistent with article 19 of UNFA, Canada can unilaterally detain the vessel on the high seas and bring it to a Canadian port. The phrase “with the consent of the participating party” must be deleted from Bill C-27.

As one final comment, when UNFA is fully ratified, Canada should aggressively demonstrate the effectiveness of UNFA. That means we need a cadre of federal officials who are well versed in UNFA, and we have to readily use UNFA's dispute settlement mechanism when appropriate.

There are lessons to be learned from the international trade world. The GATT, for example, was signed in 1945. Between 1945 and 1994, there were only 50 cases that went to the GATT dispute settlement. One, by the way, was a Canadian fish issue. Unfortunately, evoking the GATT dispute settlement mechanism became not only a trade issue, but it evolved into a major political decision by conflicting parties.

With the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1994, to basically implement the GATT rules, there have been 50 cases that have evoked the WTO dispute settlement—50 cases in three years in terms of dispute settlement on trade policy issues, whereas previous to that, between 1945 and 1994, there were only 50 cases. What has transpired in the trade policy world is that they recognize that third-party dispute settlement is now recognized as a quick, efficient way to solve problems.

Therefore, in conclusion, Canada needs to ratify UNFA; we need a cadre of federal officials who know UNFA well; we need to know our UNFA rights; and we have to move quickly when we see our UNFA rights ignored and be prepared to readily use UNFA's dispute settlement mechanism.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada.

We also have with us today, who gave a presentation earlier, Mr. Clyde Sanger, who is the author of the book Ordering the oceans: the making of the law of the sea.

We'll now go to questions, and I'd like to have the permission of the committee members to allow Dr. Nixon to ask a couple of questions, either before or after committee members. Is that an agreement?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No problem.

The Chairman: Alan, did you want to ask a couple of questions now for clarification purposes?

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): Surely.

I suspect that part of the reason for the concern on the committee today over dealing with section 7 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is the difference between the old Bill C-96 and the current Bill C-27.

It's my understanding that clause 4 of the old Bill C-96 in fact would have replaced section 7, whereas clause 4 of Bill C-27 in fact adds a new section 7.01 after section 7 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

I might remind the committee that section 7 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act says:

A protection officer may

(a) for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, board and inspect any fishing vessel found within Canadian fisheries waters or the NAFO Regulatory Area; and

(b) with a warrant issued under section 7.1, search any fishing vessel found within Canadian waters or the NAFO Regulatory Area and its cargo.

If I might move back to the proposed section 7.01—I know this is a little complicated—it actually refers to a vessel found in an area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii), which, if I understand correctly, would be equivalent to the NAFO regulatory area outside Canadian waters.

• 1640

I wonder if the witnesses could shed any light on how these parts relate to one another and what powers fisheries protection officers would in fact have under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as amended by Bill C-27.

The Chairman: Either one of the witnesses may wish to comment on anything that was just brought up. Patrick McGuinness first.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: Just to repeat, our position, in reading that section, is that we are requesting that the phrase “with the consent of the participating state” be deleted from this clause. Basically, we find that this would put restrictions on Canada with respect to the provisions that are provided to it by UNFA.

UNFA does not require consent. UNFA requires two things. When a Canadian fisheries officer boards a vessel in the NAFO area and UNFA is in place ten years from now, UNFA says that once that officer finds a major violation—there's a whole list of UNFA violations that could include a vessel that over the course of its history of fishing in the area has demonstrated that it has had cumulative bad procedures—the officer can stay on board the vessel, there has to be a notification to the flag state, and we have to wait three days. Within those three days, the flag state has to adhere to article 19 of UNFA, which means that it has to give a full commitment to Canada with respect to an investigation, etc.

Say that after three days Canada believes that the communications have not been received or that the flag state has not fully stated its intent. Canada can then advise its protection officer on that vessel to detain that vessel and bring it into port.

That is not consent. UNFA is saying that we don't need consent. This proposed section 7.01, in our view, is inconsistent with UNFA in the sense that it limits Canada's activity after we spent ten years negotiating in UNFA to avoid that type of language. Let me just say that we fully support the intent of Bill C-27, but that phrase must be eliminated.

The Chairman: Mr. Sanger, would you like to comment on anything that has been said so far?

Mr. Clyde Sanger: Yes, I would. I retract what I said about proposed section 7.01, having heard Patrick McGuinness and read the clause, which I'm afraid I only got about two hours ago because of communication difficulties.

Clearly, if we're talking about the consent of a participating state inside Canadian waters, we are retreating. If you go back to Bill C-29, it laid out very clearly what the NAFO regulatory area was. It's two degrees of longitude, I think, from 42 degrees to 44 degrees. It's clear where that is. If this is now hidden under proposed subparagraph 6(2)(e)(ii), I think it needs clarification.

May I just make one other point? When Mr. McGuinness said that the Law of the Sea Convention had no use whatsoever, I think he was referring simply to the straddling stocks and highly migratory fish. We are the seventh biggest beneficiary of the economic zone. We got the pollution act through, and there are a whole lot of things that are there. I think he was simply talking about that aspect, which I agree is now being completed with NAFO.

The Chairman: Mr. McGuinness, is Mr. Sanger correct in his clarification of your point?

• 1645

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: Absolutely 100% in the sense that the Law of the Sea gave us a 200-mile zone so that we could even have a debate with respect to what should be done with the straddling stocks. Our only position was that the Law of the Sea was a great book that had the last chapter missing. The last chapter that was missing was: how do we, as an international community, deal with straddling fish stocks?

In our view, UNFA has closed the book. We're prepared to join with Mr. Sanger and his colleagues and say that once that's in place, let's have Canada ratify the Law of the Sea.

The Chairman: Shall we now go back to Mr. Easter?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I have a question in this particular area, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I may not be 100% right on this, Mr. Sanger or Mr. McGuinness, but I thought we were told the other day—this same question came up with the idea of amending out with the consent of the participating state—that this had to be in there because it was already established in the agreement itself.

My question that I was going to ask was: what are the implications with basically going with what you say, Patrick, on amending that out. What are the implications on the broad agreement that has been reached that we're trying to enact in legislation and ratify? What are the implications on the agreement we've established with these countries by taking that out?

Second to that, you're talking about proposed section 7.01. In proposed subsection 16.2(2), it also says:

(2) A protection officer may, with the consent of the participating state, exercise the powers as provided for in section 16.1.

Are you okay with that particular clause in there, or are you saying the same thing relative to it?

The Chairman: Mr. Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: To answer the first question, in terms of eliminating that clause from Bill C-27 and what the implications are on the agreement, first, the issue is, to a certain extent, in my view, what you do with respect to Bill C-27 if Canada unilaterally limits its powers and doesn't give itself the full provisions of UNFA. We're obviously against that. But the bottom line is that all this has given you in power is to ratify UNFA. Then if UNFA becomes law with respect to 30 signatures and so forth, you are then governed by UNFA. So regardless of what you're doing, you can do whatever you think is right, but the other party also has the ability to say you're wrong and it then goes to dispute settlement. So at that point in time there's a third party to determine whether your interpretation of your rights in UNFA are verified by a third party.

Eliminating that clause does not jeopardize, in our view, Canada's ability to ratify UNFA and will not raise any criticism from other countries who have ratified UNFA or plan to ratify UNFA, because what this clause is doing is putting further restrictions on the operations of Canada outside Canada's 200-mile zone that UNFA never envisaged.

Now with respect to proposed section 16.2, I know I have highlighted it and—

The Chairman: You're wondering why.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: —I'm wondering why.

The Chairman: You're like us, Mr. McGuinness, sometimes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I wonder if Mr. Sanger maybe—

The Chairman: You wanted Mr. Sanger to make a comment?

Mr. Sanger, did you wish to make a comment?

Mr. Clyde Sanger: It's a little hard to make a comment when I haven't got the Fisheries Act in front of me. But I had originally read proposed section 7.01 as covering that area that Bill C-29 had covered. There are two degrees of longitude. I think we need to clarify that somewhere.

• 1650

It seems to me that proposed section 16.2 is... This is secret, it says. That's exciting.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Not any more. That's the original.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: I certainly don't think we should retreat from what UNFA is requiring of us. I read proposed section 16.2—and this is a very short reading—as in fact endorsing the procedures behind UNFA.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. McGuinness?

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: I can try to respond to proposed subsection 16.2(2). Basically to a certain extent, having put in place proposed section 7.01, which has limited, if you will, Canada's ability to utilize UNFA, proposed subsection 16.2(2) simply says that...

As I say, UNFA has two qualifications. One, you have to notify, and two, you have to wait three days. Then, having waited three days, you, Canada, have to make a determination as to whether you feel the flag state has lived up to its enforcement obligations under article 19 or it hasn't. If it hasn't, then you have the right to bring in the boat.

All proposed subsection 16.2(2) says is if in fact, after those three days, the country has said nothing—hasn't communicated, hasn't responded to you—you, Canada, can assume that it's given you consent, which is okay.

So that's why the main problem is proposed section 7.01, because there you're implying that you need consent. We say you don't need the consent, and our interpretation of UNFA is you don't need the consent.

In proposed subsection 16.2(2), they've put it in there at the back, saying if you've gone through the notification requirement and the waiting requirement and they haven't replied to you, you can assume you have consent. And in fact UNFA says if they haven't replied, then they actually haven't fulfilled their obligations under article 19, and therefore you are free, as Canada, to deal with that issue as... Well, not free; you are conditioned in that you can bring the vessel into port.

The Chairman: Mr. Charles Hubbard, New Brunswick.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This three-day thing rather bothers me, because I'm not sure who the aggressors might be in terms of moving into our zones. It could be the Americans down off the banks or it could be the Europeans or it could be someone from Africa. With the range of these vessels, where could they be at the end of three days?

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: Well, the bottom line is that the Canadian enforcement officer would still be on the vessel. But you're quite right, the three days... This was the difficult part of the negotiations throughout the three or four years. Should it be three days or one month or whatever? Three days, at the end of the discussions and all that sort of stuff, was about as tight as moral suasion or whatever could eke out of the international community.

And of course, when you're a coastal state and you're dealing with long-distance fishing nations... There's a wider range of very substantial fishing nations, including the United States, which, as I indicated earlier, is both a long-distance fishing nation and also a coastal state. So you had to negotiate with the United States, Japan, Europe, and to a certain extent Russia as the major players in terms of defending, if you will, the other side, the long-distance fishing nations.

I would submit to you, Mr. Hubbard, that three days is not a bad accomplishment, recognizing, as you quite well point out, that with the capabilities of fishing vessels today, in three days you can move a fairly long distance.

• 1655

Mr. Charles Hubbard: But to be clear, Mr. McGuinness, in terms of the three-day provision, you don't have any serious reservations on that aspect of the three days for notification before...?

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: No, because really in the 1990s, in terms of fisheries, it's as if a light has turned on, not only in Canada but in fishing nations around the world. We want to be environmentally responsible.

So I would think that with the moral suasion of UNFA, with the provisions of UNFA, and so on, upon formal communications by Canada that there's a serious infraction here, in this day and age, with a vessel flying under any responsible flag, other than flags of convenience, it would be difficult to envisage a fishing vessel trying to flee the circumstances. That may have happened in the 1970s and 1980s, but in the 1990s and into the 2000s, with the pressure that world fisheries have come under, with the spotlight and the pressure from environmental groups, that type of hit-and-run aspect by a fishing vessel from a flag state is hard... There's always a concern, but I don't think it's a major concern.

The Chairman: Mr. Sanger.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: I'm not quite sure I understand your concern. Is it that they would spend two more days fishing and then hightail it out, or is it that they would leave anyway? There would be a Fisheries officer on board, the vessel would be known, and the three days, it seems to me, are crucial to go to a higher authority than the captain of the vessel.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Sanger, what I'm trying to determine... There are people who believe the vessel should be immediately boarded, and if we have three days and it is acceptable, then it should be boarded and taken.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: It's boarded and being monitored.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Monitored, yes, but it should be taken, seized—in other words, what we did with the Estai.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: But do you think they're going to go on fishing with our guy on board watching them and then hightail it out into the high seas somewhere?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It was attempted, I believe, the last time with the Estai. There was an attempt to go home. And I believe there were other ships after the Estai that were in that area and did go home.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: Well, okay, but you can do that just once or twice. You get a really bad name, don't you?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You get a bad name.

The Chairman: Do we have any further questioners concerning this? Okay.

We want to thank the witnesses. We may have to call on these same witnesses again for further clarification. At the request of the committee, we've heard from Mr. Patrick McGuinness, who is the vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada; and also a well-known journalist and author concerning the law of the sea, Mr. Clyde Sanger. We want to thank both gentlemen for appearing before the committee today. As I pointed out, we may have to be in touch again shortly.

Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

Mr. Clyde Sanger: Thank you.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.