Bill Matthews

[New Democratic Party, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to light the unfortunate decision of Canada's newest political leader. Mr. Layton has been leader of the NDP for just over one week and it appears in great NDP style that he could not wait to make his first glaring error.

It turns out that the new leader of the NDP has hired none other than Rick Smith as his chief of staff. Yes, that is right, Mr. Speaker, the same Rick Smith who, as director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, called the seal hunt an unnecessary slaughter.

Not only does Mr. Layton's tragic lack of vision on this issue shock and amaze Canadians, including some 12,000 Canadians who depend on the hunt for income, but now we have Newfoundland and Labrador NDP leader, Jack Harris, who has said that he was quite disturbed by the hiring. Mr. Harris went on to say that Layton's decision would be very damaging to the party.

Given the total lack of judgment demonstrated in this hiring, it would surprise none of us to see Mr. Layton now come flying up the Ottawa River on a jet ski, but of course he will not be wearing a seal coat.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to share his time and to participate in this very interesting debate. I must say that I have been very impressed with the content and the research that has been done by various speakers in putting forward their opinions, the opinions of their constituents and, in most cases, the opinions of their provinces on this very important issue.

Countries around the world have recognized an urgent need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to address the climate change challenge.

As has been said many times, in December 1997, Canada and more than 160 other countries met in Kyoto, Japan, and agreed to targets to reduce emissions. The agreement sets out targets and the options available to countries to achieve them.

Canada's target is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by the period reaching up to the year 2012. It is Canada's intention to create a Canada for this and future generations with clean air, clean water, liveable cities and healthy people. Canada's climate change plan helps us all to rethink the way we use energy. It balances the challenge presented by climate change with opportunities to create a strong Canadian presence in new markets.

My colleague and others before him have talked about the devastating impacts that we see in the west on our farmers with the drought and with the difficulty in cultivating soil. I do not think anyone will deny that climate change is a global problem affecting all countries.

While greenhouse gas emissions form naturally, many human activities add additional emissions to the atmosphere: heating and cooling buildings, using energy at home and work, driving vehicles to move people and goods, and powering industrial processes. Anything that consumes energy contributes to the problem.

As my colleague and others have said many times before, there is a direct link among rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, particularly carbon dioxide, global warming and more frequent extreme weather events.

I have already mentioned the west but in my own part of the country, in the east, climate change already has affected fishing, farming, forestry, lakes, rivers, coastal communities and the north. When I speak of my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the riding I represent of Burin--St. George's on our province's south and southwest coast, we are predominantly a fishing people but we have had very serious situations develop with our fish stocks over the last 10 to 15 years. Some of these problems, no doubt, can be attributed to gear types and their destructive natures. Others can be attributed to predators, such as our seal population, but there is no doubt in my mind that climate change as well has had a serious impact upon our fish resources and our fish stocks. As my colleague before me said, it is no doubt impacting upon fish migrations. I think it is having a very serious impact on water temperature and on the nutrients in the water column upon which fish stocks need to feed.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Roger Grimes and the provincial government have raised specific concerns about the potential economic effects that Kyoto ratification may have on our evolving offshore oil and gas industries. We only have one oil refinery but that is very important and they are concerned about the impact on that. They are also concerned about our pulp and paper industry and our mining industry. I know full well the importance of these industries to my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I share the concerns of the premier, his government and the industry on the impact the Kyoto ratification may have on those very important industries and the economy of our province.

In addition, the provincial government is very concerned that the plan has no well-defined mechanism to ensure that fair credit is given for clean energy projects, such as the Lower Churchill, or other new hydroelectric projects in our provinces or those being negotiated with neighbouring provinces.

I share the concerns that the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the premier have put forward. We do not want to see anything negative happen to those very important industries and the impact that it will have on employment and the economy of our province. However, having said that, I think it would be totally irresponsible not to address the issue of climate change. As a matter of fact a majority of Canadians say that Canada should live up to its international commitments even if there are associated economic costs with that.

The debate has been ongoing now for some five years. No doubt the debate has certainly heated up in the last few weeks, particularly driven by Parliament, which is very good. I think it is quite interesting that after all of this debate still a majority of Canadians say that we should live up to our international commitments even if there are associated economic costs. I think that is a very important point.

As well, a majority of Canadians still place a better and cleaner environment as the core to our Canadian values, which is another very important point that we should take very seriously in Parliament.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that it would be totally irresponsible not to address the issue of climate change. Regardless of what region of the country we come from, in some way we have seen the impacts. For the people in the west, the centre of the country, the north; and in my region of the country, the east, in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are definite negative impacts as a result of climate change.

I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to the debate over the last few weeks. It has been very intense. I want to thank all members who have contributed and say that I will be supporting the ratification of Kyoto Protocol.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comment and his question. It is a question on an issue that I am sure concerns every member of the House. It has been an issue for quite a while with many of us because it has been brought to our attention by people who are being directly affected in a negative way, the most vulnerable people in society. That is who they are.

I can tell the hon. member that like many members, particularly on this side of the House, and I am sure on the other side as well, we have brought this issue to the forefront for discussions with the Minister of Finance, in front of the Prime Minister and in front of the national caucus. I am hoping that the matter will be resolved as it should be resolved.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comment and his question, but it seems that some of the members in the official opposition have great difficulty in not being nasty. They want to be nasty about everything. They cannot bring civility to debate. They get up and call me different things, one of those members who probably came here when it was called Reform, and then I think it was Canadian Alliance and then the CCRAP party. I do not want to get down into that. I would rather stick to the issues.

With the great downturn in the North American and world economies, everyone in Canada knows that one of the reasons why the Canadian economy has done so well is the government's action in tax reduction. It has put more money into the pockets of Canadians. That is why our economy has outperformed the U.S. economy. When we compare the Canadian economy with those of the rest of the G-7 we are so far ahead because of the actions of the government. The government has consistently reduced taxes. It has put more money into the pockets of Canadians who spend and drive the engine of the economy of the country.

For the hon. member to stand here today and somehow expect Canadians or particularly anyone in the House to believe that the government has been on a tax increase program is totally unacceptable. It is definitely not true and all hon. members know it. The government has been on a tax reduction program for years. It is why today the economy of the country is as strong as it is and it is why Canadians are doing so well, as they are.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. member for Wild Rose so I would expect that he would show respect in the House and listen to what other people have to say. I know that may be very difficult, and if he did listen perhaps he would not understand it.

The throne speech has caused a lot of attention in the country. We are at five balanced budgets since coming to office and are now on track to our sixth after about 30 years of successive deficits. I think that is quite a remarkable feat. Having said that, let me say that there is no doubt that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have shared in that feat. It has not just been the feat of the Government of Canada. There have been a lot of sacrifices made in all parts of the country and particularly in certain sectors of the country. I want to commend Canadians for contributing and helping to bring the country into fiscal stability, which it has not had for a long time.

The throne speech mentions health care, and I think all of us who sit in the House representing various ridings and regions of the country know that health care is of huge concern to all of us and to all Canadians. Once again, the throne speech commits to further investment in health care. We are waiting for the Romanow report and of course after that the Prime Minister is committed to holding a first ministers conference on the report. Of course we all look forward to the report and to the first ministers conference. Then, and most important, we look forward to government addressing the recommendations of the report and the further investment in health care which we all need so badly. As well, the throne speech mentions commitments to infrastructure, roads and transit, and housing. Again, of course we talk about families and children.

Just a few days ago in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a community in my riding, I attended a hearing of a royal commission that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has established. It is a royal commission that will be holding some 23 hearings around the province. It is about strengthening Newfoundland and Labrador's place in Canada.

I attended the hearing in the community of Harbour Breton, which some colleagues, particularly on this side, know of, but I also know that my friend from the NDP has been there with me as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It is still pretty much a vibrant town.

About 100 people came out to the royal commission hearing. At the outset of the hearing they were asked to identify, list and priorize their top five concerns. They were asked to tabulate them, write them on a piece of paper, and pass them in. Then there was a tabulation to see what were the top three priorities of the people as concerns for their region. It was quite interesting. No surprise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or to anyone such as fisheries critics from other parties and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the number one concern of those people gathered in the hall that night was the state of the fishery and the need for the Government of Canada to pursue custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

Anyone who is familiar with the riding that I represent in Newfoundland and Labrador would not be surprised that this issue was the number one concern for those people. It was interesting to hear the people participate, to hear what they had to say about it all. There are dire consequences for Atlantic Canada, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, because since the moratorium on groundfish stocks, the cod stocks, was established in 1992 people have been anticipating that our stocks would have been regenerated and rejuvenated by now and people would be making better income from harvesting and processing of fish, but it has not happened. All along that great coast of Newfoundland and Labrador people are still hurting very badly. I want to raise that because the throne speech gives us an opportunity to talk about our ridings and the issues and concerns.

The number two concern was the state of the fishery. Everything throughout that riding is totally dependent on income from fishing and from processing fish.

Another topic which is of concern to the people of my riding and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces is the current equalization program established by the federal government in consultation and concert with the provincial governments.

Here is what irks the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the Hibernia offshore field, White Rose and Terra Nova, and a deal has just been signed to develop Voisey's Bay in Labrador. It looks like a deal is imminent with Quebec on another power project in Labrador. But because of increased revenues that will accrue to the province, of course, there is a clawback provision as a result. Consequently it is very difficult for provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador to get ahead. There is great concern in the province about the current equalization program. There is concern about how we can somehow address that concern so that the people of the province will be better off in the long term. It is a big concern for us.

Also, I just want to say that even though in Newfoundland and Labrador we have a very vibrant offshore oil and gas industry and good mining and forestry industries, the number one industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today, as it always has been and always will be, is our fishing industry. It will always be so because all the other industries we are talking about come from non-renewable resources. Once they run out it is over, but our renewable fish resources, if they are managed properly, should be there to provide for us forever.

These were some of the things that I wanted to talk about today in this Speech from the Throne debate. As we sit here week in and week out and hear members from all sides of the House speak about issues of concern to them, it is so very interesting to realize just how diverse this great country of ours really is. What is most interesting to me is to identify with the issues that are of concern to different regions of this country, for what is so very important to the people I represent in Newfoundland and Labrador is so different from what concerns people in the west. I have just heard an hon. member talk about the Wheat Board and the problems it is causing for the people he represents. Another member opposite talked about the salmon stocks in B.C. and some problems inherent in that. As a member of Parliament, it is quite interesting to listen to the different concerns but yet these concerns still mean as much to the people I represent as they mean to the people those members represent.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate all those who have taken part in the debate, particularly the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when I came to the Chamber this morning I had no intention of participating in the debate, but I must say that I have been quite taken aback and I have been struck by the quality of the debate by members who have participated this morning.

Members of the human resources committee have done a very good job and high quality work and I want to commend them for their work. Really I think it is a testimony not only to the quality of the work that individual members of parliament do here in this place but also to the standing committees of the House of Commons. It is a testimony to the quality of work that we do in this place. All too often we get criticized for not working at all. We get criticized about the amount of time we work and quite often about the quality of work.

However, it is the second day in a row that I have stood in this place to take part in a concurrence debate on a unanimous report from a standing committee. Yesterday the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a unanimous report that made some very strong recommendations to the Government of Canada to deal with the issue of foreign overfishing. Today a unanimous report of the human resources development standing committee has been tabled. The committee has done some very thorough work and I cannot commend it enough for the work it has done, particularly in zeroing in on this disability tax credit problem.

Like most members of the House of Commons, I have received many calls at my office about the disability tax credit issue and the problems it has caused. Almost to a person, the people who have called have received the tax credit for years. They are wondering why the change has taken place. In most cases the condition of the client has not improved and in a lot of cases it has become worse.

As the member for Winnipeg Centre has said, each illness or disability has to be looked at in isolation because they all vary and there are peaks and valleys in certain conditions. In some weeks or months a condition could be worse. In other weeks it could level off. In other weeks and months there could be improvement.

Members have made some very valid points. I listened to the member for South Shore who made some excellent points. I have to commend him for the thoroughness of his debate and input. It has been a good debate. For two days in a row we have been debating unanimous reports of standing committees, and as one member of parliament I have to ask these questions. What does a unanimous report of a standing committee really mean to the Parliament of Canada? What does a unanimous report mean to the Government of Canada? I do not know how we address these questions.

However, it seems to me that as we go about addressing the importance of members of parliament and the importance of having more input and productivity in regard to what happens here, I think that we somehow need to give serious consideration to the weight of a unanimous report from a standing committee of parliament. As we all know, quite often we are presented with unanimous reports that have involved some very thorough work and make some excellent recommendations, but nothing seems to happen afterward.

I have listened very carefully to what members opposite and members on this side have said. I commend them for their very direct remarks. I want to concur with many of their remarks, because as one individual member of parliament I have many of the same concerns. I think the government has to give greater weight to unanimous reports and the recommendations contained therein from the standing committees, all party committees of the House. Once again I cannot commend the members enough for bringing forward this issue and for being so thorough about it.

Having said that, I am sure members will agree, particularly those who are on the human resources committee, that because of their work and the work of individual members of parliament we have seen some improvements in the mandate and the issues of Human Resources Development Canada.

In the employment insurance file we have seen the elimination of the intensity rule because of work of members of this parliament and because of the standing committee recommendations. We have seen tremendous improvements in parental leave. In regard to the income cap level, because of the work of members of the House of Commons we have seen it raised, which means the clawback is not as much. These things have been positive happenings in the last 18 months or so because of the work of parliament and because the Government of Canada listened, not only to individual members of parliament but to the work of, in this case, the standing committee on human resources. I want to go on record as highlighting that, because we have seen some improvements as a result of the work of the committee.

Of course as members all know there are other issues with the employment insurance system that need further consideration and, in my view, need further changing. I only need reference the number of weeks, the divisor rule. Many of us in parliament, in fact perhaps all of us, represent some pockets of high unemployment. It just so happens that some of us represent more pockets of high unemployment than others. However, across this great country, even in the richest provinces, there are pockets of unemployment. The same problems and the same rules apply in those provinces.

We do need to have a real serious look at this divisor rule. in my view, because it is causing some very serious hardship for many Canadians who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in industries that are seasonal. Some people say that these people only want to work for 14, 15 or 20 weeks. That is not the problem. The problem is that the work only lasts for that amount of time.

If we are in the forest industry, climate or market conditions determine how long we work. If we are in the fishing industry, the fish allocations, the total allowable catch that is set by this very Government of Canada dictates how much fish can be taken from the ocean and consequently put into our fish plants for processing. That impacts on the number of weeks of work that an individual gets. It has nothing to do with the individual's desire to work or not to work for 12 months a year. It has everything to do with resource supply, which is managed and allocated by this very Government of Canada. Yet because of some of those rules we as a government penalize them to a large degree because we, over time, have mismanaged a very important resource.

I think we have to dig a little bit deeper into some of our employment insurance problems, rules and regulations. There still needs to be some adjustments made to our employment insurance system for the benefit of those, of course, who pay into the fund and over the lifetime of the fund have been very significant contributors.

I just want to go back once again to the crux of the debate this morning, that of the disability tax credit. I want to say that I have had numerous calls to my offices on the issue. I have spoken personally with a number of constituents who have run into problems with the disability tax credit situation. There are people who have received it for years and years and now find themselves in the predicament that many hon. members have alluded to this morning.

From my own point of view as one member of parliament on the government side, I hope that the minister and the government take very seriously the recommendations of the committee and will recognize the very thorough job and all the work it has done, because it really has done a fantastic job in getting into this issue.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I wanted to go on record here this morning as commending the committee and saying that I hope the issue is dealt with in a fair manner. I hope some attention is given to the recommendations of the committee. I conclude my remarks on the debate, and I once again want to thank all hon. members who participated.

Before I sit down, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the town of Burgeo highlights the very seriousness of the situation. Mayor Allister Hann summarized it very well.

Burgeo is still a very proud town and a very well managed town. It has faced dire consequences for the last 10 years. People in that town worked for 12 months. A number of deep sea trawlers were attached to the town. A very vibrant workforce that had been working 12 months a year basically has been shut down for the last 10 years because of the moratorium on ground fishing and cod stocks.

The member has asked me about other communities. I look across the coast of Newfoundland and see the towns of Isle aux Morts, Rose Blanche, Ramea which is just off the coast from Burgeo, Gaultois, and the Burin peninsula communities of Fortune and Marystown. Burin had a primary processing plant at one time. Thank god right now we are into secondary processing. Trepassey in St. John's West literally has been shut down and boarded up, a town where people worked 12 months a year. Thousands and thousands of people were fully employed. That is the impact the situation has had on the economies of those towns. It is not a very pretty sight.

My colleague opposite talked about the resource being a world resource. It is a tremendous protein resource for the world that we are talking about here. Someone has to take responsibility for conservation of that very important protein resource on the nose and tail and Flemish Cap, which is known as a nursery area where fish spawn and grow quite readily because of the nutrients and the water temperature.

We have been debating species at risk. We have been debating conservation. We have been talking about environmental issues. However no country in the world, including our own, has risen to deal with this crisis.

It is about time that someone rose to the cause for this very important nursery area, a great protein resource for the world, or it could be if we managed it properly. With proper enforcement and a proper management regime in place, it could be again that which it once was, a great food resource not just for Atlantic Canada or Newfoundland and Labrador, but for the entire world. It is time that someone rose to the occasion.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in this discussion on the standing committee report on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks and foreign overfishing.

At the outset I want to commend the chair and the members of the committee for doing a fantastic job. They went about hearings and spent a considerable time compiling a report. As other members have said prior to my speaking today, they deliberated long and hard to come up with a report to adequately deal with the very serious problem affecting the livelihoods of many rural communities in Atlantic Canada but specifically rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I represent a riding in Newfoundland and Labrador, the southwest coast, that has been decimated because of the devastation of our cod stocks. As the member for Cumberland--Colchester said, the moratorium was imposed in 1992 and everyone thought that by now we would have seen a significant rejuvenation and regeneration of our cod stocks, but it has not happened. In all fairness there are a number of reasons for that, but certainly a very important factor has been the flagrant violations by members of NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. There have been flagrant violations year after year.

This year NAFO is celebrating its 25th anniversary. There is an upcoming meeting in Spain in September. What the committee really wanted to do was arm the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government with a report to give some leverage and some ammunition for trying to deal with this very serious problem. A number of countries that form the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization have been identified as violators for many years.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the NAFO arrangement is known as the objection procedure. NAFO has a scientific council that analyzes and assesses the fish stocks in the NAFO regulatory areas. Each year the council prepares a report for NAFO. It makes recommendations on specific fish stocks as to what the total allowable catch should be or what the health of a certain fish stock is. That scientific council then makes a recommendation of a total allowable catch, but because of this, in my view, very obscene objection procedure, all a country has to do if it disagrees with the advice of the scientific council is register an objection. Then it sets its own total allowable catch and flagrantly overfishes that fish stock. One of the biggest problems with NAFO over the years has been this objection procedure.

Imagine a scientific council, which also involves scientific information from Canada, that makes a recommendation on a particular fish stock. A country completely ignores that recommendation and then catches, in some cases, five, six or ten times the total allowable catch of a particular fish stock. That is one of the biggest problems we have with NAFO.

Meeting after meeting, year after year, countries such as Canada go to NAFO with a delegation. We have a delegation head and commissioners who go to those meetings and review the activities of the NAFO partners. Year after year for the last 25 years there have been significant weaknesses that have been identified and corrective actions have been recommended, but certain countries just continue to violate.

Therefore, in its wisdom, in my view, the committee this year held hearings on this very important issue, the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks. In my view the committee produced a tremendous report. The recommendations are very direct and frank and very precise. As one member of the committee, I feel that it is a very useful tool for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Government of Canada to use to try to address this very major problem.

Last year when the Canadian delegation came back from NAFO, its members made some very alarming statements about what was really happening on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks.They talked about Canada being isolated. They talked about countries ignoring the scientific advice of the NAFO scientific council. They talked about the weakness in the observer reports, which my colleague opposite has alluded to. In some cases the observers are actually members of the crew. We can imagine how objective an observer report is when the observer is actually working for the captain. Of course the livelihood of that particular observer as a crew member is dependent on the amount of fish that the vessel catches.We can imagine the impact that would have on an observer reports.

These are the kinds of things that have been happening over the years and these are the kinds of things that the same countries have continually ignored and continually violated. They have refused to address those very important issues. This year past, the Canadian delegation came back in a state of great alarm. As a matter of fact, in front of the standing committee, our head of delegation, Mr. Chamut, who is an assistant deputy minister in the department of fisheries, described the situation and alluded to those alarming facts.

Of course all of that was taken into consideration when the committee did its report and finally decided on the recommendations of the report. Those very important observations from our Canadian delegation were certainly a very critical consideration and a very critical point of the report.

Of course as well we went to Newfoundland and Labrador and heard some very compelling evidence from people who have been long associated with the fishing industry: people who have been top executives with companies, people who are community leaders, and mayors, union people and processors. On and on the lists went. The evidence was very compelling. It certainly had a huge impact on members of the committee, particularly those members of the committee who come from central and western Canada, because of course they were not as conversant with the issues as we were, coming from Atlantic Canada.

Having said that, I want to thank all the members of the committee for their support and for the report. It is very important that everyone in the House realize that this is an all party committee report. It is a unanimous report. There is no minority report. It is unanimous, strong, direct and frank, and in my view it should still serve as a very useful tool for the Government of Canada as it proceeds to address this very important issue.

The committee is recommending establishing custodial management. I think that has been talked about by every speaker to date. If we continue to leave the management and the regulation of these fisheries to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, it is the strong view of the committee that nothing will change. We have given NAFO so many opportunities in the past to clean up its act, but it has not happened.

We believe that it is time for the Government of Canada to finally take the lead on the issue, to strike a management regime over the nose and tail and Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks and as well, of course, over the fisheries resource that falls within the 200 mile limit. In a lot of cases, as has been alluded to by other members, those fish stocks are the same because they are known as straddling stocks. They swim. Sometimes they are outside the 200 mile limit and at other times they are inside the 200 mile limit. We have to realize that in a large measure we are talking about the same fish.

However, there is something really alarming about all of this. When we shut down the cod fishery and imposed a moratorium, our own fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada stopped fishing, but foreigners continued to fish outside the 200 mile limit and foreigners continued to take the same fish that we stopped fishing in the name of conservation.

To reiterate the point, just a few weeks ago, one of the largest fish companies in Canada, Fishery Products International, was engaged in a yellowtail flounder fishery, which it does each year. In that yellowtail flounder fishery this year, the bycatch of American plaice was unusually high. Of course it is common practice that when a bycatch level exceeds a certain percentage the fishery shuts down. This year, Fishery Products International, in the name of conservation, stopped harvesting yellowtail flounder prematurely because the bycatch of American plaice was too high. What did that do?

That meant that FPI had to shut down its groundfish operation in the town of Marystown, which employed approximately 600 people. This also had an impact on its groundfish operations in the towns of Fortune and Harbour Breton, which again impacts another 800 to 900 people. A responsible Canadian company shut down its fishery and called in its boats because the bycatch of American plaice was too high, but what is happening outside the 200 mile limit is what is alarming.

American plaice, by the way, is under moratorium by NAFO. What is happening? Our company shuts down and will not fish yellowtail flounder because of the bycatch of American plaice. What is happening outside the 200 mile limit? Certain NAFO countries have a directed fishery for American plaice. That is what is happening. Then there are those people who say we should continue with NAFO and who ask what are we going to have if we do not have NAFO?

In my view, to continue with NAFO will just be a continuous failure. To continue with NAFO will mean more of the same. It will mean that our stocks will never rejuvenate and will never replenish. There has to be a change in the management regime. In my view, the committee in its wisdom has made the proper recommendation: that Canada establish a custodial management regime.

My friend from the Alliance Party, and I apologize for not recognizing his riding, made a very interesting observation in his comments and questions when he talked about it not being the desire of the committee that we push the other countries out. It is the view of the committee that we should look at historic attachment, historic fishing patterns and historic practices and consequently divvy up the fish based on that. That was the member's point. In my view, and I do not mean to speak for all the members of the committee, that is what the members of the committee desire. That is what the members of the committee want done.

We know we cannot go in, flex our muscles and tell other countries that they are out of the zone, that they will not get any of this fish. We have been selling them fish for 400 years. Spain and Portugal have been fishing off our shores for 400 years. We just cannot do that even though they are probably the most flagrant violators and have consistently been so. They do have an historical attachment to the fish and the resource. All we are saying is, let Canada manage the resource, let Canada enforce the zone.

Yes, there are those who will say we cannot afford to do that. I remember a comparable debate a few years ago in the house of assembly in the legislature of Newfoundland. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador of the day and I used to debate this issue fairly regularly. His common line always was that Newfoundland and Labrador could not afford to have more control and say over its very important fisheries resources off our shores. I consistently said to him, and I thought perhaps I would make some gain with him with a sobering thought, “Mr. Premier, Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford not to take more control of its fisheries resources off its shores”. I am sorry to say that I have been proven right. Because in regard to what that resource and then the downturn and the decimation of its fish stocks have meant to the economy and the way of life of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I am sure there will be many books written in years to come.

When I travel the south coast of Newfoundland in the riding I represent, I see what has happened to the communities. I see that many people are no longer there. I look at the ages of the people who are left there. I look at the vacant homes. I look at the businesses that are shut down. If ever there was a compelling story to show that we need more control over our fish resources, to see it all one has to do is travel rural Newfoundland, especially if one is familiar with how it was there.

In the riding I represent we worked 12 months a year at the fishery. We never knew what it was like to have a vacation. We were lucky if the plant shut down on Christmas Eve for three or four days. The boats would sail again on Boxing Day or certainly before New Year's Day to go to the fishing grounds. We did not know what vacations were.

What has happened to the fish stocks has impacted on the people. If one is as familiar with it as I am, it is very disappointing and alarming to go to communities that were so viable. I grew up in one but now there is very little life left in it. It is very disconcerting. The people do not have a lot of faith in anyone or anything any more.

That is the ongoing debate. I say to members that the report is a good one. It was not done lightly. It was done after listening to witnesses, hearing testimony, looking at the historical background. Of course there was the input of many members of the committee who have experienced what I just talked about because of where they grew up and the way life was in the communities they lived in and the way it is today.

I commend all those who participated in the debate. It has been a mature and informed debate. Quite often in the House of Commons members talk about issues for the sake of talking about them, or someone encourages them to make a speech on an issue in which they are really not interested. I have detected here today that everyone who has spoken on the issue have been well informed.

Sometimes parliamentarians and committees of the House are criticized for travelling. Quite often we hear the question, why are they travelling again and spending all that money on air transportation, hotels and other things? If ever there was a solid reason that committees of the House should travel, it is this very issue, the report we are debating today. I am sure members opposite would be only too willing to confess that before they went to Newfoundland and Labrador and heard the testimony of the witnesses at the hearings and familiarized themselves with the issue, they did not fully understand and appreciate the gravity of the situation.

The same thing happens when on occasion as a member of the committee I go to the west coast of Canada. I learn about the problems with the salmon fishery, the hake fishery, and on it goes.

There is a strong justification for members of parliament and committees to travel all over this great country. In that way we become more familiar with other people's problems and we do not always so readily slough them off as complaining about one thing and another. I want to go on the record as saying that because of the travel of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, of the five years I have been on it, it has done some good work and has produced excellent reports. I commend all members for their input into the report.

This is a very serious issue in the province in which I live. It has seriously impacted on the livelihoods of individuals. It has almost broken the economic back of many communities. It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to take the issue very seriously and to seriously consider the committee's recommendations in the report. The government should show the report to NAFO and say that Canada is serious about dealing with the issue. In my view there is only one way to deal with it and that is to move forward with custodial management.

[Briefings or Negotiations, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important for several reasons to participate in this debate on Motion No. 360 this morning, which was tabled in the House by the hon. member for Provencher. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should never exclude elected provincial government officials from any briefings or negotiations with provincial civil servants concerning legislation, regulations, treaties or agreements of any kind.

First, I am taking part in this debate because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the fundamental role of intergovernmental relations as a key element in the functioning of the Canadian federation.

Second, I want to use this occasion to illustrate the co-operative mechanisms now in place between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Third, the motion as tabled ought not to be interpreted as meaning that the Government of Canada has either the capacity or the desire to circumscribe its provincial partners in any way as to the selection of members for their own delegations to discussions or negotiations between representatives of the two main orders of government in Canada.

I do not intend to use the short time available to me in giving a detailed depiction of intergovernmental relations in Canada but rather simply to highlight their importance and their place in the lives of Canadians.

Intergovernmental affairs is obviously not alone in maintaining co-operative relations with the provincial and territorial governments, but this motion is of particular concern for us because this organization is at the centre of the efforts for co-operation and co-ordination to advance the progress of our Canadian federation.

In our country each order of government is sovereign within its own legislative sphere, but there are nevertheless types of responsibilities between orders of government where the roles of each need to be better defined. Moreover, the increased role of governments in the lives of citizens over the past century has consequently expanded their areas of activity. These areas of jurisdiction have become increasingly interlinked, leading governments to work together more closely and to identify co-operation mechanisms to manage these interactions.

No one can dispute that federal-provincial meetings have a key place in the political life of Canada. To cite but one example, in 2000-01 the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, the agency that provides administrative services for the planning and conduct of senior level intergovernmental meetings in Canada, served 99 conferences. Six of those were at the first minister level. Most of the others were among federal, provincial and territorial ministers, as a matter of fact 29 in total. Of those meetings and conferences, 31 were at the deputy minister level.

The purpose of each of these meetings is to make the functioning of the federation more harmonious, to reduce frictions between the federal and provincial-territorial governments, to forge consensus on important issues of common interest and to clarify issues relating to national unity.

Whether it be first ministers meetings, intergovernmental ministerial meetings or regional conferences, it is important to understand that every such meeting necessitates from the outset a large number of informal contacts and exchanges among officials and that these efforts are productive.

National agreements have been concluded, for example, on the national child benefit. Negotiations between the federal and provincial governments have led to bilateral agreements on the transfer of active employment measures. Regional agreements have been concluded on procurement policy between Quebec and New Brunswick and interprovincial trade among the Atlantic provinces. These are just a few of many examples.

There are few areas where the federal government could afford to act alone without requiring the co-operation of the provinces. Intergovernmental co-operation mechanisms respond to this inevitable need to adapt to an ever changing world. The system works and Canadians are the first to benefit.

At the beginning of my speech I stressed the autonomy enjoyed by each order of government in its own sphere of activity. Our government believes that one of the key factors to the success of our federation is respect for the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments.

If there is an area where this logic ought to apply first and foremost, it is in the selection of a provincial delegation to a meeting with federal representatives.

I want to emphasize that this government has never had a policy of excluding a member of a provincial delegation from a federal-provincial meeting whether the delegate is elected or not. In reading the motion, I admit that I found it difficult to imagine what could have motivated it and I wondered if the hon. member had a specific case in mind when he brought forward his notice of motion.

On our side, no such example has been brought to our attention and we therefore find the motion tabled by the opposition member extremely puzzling. Having said that, I must be honest. After hearing the member present his case in debate, I now more fully understand his point of contention.

The motion insinuates that the provincial and territorial governments are not free to designate their own representatives, elected or not, to discussions with the federal government. This proposal is patently absurd. The motion gives nothing more to the provinces and territories which already have full latitude in choosing their representatives.

We do not support the motion because the House does not need to formalize something that can be addressed informally. Whenever provincial ministers feel that they do not have access to the information they need from the federal government, their ministers need only contact their federal counterparts and for the most part these things can be worked out. I am sure the hon. member knows this as a former provincial minister.

This is the nature of intergovernmental affairs in our federation.