FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 11, 1999

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): I call our meeting to order. We are continuing with the consideration of Bill C-27, which we were working on on Tuesday. We will now proceed with the clause-by-clause.

For the information of committee members, Yvan, we got your amendments. It's my interpretation that the way to proceed is that we would continue with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. One of your amendments is in sequence with that, I believe your amendment 12. After we've completed that, we would go back and ask for permission from the committee to look at your other amendments. Is that fair and clear?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I'd like to ask a question about all this. The clerk will be able to help you out, Mr. Chairman. We've already passed various clauses. If the Bloc Québécois realizes that certain definitions are missing or that there are things left out in any other clauses, will it be able to bring forward amendments at report stage in the House, since they won't have been debated here?

[English]

The Chairman: It's my interpretation that you can. Maybe the clerk would advise me better.

It's my idea on this, Yvan, that after we've completed down through clause 13, we would then ask the committee this morning if they would like to consider such-and-such in terms of a clause that we studied previously. If we had unanimous consent, we could look at it here with the committee. If we didn't have unanimous consent, then you could present it to the House at report stage.

Daniel, are you satisfied with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: They wouldn't have to be discussed here.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Just to be absolutely clear so there's no misinterpretation, that's as long as it isn't voted down here. If it's voted down here, you can't reintroduce it at report stage, just so we're clear.

The Chairman: First of all, we would not be voting on the amendment as presented. Rather we would be voting on whether or not we would review the amendment by going back to that clause of the bill.

• 0915

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Just to clarify, if we were to bring forward a new amendment, could we do so at report stage if the amendment dealt with a clause that had been adopted here, in committee?

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think there's any problem with that. As a member of the House, you can bring forward your amendments as you see fit during the report stage, and it will be debated again—hopefully not at great length, but if there are concerns between now and report stage, you certainly have that opportunity to do so.

You've been here longer than I've been, Bill, but anyway....

Are we clear, Yvan and Daniel? If your amendment is accepted here this morning and it's voted down, it's my interpretation that you can't bring back the identical amendment at report stage.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: But if it's a new amendment, it can be done.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify another matter.

I'm not sure whether or not I misunderstood the interpreter, who is doing a very good job, but it seems to me that you were addressing me and Mr. Turp as though we were members of the Official Opposition. Yes, we do belong to the opposition, but that leads me to raise the following question: What's happening with the Official Opposition? Have the MPs said that they won't come and work on Bill C-27? Have you hurt Mr. Lunn's feelings? What happened?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'd add that the chairman pointed it out at the last meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm not sure that I should.... I had some difficulty with the press recently, where Mr. Lunn seemed to indicate he was the vice-chairman of this committee. I'm not sure if the official opposition made an internal change. We also have a letter before us wanting to remove the real vice-chairman. We'll be looking at that later, probably next week. It's from a group in British Columbia.

In any case, we'll have to proceed as we see fit. Maybe Mr. Lunn is busy with the press again; I'm not sure.

Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Are our discussions this morning being broadcast on the AM channel on the Hill, Mr. Clerk?

[English]

The Chairman: I would assume all committees are on those.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: What message would you like to send out, Yvan?

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'd just like to say that I expected to see the Reform opposition. We can't say that they're not there, but I can say that I expected to see them.

Secondly, some problems were reported in the press, Mr. Chairman, and certain reporters asked me to comment. It's not my job to defend the Liberal Party, but it was the orientation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries that was in question on this occasion. I have to say that I'm appalled, because the person who was complaining is always absent when it's time to settle problems.

What's more, in order to follow up on all the reports that the Standing Committee made, the committee needed to travel abroad to study other management systems. I want to remind the people listening to us that the Reformers prevented the committee from making these trips on two or three occasions. I'm appalled that they grumble and are not even there to defend themselves. Secondly, they're the ones who are the spoilsports.

In making these remarks, my purpose is not to stand up for the chair but to defend the work of the committee to which I belong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. It's my intention that if we finish this bill today, on Tuesday we'll have a meeting of the steering committee to discuss some of these issues.

With that, maybe we could proceed with—

Mr. Wayne Easter: I have one last point, if I may, Mr. Chairman, on this discussion. I just want to agree with the Bloc Québécois that it is disappointing that no representatives are here from Reform. The chairman of the committee, I, and a number of us were criticized extensively with these very people.

• 0920

We are now in fact, with Bill C-27, doing some of the things that were requested by way of the original reports. This bill deals constructively with implementing the United Nations Fisheries Agreement in such a way as for us a country to better deal with foreign fishing.

So we're now down to taking the action that the previous committee reports recommended. I know that's not as much fun. It's not as much fun as going out there in the media and kicking the daylights of somebody, but it is constructive work and it has to be done. I'm disappointed too that there's no one here, but that's the way the system works.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, may I add something? Once again, here's proof that the Bloc Québécois, when necessary, contributes in a constructive manner to the work of the House and its committees. That's what Mr. Bernier and myself are attempting to do again today. To ensure that this implementing act is the best implementing statute that a country can adopt to ensure that its international obligations are respected.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Turp. We've always appreciated Yvan's work here. He's been very consistent, very dedicated, and very much concerned about the fishery, especially in the Atlantic, and even in the Pacific.

Shall we proceed then? Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think clause 5 is the next one for us to deal with, Mr. Chair. I think we finished clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Easter: So if we're to proceed in that fashion and move along step by step, I do have an amendment on clause 11.

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, are you moving clauses 5, 6, 7, and 9?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I am, yes. I guess we should deal with them one by one.

The Chairman: Yes, I would rather proceed clause by clause.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay.

(On clause 5)

The Chairman: Peter, you moved clause 5.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Actually, Mr. Chairman, in consultation with the parliamentary secretary, I just have one question that I asked last time we were here. For re-clarification for the member from Burin—St. George's, for the parliamentary secretary, and for me, if possible I'd like to ask the witness a question.

The Chairman: We'll entertain that now.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Wiseman, I asked last time whether this bill will pertain to stateless ships or to ships that fly flags of convenience. Could you reiterate the answer to that, please?

Mr. Earl Wiseman (Director General, International Affairs Directorate, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada): The bill does pertain to stateless ships. As for ships flying flags of convenience, it depends on how you want to define “flag of convenience”. If the flag of convenience state happens to be a party to the UN convention, then it will apply to that vessel.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And if it's not?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: If it's not, then it does not apply to them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I want to clear this up, Mr. Chairman, because there is some confusion. It would apply to other treaties as well.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct, or bilateral agreements.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Maybe you could go through the three points that apply to those vessels under UNFA, under other treaties, and under stateless vessels.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I think the parliamentary secretary covered the three categories. Those states that become party to the UN convention are covered. Those states that may not have officially become party to the UN convention but have indicated bilaterally to Canada that they're prepared to apply certain aspects of the UN convention would be covered. Those states that want to enter into any type of bilateral arrangement with Canada that would provide for any enforcement authorization by Canadians over their vessels on the high seas would be covered by the convention. Those states that participate in other international arrangements whereby they will allow certain activities to take place on the high seas against them, whether they're a party to the UN convention or not, would be covered. And stateless vessels are covered.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You said “certain aspects” of the treaty.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It could be all of it. It could be part of it.

I'm also thinking of before the treaty comes into effect, because it will take a certain number of ratifications. If Canada, for example, had already ratified, we could today enter into provisional implementation with other states that have already ratified. So internationally it is not fully in effect, but Canada and whatever other state we wanted to have this arrangement with could provisionally implement all or part of the UN agreement.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

• 0925

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would like to get a very clear understanding of the issue of stateless vessels. Which provision of Bill C-27 would apply to them?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard (Senior Advisor, Legal Issues and Canada- France, International Affairs Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Section 5.4.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Has section 5.4 been amended? Is there a proposed amendment to 5.4?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: There is a draft amendment, quite simply to ensure that the language that was modified in the regulatory provision is reflected in the prohibition provision. It all works together. There is the definition of "stateless vessel", or rather the term used in the bill, "fishing vessel without nationality".

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, "bateau de pêche sans nationalité", in the French version.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes, that's right. That's the "stateless vessel". It operates with the prohibition provided for in 5.5.

Mr. Daniel Turp: For greater certainty, what is the basis in international law for the application of this section 5.5? Is it the Convention itself? Is it the UNFA Fisheries Agreement?

Mr. Howard Strauss (Director, Environmental and Economic Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): It's article 21, paragraph 17.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Customary international law.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And so there's no difference, in your opinion, between a stateless vessel and a vessel without nationality?

An hon. member: He's shaking his head.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Very well, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: You're satisfied with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, thank you.

[English]

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Should we come back to our proposed amendment later or is now the time to look at it? Is it the one that's included?

[English]

The Chairman: Your amendment, I believe, is on clause 12. You have no amendment on clause 6, do you, Mr. Turp?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's an amendment to clause 6 of the act, to subclause (2) of the bill, which amends paragraph 6(e).

[English]

The Chairman: Just a moment, then, while we find that. I thought your first one was on clause 12.

• 0930

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm thinking of clause 3, for which we will propose an amendment later on.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, so we will return to that later.

Do you want to speak on clause 6, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. Again, this is for clarification. Subparagraph 6(e)(ii) reads:

designating any area of the sea regulated by the regional fisheries management organization or arrangement...

Again, I suspect that means what NAFO has identified as—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Peter. Are we on the same one? Are you on page 6? I know these numbers are confusing, and I'm having some trouble.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm on page 4 actually. You said clause 6?

The Chairman: We're on clause 6, which is on page 6.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's about time to pack it up, eh?

The Chairman: I'm sorry. I know it's confusing, the way this thing has all those numbers.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Page 6, okay.

A voice: I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that clause 3 amends section 6 of the act. That's where the confusion is coming in.

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Are we now all on the same page and the same line?

A voice: There are too many sixes.

The Chairman: I think we'll have to get some directions here. There's a technicality here, Peter. I don't want to go back and try to refer to a previous clause. Apparently I can't do that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chairman: According to what I'm being told here, we can't do that, or I can't permit that. So are we ready for the vote on clause 6?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could I ask Nadia a question? Nadia, is the term “motifs raisonnables” understood here to have the same meaning as “raisons sérieuses”? Is it the case that you preferred to use the words “motifs raisonnables” in the French version, although the French version of the Convention uses “raisons sérieuses”?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I believe that these are equivalent terms, but the expression “motifs raisonnables” has been tested by the Supreme Court on many occasions, for example in the Baron affair. I think that, on reading this decision, one can reach the conclusion that it's an equivalent standard. It's dangerous to include...

Mr. Daniel Turp: I see, but is section 9 a case where you chose "motifs raisonnables" rather than "raisons sérieuses"?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay. We'll come back to that. You've done your homework since the last time. You are citing decisions. That's very interesting. I'll stop there.

[English]

The Chairman: Is everyone satisfied?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No. I have just a quick question, sir.

On that as well, it says, “A protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds...”. One of the amendments proposed by the parliamentary secretary says, “If a protection officer...”. I'm just wondering why he put “If a protection officer...” in some clauses and not in this one.

The Chairman: Is that a question on context?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not a lawyer here. I'm just wondering why.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I think it's an issue of drafting styles, which have changed since the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act was originally drafted. They used to use “if” and now they would use “where”, essentially. Or is it the reverse? Yes, the reverse.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think we've ensured, Peter, that it's pretty consistent throughout. That's why we made the amendments. But if you come up with an area, give it to us and we'll have a look at it for report stage.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

• 0935

The Chairman: Are you satisfied then?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir.

(Clause 6 agreed to on division)

(On clause 7)

The Chairman: Is there discussion?

Mr. Wayne Easter: We'll deal with it at report stage.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, you have proposed section 7.01 there.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay.

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: We already dealt with clause 8 on Tuesday, so we'll go on to clause 9, which deals with section 17 of the act. Is there discussion?

(On clause 9)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: In clause 9, in proposed subsection 17(2) it says, “...includes a vessel that belongs to or is in the service of...”. I assume then that if the Department of Fisheries wanted to, for example, contract a company to do its work, that would be acceptable under this act. Is that correct?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I believe so.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So theoretically you could have a company, say FPI, out there fishing, and you could have a contractor from FPI surveying its own work, right? We'd technically be having them watch themselves in the service of the country. Is that right?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The government has not delegated enforcement powers to any private sector companies in the fisheries sector.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, not yet, but it just says “...or is in the service of...”. Technically they could contract that work out in the future, couldn't they?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It's hypothetical.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Well, the answer is yes, then, they could.

The reason I asked that question, Wayne—and I've been reading it all over planes back and forth—is that our objective as a country is to protect our fisheries resources, thus protecting jobs on the coasts of Canada. If we have a company that we suspect is renegade in its style of fisheries and is pretty cloak-and-dagger in its reporting and everything else, I would like to see us have a government agency patrolling the waters to ensure that everything is up to speed, which is part of what this whole act is about.

If this act allows the government, through cost-cutting measures down the road, to contract that type of work out, my fear is that the company itself could have a subsidiary company offer itself or its services and say, “We'll do the patrol work. We'll do the surveillance.” Thus they could actually in effect be keeping an eye on themselves. I know that's stretching it, but—

Mr. Wayne Easter: Peter, that's quite hypothetical. I don't think you would see the government doing that. I'm sure the purpose of this particular clause is to give you the option, in unforeseen circumstances, of authorizing some other vessel, maybe from some other country that you know. You want to give yourself that option to authorize in case of need.

You're talking about the government devolving its responsibilities here, and I don't think you'll see that happen, at least not under this government.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's good to say that, but the reason I ask that is the coast guard now is having two ships built by the Irvings in Nova Scotia, and the fear is that some of that work for surveilling and looking after the rigs on Sable may fall upon the Irvings in a contract to do that work. So in essence you're going to have the Irvings not only build the ships but provide either environmental watches or whatever it is they'll do out there.

• 0940

With all the cost cuts to the coast guard, it just leads to an example that eventually you could have a company actually looking after its own affairs without proper regulations or what I would think would be proper enforcement by the government.

The Chairman: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): I have a question to follow up on the parliamentary secretary's comments.

It says “...in the service of...”. I'm wondering what federal government departments would have vessels in service and what they might be doing. Getting away from the line Peter has taken, it seems to me a vessel that would be in service for a department of government might be utilized in these situations. That's what I interpret. I'm just wondering if perhaps the officials can inform us of some vessels in service for government that might be utilized here. I think that would clear up the question.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Perhaps it would be a good idea if we could clarify the purpose of this provision. First of all, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act already contains the provision that a patrol vessel can be one of government or in service of government. It's already in there. The purpose of this amendment—-

Mr. Bill Matthews: Can I interrupt you there?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Sure.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What would be “in service of government”? That's what I'm trying to get my mind around. It is not a government patrol vessel; it's a vessel in service of government. What would the vessel be doing in service of government? That's the question.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Conducting protection enforcement functions.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Above and beyond your own patrol vessels? That's what I'm trying to clarify. What would they be? Who would own them? What would they be doing? I'm just trying to clarify this.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: One of the most important things is that there is a protection officer on board the vessel who is an employee of the department. He may be using an RCMP platform or a DND platform, or we may charter a platform, but in most cases, when it comes to boarding and inspection activities, it's always done by a Fisheries officer. The platform he's on in certain instances may not be relevant.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So are you telling me that right now we have vessels in service outside of government-owned?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: No.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, I'm telling you we are not.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: What I'm telling you hypothetically is—

Mr. Bill Matthews: You may want to.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: —in terms of carrying an inspector. But I think we are dealing with something that is hypothetical. If a vessel is in the service of the Crown, it's under the control of the Crown.

Mr. Bill Matthews: That's right. It would be directed by us, yes.

The Chairman: Are we satisfied then?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes.

(Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to on division)

(On clause 11)

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 11, and you have it before you.

The Chairman: Would you care to explain that?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, I'll move it.

I move that Bill C-27 in clause 11 be amended by replacing in the English version lines 16 to 19 on page 8 with the following:

Appearance of vessel

(2) A fishing vessel on which a summons is served must appear by counsel or agent.

Trial if vessel does not appear

(3) If a fishing vessel...

• 0945

It's really clearing up the English text to match the French, which does what was intended by the act.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: She says that she doesn't have the amendment in French. Can you tell me whether it really affects only the English version?

[English]

The Chairman: Yvan, just to explain now, some of these English-language people get things not the way it is in French, so really I think what Mr. Easter is saying is in order to make the English and French versions the same, he's had to make that amendment.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'll explain the reasons and what it really means in both French and English. The purpose of clause 11 of the bill is to create what's called an in rem procedure, which is legalese. Nadia will probably have to explain this later, but it's where procedures are taken against vessels instead of persons, such as the captain of a vessel.

The intent is to apply this in rem regime to United Nations Fisheries Agreement vessels as well as vessels of states that are party to other treaties or arrangements implemented pursuant to proposed paragraph 6(f) of the bill.

The English version of the text in these proposed subsections didn't reflect that intention, and the French version did. So the proposed amendment really changes the English version to do what the original intent was, which is clear in French but not clear in English.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Does that mean that the original version was drafted in French?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Listen, great things happen, you know.

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's exceptional and is worth pointing out. It's perhaps not the case in your department. I have a question to ask.

Does this mean that the notion of "fishing vessel" that is currently found in the French and English versions applies both to a fishing vessel of a participating State, to a fishing vessel without nationality and to other fishing vessels? By using only the words "fishing vessel" or "bateau de pêche" in this subclause (2), you are not referring to any definition in the agreement or to any definition set out in the new subsection 2(1).

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I think that subsections (2), (3) and (4) should be read with the first subsection. That's how a court would interpret it and that's how it was drafted. It is read as a whole.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Does this mean then that, in subsection (2), the notion of "fishing vessel" applies only to a fishing vessel of a participating State or a State that is party to a treaty or arrangement, and that this excludes a fishing vessel without nationality?

[English]

A voice: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: If that's the case, is it the legislator's intention that this subsection 18.01(2) not apply to fishing vessels without nationality?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Indeed, I am discovering this morning that it's something that was overlooked. The intention was not to restrict this provision so as not to include vessels without nationality.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I think you realize that it's the case with the wording originally set out, even with the amendment.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And so you would have to find another wording to include fishing vessels without nationality.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes.

[English]

Just so I'm clear, Daniel, you're saying this amendment does not apply to the UNFA participants, to the other treaty participants, or to stateless vessels?

Mr. Daniel Turp: It wouldn't apply to stateless vessels. If it should apply, the definition has to change.

A voice: It's very clear.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The article should change.

• 0950

Mr. Wayne Easter: We'll have to clear that up at report stage then.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Okay.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Unless you have something that's acceptable.

One of the problems with making a change at this stage is you have to be absolutely clear that it matches the agreement internationally as well, because a change in one word could affect—

The Chairman: So Wayne, you're suggesting that you will withdraw this amendment?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No. We'll leave the amendment in, but at report stage, we'll have a look at it and improve on it to cover that other area.

The Chairman: Wayne, I think you'll have to withdraw the tabling of this, because I don't think there's any provision for us to carry some baggage with us to report stage. You'll have to come back at report stage and make that amendment. I'll check here with our legal people to see.

Mr. Wayne Easter: It would be a separate amendment. This improves it somewhat, with the exception of stateless vessels. I'd prefer, Mr. Chairman, that we leave this amendment intact so we have that covered. We will check with the text and, if necessary, come back. Daniel has brought up a very good point, and we'll improve it at that stage.

The Chairman: To clarify, though, it's my hope to get this bill ready for report stage today. When you present that as an amendment to the committee, we have to deal with it. You have two options: you can withdraw it or you can have us consider it, but it can't be changed after the committee finishes with it. It can't be changed before it goes to the House.

Mr. Wayne Easter: No. That's right, and that's what I'm saying, Mr. Chair. At third reading, rather, we would bring in another amendment.

The Chairman: You will bring in another amendment in the House.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, in the House.

The Chairman: So as for today, you're withdrawing that amendment.

Mr. Wayne Easter: No.

The Chairman: You want to proceed with it?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Actually, the amendment is justified because you can make it apply to fishing vessels without nationality by simply adding a reference to such vessels in subsection 18.01(1), which would require an additional amendment to this provision. I therefore think that there's no need to withdraw the amendment.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: We can propose that later.

The Chairman: So you want this committee to vote on that amendment?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm hoping the committee will pass this amendment.

The Chairman: And Nad, you're satisfied with the way it's presented?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I think so, because the amendment that's on the table is to amend paragraphs 2 and 3 of proposed section 18.01. The amendment proposed by Mr. Turp deals with paragraph 1. They're two separate things.

The Chairman: So in terms of how it's presented, it is satisfactory to everybody?

Some hon. members: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just to clarify, Wayne, you'll be bringing an amendment at report stage?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes. We'll have a serious look at it. It's a valid concern. We'll look at the bill in total and ensure that's covered. If it's not, we will bring in an amendment.

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 12)

The Chairman: We have an amendment here as presented by the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: B-12. Bingo!

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's an amendment that is tied in with all the others. The law clerks amended several of the provisions that apparently flow from amendments being proposed to subparagraphs 6(e)(ii) and 6(f)(ii). I don't know whether it would be proper to first debate the main amendment, the purpose of which is to replace the word "délimiter" with "désigner" in the French version. Because of this amendment which is being proposed in clause 3 of Bill C-27, which amends subparagraphs 6(e)(ii) and 6(f)(ii), there would subsequently be consequential amendments which would have the effect of replacing the word "délimiter" with "désigner" in the French version throughout the Act.

• 0955

I don't know whether this is procedurally acceptable, but could we set aside this amendment and begin discussing it when we study the proposed amendment to clause 3 of this bill? As another option, we could discuss all of it together, because it's all the same discussion.

[English]

The Chairman: I think what is being asked is that we would proceed to look at clause 12, and then after we'd completed all of it, we'd go back and look at your amendments. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We can make a very concrete proposal. The other day, we referred to the amendment that we wanted to make. We are talking about replacing the word “délimiter” with the word “désigner” throughout the French version of the Act. It's a main amendment to clause 3. It's BQ-5 first, then BQ-6, then BQ-8 and then BQ-10 and BQ-12. It's really the same amendment. Perhaps we could discuss all of it together.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll look for some direction then from the committee.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I would agree that we could go through the bill and come back to it.

Once we received the amendments, Mr. Turp, we went through them fairly extensively, and you're right that it applies to clauses 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12. On investigation of the bill, I believe that if we made this change, there's another in the bill where the same change would have to be made.

We asked the department and Justice to look at this last evening. At first blush, it looks as though it wouldn't have really any impact, just changing words and maybe making it more clear. But we think it requires more investigation to be sure that it doesn't have an overall negative impact, and we need to ensure that in all clauses of the bill, all words are in fact changed to mean the same thing, or you could run into problems.

What I'm suggesting is that on our side, because we only got the amendments yesterday, we need to do further investigation into that area. If it makes sense to change it, we'd be agreeable to changing it at report stage or third reading. But we can't agree to the wording change at this time, because we're unsure what the implications might be.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I think it would be reasonable to give the government and the Department of Foreign Affairs the time to see whether the change in terminology doesn't have a different effect from the one in our minds. You know that we would like the word to be replaced because it implies that the government could decide on limits that are different from those set by regional organizations or those found in regional arrangements. Since this confusion is undesirable and does not seem to be present in the minds of European partners, I believe that the change would be appropriate. It would also bring the French and English texts closer together. In fact the word "delimiting" could have been used in the English version rather than “designating”.

I think that that's reasonable. I believe that means withdrawing the amendment so that it can be debated at report stage, which will enable us to bring it forward again if the government does not consider it important to make the change that we feel is important.

• 1000

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, we'd agree to that.

I assure you we will look at it and get back to you as soon as we've done the proper investigation and inform you of our intent. Okay? But you can withdraw, and then if we don't decide to change it, you have the option of reintroducing it as an amendment at report stage. I assure you we'll get back to you.

The Chairman: With this, Yvan, I've been informed that you will probably have to move to have this withdrawn, for the record. Apparently you can't withdraw your own; somebody else has to move to withdraw it, for the record. So Yvan, the record will indicate that you have moved to withdraw this.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I'm the one who did that? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I ask to withdraw it.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chairman: Is there further discussion on clause 12?

Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry to do this again, but just for my clarification, Monsieur Turp brought up the issue of proposed subsection 18.01(2), about a fishing vessel of a participating state. Would that—

The Chairman: Again?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm just saying he did that, so my point is—

The Chairman: Is it dealing with clause 12?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. In clause 12, proposed paragraph 18.1(a.1), it also says, “...a fishing vessel of a participating state”. Would the issues he brought up the first time, on that other clause, relate to this particular clause as well?

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'd turn to the officials on that one. I don't know; I'm not sure.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: There is a reason.

[Translation]

That can be explained.

[English]

The reason is that stateless vessels are being treated as Canadian vessels. Is that the problem? They're being treated as Canadian vessels, and therefore we can apply this provision without having to expressly mention it in section 18.1.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's the first time I've.... I'm sorry for my ignorance on this, but I haven't heard that expression before.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: My understanding—and Howard can clarify—is that under international law, a vessel without a flag can be assumed and treated as a vessel of any other flag state, so one of our government vessels can arrest it and treat it as though it were a Canadian vessel.

An hon. member: In Canadian waters?

An hon. member: Outside?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Outside also.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It has no flag, and therefore you can take it as yours.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: You can assume that it's hazardous.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: You take it under your jurisdiction.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Did you know that, Wayne?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Are you saying you deem it to be a Canadian vessel? I understand that aspect, but now you're saying you assume it to be, and that's a different issue.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: If the United States attempted to board it, they would deem it an American vessel. If France attempted to board it, it would be French.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Even when it's in international waters?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Is that pursuant to customary international law? Yes. Is it also the case under article 21, paragraph...

Mr. Howard Strauss: It's not specific enough. Article 21.17—

Mr. Daniel Turp: Article 21.17?

Mr. Howard Strauss: —says that in a general way, but in a detailed way, it would be the customary law in practice.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we get into any acts of piracy, or what may be deemed piracy, maybe we could look at this—

Mr. Wayne Easter: Well, are we clear?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry; I'm just a bit confused, because that's the first time I've heard that. I can understand countries that are part of a treaty or part of UNFA, but my biggest concern through all of this has been, what do we do with the renegades and pirates out there?

• 1005

I've just been informed for the first time since I've been here that we treat stateless vessels or vessels without flags as our own, as Canadian vessels, inside and outside the 200-mile limit, for example.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What gives us that authority?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Customary international law, rules of custom that have been—

Mr. Howard Strauss: Developed over time.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, developed over time.

Mr. Bill Matthews: This existed before your time; this is not new. I've always understood, Mr. Chairman, that those flags of convenience or no-nationality vessels—

Mr. Wayne Easter: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Bill Matthews: —flagless vessels, stateless vessels—that we couldn't do anything with them.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That's correct, because we didn't have the domestic legislation.

Mr. Howard Strauss: They're two separate things. One is a stateless vessel, no flag, and the other is a flag of convenience, which means it's flagged through a state that it may have limited contact with, but it has a flag. It may be owned and actually benefit state A and carry a flag of state B, but it still has a flag and it still has a nationality. A stateless vessel would have no flag whatsoever.

Mr. Daniel Turp: A flag with a pirate on it.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: That defines the differences between a stateless vessel and a flag of convenience vessel. The problems we've had in the past have been with flag of convenience vessels. Stateless vessels are extremely rare. But even if we had one within range, shall we say, we didn't have the domestic law, which this bill is giving us, to be able to take enforcement action against it. Now we can take enforcement action against it, when this is passed.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Now you can take enforcement action as if it were a Canadian vessel.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Exactly.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Okay.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Under international law we had certain rights, but we couldn't implement those rights without domestic law. That's what Bill C-27 is all about: to give us the domestic law to implement international rights we'll have when we ratify the UN convention, for example, or other aspects of international law that exist.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is that clearly stated in UNFA as well and in other agreements we have?

Mr. Howard Strauss: UNFA, in article 21, paragraph 17, reads:

Where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a fishing vessel on the high seas is without nationality, a State may board and inspect the vessel. Where evidence so warrants, the State may take such action as may be appropriate in accordance with international law.

It may take action to enforce the law.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Our colleague is perhaps raising a good question. Does section 18.01, as amended, apply to fishing vessels without nationality? Paragraph a.(1) talks about participating States; paragraph a.(2) talks about a State that is party to a treaty or arrangement; and when I look at section 18.01 as currently drafted, I don't see how it applies to fishing vessels without nationality.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I believe that it was not to be necessary because they are treated as Canadian vessels.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I will try to understand the overall economy of C-27, which defines "fishing vessel without nationality"—

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: —and applies certain of its provisions to fishing boats without nationality. Why is it not necessary to apply the section concerning the application of criminal law to these vessels? Is there another statute covering fishing vessels without nationality that has the effect of bringing them under Canadian criminal law?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I think you raise an excellent question that deserves further study. At first sight, the Criminal Code might apply in this case, but we would like to be able to review the matter. There is a provision in the Criminal Code—section 477.1, if I remember correctly—that deals with the application of the Criminal Code outside Canadian waters.

• 1010

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, yes.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: It is worth reviewing.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But it's perhaps not precise enough.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: There's no question that—

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, it's perhaps something that is worth looking at for the entire bill. This is the second time already that we have pointed out problems in applying this bill to vessels without nationality. Perhaps it would be advisable to review this in its entirety.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: We will certainly check the implications, but we're going to have to go back to the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. I understand Nadia's point about the Criminal Code and ensuring that it does apply, but I say, Mr. Chairman, that we proceed and clarify if there are any shortcomings in it.

The Chairman: By proceeding, what you're saying is you will look at this, and if there needs to be an amendment, you'll bring this in.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We'll bring it in.

The Chairman: Say it again, Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We're unsure of whether the Criminal Code does apply, as Nadia said, and we will check to clarify that point. I'd certainly say we'll review the bill in that context. But I would say we proceed and carry on and complete it, and we'll report back on the extent of that investigation.

I don't think Nadia confirmed whether it does or doesn't apply. We'll have to check that out, because we're dealing with about three pieces of legislation here. That's what makes it so complicated.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Might I direct another question to the goddess Nadia?

Mr. Daniel Turp: You will make her blush, Yvan.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I wouldn't want her to turn into a Liberal. A question comes to mind when I read all this, but I'm not a legal expert like my colleague. It bothers me, because I took an active part in developing C-29, which had allowed us to inspect the Estai. There's no talk of repealing the much-praised law, but will we still need this law since we will have the agreement? I was aware that we were writing international law with the old Act, but we are being criticized by some because of extraterritoriality. Will we need to repeal it? If so, in order to be in compliance with the agreement, it would perhaps be advisable to mention it in Bill C- 27. I don't know, because I'm not a legal expert. However, could we use C-29—which, I believe, allowed us to inspect vessels not sailing under any flag—to go after vessels without nationality? I don't know.

[English]

Mr. Howard Strauss: The purpose of this bill, as we've said before, is only to implement the 1995 agreement. When or whether the provisions introduced by Bill C-29 should be repealed is a decision for ministers. I'd like to leave it at that.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Clearly the Minister's decision is not to repeal the provision of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that was adopted by Bill C-29. If that were the case, we would be looking today at a repeal proposal in the bill that further amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Therefore, the intention is to maintain, within this legislation, a provision that is still challenged by other States and on which the International Court of Justice did not render a decision because it declared the matter outside its jurisdiction.

• 1015

So, clearly, the Minister's intent is not to change the Act by repealing the provisions that are being challenged.

For the information of the people listening to us, the Estai was still a ship under flag. It was under Spanish flag, wasn't it? So, at that time the boarding of the ship was done under C-29. Today, if that kind of boarding had to be undertaken, under what law and what provision of the new legislation would this boarding take place?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: It depends on the state. If the state is under the regulations of Bill C-29, of the current Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, it could be arrested under that authority.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: The four countries on the list.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Six.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The six countries. But if the country was not on that list, what provision would then be used?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: If they were parties to UNFA or a bilateral arrangement or some other agreement—

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: And if they were listed.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: —yes, and if they were listed under the UNFA portion of the bill, then they would be covered by this Bill C-27. There may be a few exceptions where a country is not listed anywhere, and we couldn't take any action at all against those vessels.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are we then to understand that the provisions of C-29 have primacy over the ones we're now looking at under Bill C-27?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They're parallel. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act with the Bill C-29 amendments is there. What we're doing is adding amendments so that we'll be able to fulfil our obligations under the UN agreement and the other arrangements.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but when it's one of the six countries on the list, what part of the legislation will apply?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Bill C-29, if they're on the Bill C-29 list.

[Translation]

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Unless they become signatories of the United Nations agreement, in which case they'll be under that regime.

Mr. Daniel Turp: For our information, could you repeat the names of the countries on the list?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I'm going by memory here, but I believe they're Honduras, Panama, Belize, the Cayman Islands, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Sierra Leone.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Am I to understand that those are countries that generally allow other ships to sail under their flag of convenience?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Those were the countries in 1995.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Wayne had a question.

Mr. Wayne Easter: No, it's been clarified. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay, Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure I got all the answers. Just to get back to the Estai case, if I've understood this correctly, it's a friendly country but the European Community has not yet signed the New York agreement, the UNFA. So if this were to happen again, it wouldn't be under Bill C-27 but under C-29 that we'd be acting in a case like Estai.

If the agreement were in force tomorrow morning, if we had Bill C-27 and if Spain still had not signed on, we would still avail ourselves of the provisions of Bill C-29 but that would lead us further than the spirit of the international agreement.

I'll put another question and I don't know if you'll be able to answer it. The international agreement says that we only do this, or we advise people, but under the management rules for regional areas. I believe this is NAFO.

In NAFO, this police method isn't defined. That's why we decided to become NAFO's knight champion. I wonder if our firm will to defend ourselves, with C-29, isn't inconsistent with the spirit of the international agreement. That's why I'm emphasizing it a lot.

• 1020

I was conscious I was engaging in international law at that time, but today there is another school of thought. I don't know how we'll be seen by the rest of the world. At some point, we might have to start pushing things along if we want the agreement to be improved, if we want what we have to be taken into account. Right now, I'm not sure it answers our needs. Because of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and maybe that's one of the reasons Canada still hasn't ratified the 1982 Convention, the nose and tail of our Grand Banks are still outside and that will always be problematical. Will I still need the provisions of C-29 to defend those projections outside of the line? So I'll still put myself in an illegal situation internationally speaking, if we go by international philosophy, when I try to defend those two projections. Am I condemned to unlawfulness to defend Canada's heritage?

Mr. Daniel Turp: There's the rub.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: You've asked several questions. Maybe I'll let Howard answer them.

Mr. Howard Strauss: Well, either you've asked several questions or I'm not sure you've actually asked any questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: It was a comment, but go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Howard Strauss: In brief, in our view, the provisions of Bill C-29 are in complete conformity with international law.

Secondly, as we've discussed previously, the ministers have decided to put forward this bill, and they have not revoked the provisions incorporated in Bill C-29, so they stay on the books.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yvan Bernier understands the stakes very well. The stakes are that we keep C-29 until the Europeans or those who want to keep on fishing in those zones ratify the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. That is why the Europeans, even today, say that C-29 departs from international law.

Mr. Howard Strauss: They say that?

Mr. Daniel Turp: They say that and Canada says the opposite, as you have just reaffirmed, and no international jurisdiction has yet told us whether it is in accord with international law or not.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: At the end of the dispute we had with the European Union over the arrest of the Estai, two agreements were negotiated. One agreement was on how we would deal with the distribution of the Greenland halibut quota, and the other agreement was in terms of significantly improved conservation and management measures for the NAFO regulatory area.

Included within the package of the agreement, it was clear at the opening of the negotiations that the European Union's position was that Canada repeal Bill C-29. The negotiations concluded with the agreement that Spain's and Portugal's names would be removed from the list in the regulation, and the bill would not be repealed, or that section of the act would not be repealed. That was the conclusion of the 1995 negotiation, and that's where we stand now.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The names were removed?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: They were removed in March 1995. Spain and Portugal are no longer on the list. I gave you the six names that are on the list.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay.

The Chairman: Wayne and then Peter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: In terms of the discussion just held, Mr. Chairman, the bottom line for the government is that we want to be part of the UNFA, and we want to utilize whatever resources we have in Canada to protect our fisheries and to protect migrating fish stocks to ensure there aren't abuses as a result of foreign fishing. We want to be able to take whatever action is necessary to protect Canadian interests. That's why the decisions were made as Howard has outlined.

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: One concern about what Mr. Wiseman has just said regarding the 1995 arrangement is the perception that we gave the EC more turbot on the east coast and we also gave them western hake off the west coast, from my understanding of that.

Although I can't agree more with what the parliamentary secretary says about the intent of the bill and what we should be doing, it appears, or at least the perception is, that every time we get into these kinds of agreements with the EC—and now of course the EC being much more powerful, with their currency speaking with one voice instead of separate countries—my fear is that they will turn around and just ignore this again and step all over us. Then we have to go back as a begging cousin and ask for forgiveness and say, “Here, take this in order to excuse us from that.”

• 1025

Mr. Wayne Easter: Just to quickly respond—

The Chairman: Mr. Easter, though, we were given clause 12. We've had a lot of latitude here with what we've discussed with clause 12.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I know. It's good talk.

The Chairman: It's good talk, but I'm not sure it's talk on clause 12.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Well, it is on the intent of the bill.

The Chairman: I would suggest, Mr. Easter, we should put clause 12 to a vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Another point of information, for Mr. Wiseman. In the present state of affairs, has the European Union or any of its member States expressed their intent to become part of the United Nations Fisheries Agreement?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The council of fisheries ministers of the European Union have voted to ratify. What they have decided, though, is that the European Union and its member states will all ratify together. Various stages of ratification are occurring in various member states, some being a little quicker than others. The hope is that they will all be able to achieve the authority to ratify towards the end of this year.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are there any States that have already ratified it?

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No, they will not ratify, even though they're prepared. As Canada, when we have Bill C-27 adopted, should it be adopted, the government will be able to ratify, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll ratify immediately. We can ratify any time after. So it's a matter of the member states of the European Union having their legislation if required—in some cases it's a simpler process than in Canada—and having the authority to be able to ratify. When they all have the authority to ratify, they will then proceed as a group to ratify.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And the United States?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The United States has ratified.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Call the question, Mr. Chair.

(Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 16)

The Chairman: Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't want to be the devil's advocate, because I know it's going fine, but I did really appreciate how well-grounded the debate on principle was before.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: Progress comes slowly.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: A grounded debate on groundfish.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't know if it's clause 16, because I'm not a lawyer, but Ms. Nadia will tell me whether I'm at the right place and we'll pursue the discussion further. Concerning boardings, as to what's described in the agreement and the way the legislation is implemented, where do they mention the period that applies? Is it in clause 16?

Mr. Daniel Turp: The three-day period. It's before that.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I think it's in the regulations.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: What does that mean for the simple little fellow I am?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: The Governor in Council will have the power to provide for the number of days in the regulations.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: So we won't find that in Bill C-27.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: No.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: So some of my friends are right in being concerned with transparency and the fact that this doesn't come under the parliamentary process. That's the point I was raising at the beginning.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's why it will have to be brought back before Parliament once we pass the regulations.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Yes? How can we put that in?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: The objective...

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Can they suggest anything to us? They have the majority to pass it, but we'd at least have the possibility of expressing our views on the matter.

• 1030

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Here is the objective sought by including this provision in the regulations. The agreement, for the parties who have signed it, provides for the possibility of reviewing it within a certain period after its coming into force to see how it works out. More particularly, the parties might determine that this three-day provision doesn't work and that a shorter period is necessary. The fact of providing for these three days in the regulations allows us the flexibility necessary to change the provision depending on what will have been agreed to by the parties around the table without having to come back before the House and Senate to change three days to two days, for example.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I don't know if these are the witnesses who can give me the information I want. This is something I wanted to do before examining Bill C-27, but it seems timely to ask for this information at this point. I'd like to know the NAFO regulations. I'd like to know the regulations governing relations between countries. I don't find it clear. Everyone acts in good faith and everyone supervises and monitors landings, but that was the substance of the problem between Canada and Spain. Spain did not respect the quota given to the European Community. I'd like to know how it's governed. If I've understood the agreement correctly, it doesn't allow for interference in the management of a regional organization such as NAFO.

I'd like to know how I'm solving my problem with Bill C-27 unless I've totally misunderstood the bill. It seems to me the agreement specifies that you can't interfere with something that's already being managed. That's why I'd like to see the NAFO management regulations.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: The agreement's objective is to set up the regime provided for by the agreement in the regional organizations.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: To set up the regime.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: That's what will be followed up. The enforcement regime will be the same as UNFA and will be implemented by Canadian fisheries agents, in our case, and not by NAFO agents. They'll be wearing a different hat.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Do you understand this?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes. Is the hat worn by the Canadian fisheries agents more stylish than the hat worn by the NAFO agents?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Absolutely.

Mr. Daniel Turp: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

A voice: Of course.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a point of clarification on clause 16. Proposed paragraph 505(a.1) says:

that any master, mate or engineer on board a vessel that has contravened any of sections 5.3 to 5.5 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act...

Would this cover, for example, an observer on board a ship who contravenes the act as well? Say he falsely logs something down or does something inaccurate in his logs, which is a contravention. Would this include an observer?

The reason I ask is that a few months ago—and the parliamentary secretary reminded me—we heard of observers who said they were bribed and money exchanged hands. It's quite easy to falsify a log book if you want to, which would be in contravention, I would suspect, of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Would that individual fall under this clause in terms of contravening the act? Could they be prosecuted?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: No, that's not the intent of this provision at all. This is an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, which deals with the driver of the boat, essentially.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: The observers would be handled or dealt with under the fisheries legislation.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It says here, “mate or engineer”, so you're including everyone on the boat.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: No.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: No, these are officers.

Mr. Wayne Easter: They're just officers in charge of the boat.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But the captain is not in charge of the observer, right?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: Correct.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The observer falls under another guideline.

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The observers in the NAFO regime must be impartial and independent of the captain.

• 1035

Mr. Peter Stoffer: And if there could be proof that they did something wrong or illegal?

Mr. Earl Wiseman: I would assume that would be part of the contractual arrangement with the observer company. It could also be done if it's criminal, if it's fraud.

Mr. Wayne Easter: It would come under other Canadian laws, certainly not under this law. This law is not designed to deal with observers who are not doing their job appropriately.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, illegally. Not inappropriately; illegally.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: But the relationship with the observers in relation to the NAFO area is contractual, so it would be dealt with under that scenario.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could I put a supplementary? Does the government intend, in the regulations that will come into force under 6(e) and perhaps 6(f), to mention the three working-day period set out in the Convention?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you.

[English]

(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to on division.

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Wayne asked me earlier where I saw the word “if”. It was in an amendment he brought on proposed section 7.01. It said, “If a protection officer...”, and he had it in that amendment. So my question is, should that not apply throughout the entire legislation?

Mr. Wayne Easter: We'll check, Peter, to make sure it's consistent throughout.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chairman: Looking then next, Yvan, at your opposition amendments, what is your intent with those this morning? What do you propose we do? You have B-1, B-2, B-3, all the way down through.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, we withdrew several before to allow the government to... There are only a few left. We're going to withdraw BQ-7. So what's left is BQ-1, BQ-2, BQ-9 and BQ-11, if I'm not mistaken. BQ-9 and BQ-11 are along the same lines; BQ-1 and BQ-2 are a bit different. So we have four amendments to examine.

[English]

The Chairman: As I mentioned before, we have to have unanimous consent in order to deal with those this morning. The other option would be that you deal with those at report stage. Your intent then is to ask us to consider those amendments this morning?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We'd appreciate getting unanimous consent to examine these proposed amendments that are supposed to help improve the wording of the bill. The examination shouldn't take an unreasonable amount of time.

[English]

The Chairman: For the committee, what we are doing here is opening up clauses we passed on Tuesday. As chair, I would have to have unanimous consent from the committee in order to do that. Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. Wayne Easter: No.

The Chairman: Maybe the parliamentary secretary could explain to the committee his reason for not giving unanimous consent.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Well, if you go back to especially amendments 1 and 2, the problem there, Mr. Chairman—

• 1040

The Chairman: We can't specifically refer to the amendment, because it hasn't been accepted. You'll have to be very general in what you say.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Basically, the bottom line is that the series of amendments proposed are really broader than the scope of Bill C-27. The purpose of Bill C-27 is to deal with the implementation of the United Nations Fisheries Agreement and other similar international treaties. The Governor in Council authority to make regulations in Bill C-27 relating to UNFA is restricted to making regulations for the implementation of UNFA. The amendments you've proposed really go beyond that scope.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: As we're not debating the amendments because there is no unanimous consent, I'd like to say that we'll probably move them in the House at report stage.

Basically, the debate has to do with how we can add, to an Act, a provision with a view to ensuring conformity of interpretation of the Act with the international treaty that it is meant to implement, in this occurrence, the United Nations Fisheries Act and, indirectly, the United Nations 1982 Convention on the Law of the sea. That's why we wanted to add a clause defining the 1982 Convention and another interpretive clause to paragraph 2(1).

We can resume this debate in the House, if you so wish. It's an important debate in the light of other clauses. It's important for a judge and that's why it's interesting to have an interpretation clause. This provision could put the judge in a situation where he might interpret a treaty or a Canadian law without necessarily interpreting it in conformity with international obligations, especially if you have to interpret the expression "reasonable grounds", which are the words we're changing. We're not using the words as such, but we're changing them, which might mean that a judge could give a different interpretation from the one that's required under the Convention that we're trying to implement.

Anyway, as there is no unanimous consent, we'll get back to this in the House at report stage.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Easter: I think, as Mr. Turp mentioned, it's a debate that will maybe have to take place in the House, because we do see it as much broader than the scope of Bill C-27. From our perspective, it would decrease our ability to act quickly on infractions, and it would decrease our ability in some international negotiations by having to maybe come back to Parliament.

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have two things on that.

One, I would like to see us do this now, as we have the experts here and we can ask them specific questions. During the House, we just ask each other, and it could be lost in interpretation or politic-playing. Mr. Turp is here now, he has some valid points, and the experts are here. Maybe they can clarify just exactly what the Bloc is trying to propose.

Secondly, in terms of getting this bill passed, there's no question Canada needs this thing or an improved thing signed off, and the quicker the better. This is so that we can go back to our communities on the east coast and say this is what we've been trying to work with, with the government and the DFO and their international affairs people, in order to get this through, and we would be looking for their support.

But if the Reform Party—and I'm not speaking for them—gets a perception that the government and the parliamentary secretary tried to say no to something that was reasonable, they may just get their backs up, and who knows what they may or may not do? They may suspect something. I don't know. I'm not speaking for them. I'm just suspecting that they could delay or play hardball as well.

So I would think that while we have the experts here, Mr. Turp's and Mr. Bernier's amendments could be discussed now. They could maybe clarify some points they have, because we won't have that luxury very soon.

The Chairman: I think I've given both of the opposition parties an opportunity to place on record their concerns. We do have to move ahead, though. I can't really, and I don't think you can, interpret the intent of the group that is not here this morning.

Mr. Bill Matthews: My God, don't try, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, no. I'm not speaking for them.

Mr. Bill Matthews: You can't interpret them when they're here, so don't try to—

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 1045

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It would be the united alternative to do that.

The Chairman: So we will then proceed with a couple of others.

Mr. Turp again.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: After very careful examination of the bill, without trying to turn this into an amendment, I'd like to point out to the writers that, in the whole of the text, there's no very uniform use of the expression “agreements or treaties”. In the provisions, they don't always follow in the same order. Sometimes you have “agreements or international treaties” and sometimes "treaties or international agreements". If you really want to be rigorous about the whole thing and have a text written in a uniform way, you should review the whole bill and make sure that you're using exactly the same terms in the same order. But it's so technical that I thought it was worth pointing out to the writers. It might require amendments the government might want to introduce.

I'd like to have some information, Mr. Chairman. This might come a little late, but why was the definition for "straddling stocks" written out of the Act?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: It wasn't written out; it was put into the regulatory power.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It was incorporated into the regulatory power?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Where? I don't see it very clearly.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I think it's already there.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: We're still on Bill C-29.

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: Yes, that's it. It's already in 6b.(1). So it was decided it was useless to...

Mr. Daniel Turp: In the present legislation?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: That's it, in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's in the regulatory power. And the idea of “migrating fish stocks”, where is it now? Is there a definition somewhere? There are now two important definitions, “straddling stocks” and “migratory fish stocks”. Do you have a definition for “long-ranging migratory fish stocks” anywhere?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: No. It's the regional organization that defines them.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Should you put it in the Act?

Ms. Nadia Bouffard: I don't think it's necessary. That will depend...

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would ask you to think about this over the next few days or weeks.

[English]

Mr. Earl Wiseman: The regulations of the regional fisheries management organization will proscribe certain activities relating to straddling stocks or highly migratory stocks. They may choose to set a quota, and therefore that becomes the limit that has to be put in our regulations, or they may choose not to set any quota, and therefore fishing that stock can be done at will as long as there are no other conservation measures, such as areas you fish in or the type of gear you use. If there are such conservation measures, then they too are put in our regulations.

So it's the regional fisheries management organization that defines the conservation measures and the stock to which they apply.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Chair, can we move on?

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: On division.

Shall I report the bill to the House with amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, having said that, I believe Mr. Easter is going to come back with clarification on certain points we've asked. So before that's presented, is it possible to get that? Before he presents it to the House, the concerns—

Mr. Wayne Easter: I don't think so. It depends when he reports it to the House, but we'll work with due haste to get the information requested and get back to you. We'll certainly have the information prior to it being debated in the House, in ample time.

Mr. Bill Matthews: What's your anticipation of when it will be at the House for this?

Mr. Wayne Easter: It looks as though it will be well into late March. We're having difficulty getting House time.

• 1050

Mr. Bill Matthews: Really? Okay.

The Chairman: And the final question, shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Mr. Bill Matthews: Whatever that means.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: With the attached amendments.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes, that's what it means.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That concludes the study at committee of this very important bill, which I know many of us back in the fishing communities have waited for for some time. It certainly will be a major step in Canada's conservation and renewal of our sustainable resources on the coast.

I would also like to very much thank committee members, and Mr. Turp in particular for his contribution to our work this morning.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: When we talk about lawyers and what members of Parliament are paid, we had good value from your work here in the last two days, and we certainly want to thank you.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I have another suggestion to the parliamentary secretary.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Daniel Turp: When you look at the legislation on fisheries—and I talked to Madame Bouffard about this last time—we've come to a point where there would be a valid reason to merge the existing pieces of legislation on fisheries now. There are several fishing acts and regulations, there are several treaties now that those pieces of legislation implement, and at one point it would be a good thing to adopt a fisheries act with a much broader content that would bring together all the legislation on the books now.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We are looking at the fisheries legislation.

The Chairman: With that, we'll adjourn our meeting.