John M. Cummins

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

Mr. Speaker, the committee report is minus a minority report by the opposition and the reason is quite clear.

The committee looked at this issue openly and honestly and examined the issue for what it was. We all agreed that what was unfolding in front of us was a tragedy. We all agreed that we would have to act together to make it very clear not only to the government but to the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Canada and the people of the NAFO nations that we were serious about this issue and we felt that something had to be done to deal with this critical problem.

How critical is it? It is bad. Ten years ago when the fishery was shut down, when the cod moratorium was put in place, things were bad and they tell us that things are worse now. We are not in a time of recovery. Is this the only issue? Right from the get-go, no it is not. There are other reasons for it.

One which the committee will be looking at in the fall is the growth in the seal herd. That issue will prove to be quite relevant. People with experience in the fishery on the east coast know that is a severe problem. It is a problem that we are experiencing on the west coast as well. We understand the impact the growing seal populations can have on the fishery.

That certainly is one issue but the other critical issue is the overfishing and lack of concern of NAFO nations that are there ostensibly fishing for species to which they are legally entitled. Just what are they pulling up? We are told that they can be seen catching redfish the size of one's thumb and turbot the size of a Coke bottle. They harvest cod and American plaice, species which are under a moratorium.

That is pretty serious business. It does not bode well for the future of the fishery if we somehow do not get this matter under control. It is unfortunate and I hope the quote that was given was an incorrect one, but the minister said that he is not sure that foreign fishing is primarily to blame for the failure of the east coast cod stocks to bounce back. He suggests that the stocks are having a hard time recovering in part because they were so eroded. We all agree that the fish stocks were eroded but we also are convinced that foreign overfishing is the reason the stocks are not recovering.

The question is how bad is it? The St. John's Telegram under access to information wanted that kind of information. It wanted the department to provide the information it had in its records for the interceptions it had made of foreign vessels that were fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It wanted that information so it could get some idea of just how serious the problem was. That request for critical information that we could use to substantiate our charges was denied. Why? That request was denied because some NAFO nations might find it offensive if that information were released to the public.

In a letter to the chair of the committee, the minister said that the Government of Canada's position is that unilateral action would raise international legal concerns and would not be accepted by the international community. What he is saying though in this instance with regard to releasing the details of the catch is that cannot be done because it might upset the very people who are raping the resource and driving the fisheries into extinction if action is not taken.

This is serious business. It is not a political concern in the sense that the committee members were arguing among themselves on political lines. It is anything but that. In our hearings in Newfoundland and Labrador committee members were drawn together by the strength of the scientific evidence that was presented to us that showed in fact that the resource was dwindling.

There are a number of issues that are worth reading into the record. None are as compelling as some of the information that has been released, showing the disregard that some NAFO nations have for the law within the country.

For example, there was an article that appeared in the National Post on Tuesday, June 4. A small twin-engine fisheries patrol aircraft was out patrolling the 200 mile limit and spotted a Russian vessel in Canadian waters. The article stated:

The ship's rear doors are open and its nets are splayed out on deck--a violation of a federal law...

The article goes on to state that Clayton Simms, the fisheries officer, hailed the trawler on the marine radio and said:

“Good morning Captain, this is the Fisheries Officer on-board the Canadian patrol flight.”

A thick Russian voice returns the greeting.

“Your doors must be closed and your trawl must be stowed”, orders Mr. Simms. “Do you understand?”

“Ah, right now I am repairing my fishing gear”, the Russian says.

“But your doors must be closed.” There's a pause. “Thank you for the information” says the Russian.

The Russian trawler continues on its way completely ignoring the fact that he has been given a legitimate order by a federal fisheries officer within Canada's 200 mile limit.

In a recent CBC news report on The National on May 23 the reporter reminds us:

At any one time, there are 50 to 75 ships fishing outside Canada's territorial waters. And there are just two Canadian Fishery officers to make sure these ships obey the international rules set by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO.

We have the additional problem right now that our ability to cover the waters outside our 200 mile limit is limited. We do not have the manpower or the vessels to do it.

In talking about that and raising this issue the reporter points out:

Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans says since 1995, the number of charges laid against foreign fishing vessels has increased by almost 500 percent. But the charges may only tell part of the story. CBC News has obtained some of the patrol logs for the Canadian ships that monitor foreign fishing. Those logs cover the years from 1999 to 2001, and they indicate that many more ships may be getting away with illegal fishing than are ever charged. Here are two samples from the logs of ships that weren't charged.

From April, 2000, “We feel very strongly that the vessel is under reporting regulated species, and species under moratorium. There is no way to verify this at sea, but we are certain he is lying.” And from May, 1999, “All European Union vessels cheat to some degree, but the level of misreporting on board this vessel demonstrates that he has no fear of reprisals when he off-loads his catch”.

That is the real issue here: no fear of reprisals.

It goes on to say:

One of the reasons there are few reprisals, if the violation happens outside Canadian waters, there is little Canada can do. It is up to the discretion of the ship's home country to decide what, if anything, it will do about it. Fisheries patrol officers say they see too many ships that have been charged and are still fishing.

That is the nub of the problem. When we talk about the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap we are talking about a vast expanse of ocean approaching 80,000 square miles outside our Canadian limit. It is a huge area. Foreign vessels are operating without any regard for the law set down by NAFO, and without fear of reprisal. It is a wild west show out there. It is pillage at will because the sheriff is not coming to town. That is the way it is. Nobody is in charge. That is why the committee in its collective wisdom decided that Canada must exert custodial management over the fisheries beyond our 200 mile limit.

In March we heard of a well documented case involving a Russian vessel that was brought in to St. John's harbour. Found on that vessel was approximately 40,000 pounds of small cod, a species which is presently under moratorium. At any one time there could be 50 to 75 vessels fishing in those waters. We are almost certain that most of those fishing vessels are fishing with a complete disregard for species under moratorium.

If we want to extrapolate from one vessel with 40,000 pounds of illegal product aboard to 50 to 75 vessels, we are probably talking in the neighbourhood of two million pounds of fish perhaps at any one time that may be caught by that fleet and may be in the holds of that fleet. This could be done 10 times a year. We are talking about 20,000 tonnes of illegally caught fish from the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. That is a lot of cod. I am extrapolating because the department is denying us access to information for fear of embarrassing these NAFO countries. That is not an unreasonable number to catch.

When I talk about those 20,000 tonnes I must also mention the seal issue. I know all the good people in environmental organizations say they do not take much, but I have experience with seals and I know the damage they can do. I have seen the growth in the number of seals and sea lions in the Fraser River in British Columbia where I have fished for over 25 years.

About 25 years ago it was rare for a salmon to have a seal mark on it when it went up river. Now the coast is littered with seals and sea lions, especially in the Straits of Georgia. About 20% of the fish have seal marks on them. The seals do not eat the whole fish but take a bite out of the salmon's belly where the liver is and the rich tasty morsels of the stomach contents, and then let the fish go. I have caught salmon coming into the Fraser River with a bite out of its belly that starts to skin over. Those fish are still trying to make their way up the river.

I have no reason to doubt that seals are seals and that the same thing will happen on the Grand Banks. They will not eat the whole fish, but take a bit out of the belly of a mature cod or other species that may be under moratorium and then let the rest of it go.

There is no question that we have a serious problem on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. The moment is now upon us and parliament to stand up and say that we are interested in protecting the fisheries resource on Canada's east coast. That is what it is all about. If we were to allow the stocks to continue to erode there would be no recovery. It is that simple. We either take action now, after 10 years, or there will be nothing to take action for. The stocks have decreased over the last 10 years.

How do we go about it? How do we start to take action now? We have some legislation on the books in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The committee recommended that we use that and name the NAFO countries. That gives the authority to Canadian enforcement agencies to enforce the law outside our 200 mile limit. We must name those countries and go out and do the job that has to be done.

If we do the job that needs to be done who will object? Will the NAFO nations object? Some might. For example, the European Union has decided that it has to reduce the size of its fishing fleet. It has told Spain that it will have to reduce the size of its fleet. Spain has told the European Union to go and stuff it. It does not intend to do that. The European Union and Canada will have to deal with that if they get their backs up.

Who will object to Canada taking a strong stand on behalf of the fishery? I do not think anybody will. There is a strong feeling in Europe that we must protect this fisheries resource. I am sure that if we do the proper educating of the public in the European community and let them know why Canada is taking the action that it should be taking to protect this fisheries resource we will have the support of the people of the European Union and we will gain the support of other NAFO nations.

We must take this first step. We must say that we intend to stand up for the fisheries resource. Once we have done that I am convinced that receiving that support will not be difficult to achieve. If we do not stand up for the fishery, pretty soon there will be no fishery to stand up for. That is the bottom line.

It is time for Canada to say that it is not doing this just for itself. It is doing this for all of those countries, including Spain and Portugal, who have an historical attachment to the fishery on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It is in their best interests as well. The issue we must bring to the Spanish public is that we would be taking custodial management in the best interests of those fishermen in Spain and Portugal who want to obey the law and see the fishery continue to ensure that their sons and daughters have the right to fish on the Grand Banks off Canada's east coast. That is why we must do that.

The members of the fisheries committee stand together on this issue. The committee is now calling on members of parliament to stand together to give the minister the mandate and the backing of the House of Commons. When he goes to the NAFO meetings in the fall he must have the support of the parties to put a strong platform forward for custodial management by Canada over this most important fisheries resource on our east coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for bringing this motion forward. The issue is actually quite a simple one. The fishery was closed in 1992 because of a serious depletion of the cod stocks. That is the simple fact of the matter. The fear then was that the stocks were close to extinction. What we have now, 10 years later, is not a recovery. There is no recovery in the stocks. In fact, scientists will tell us that the stocks may be even more seriously depleted now than they were when the moratorium was brought forward. The situation that faced the committee was how to respond to the declining numbers of stocks when the fishery had been closed for 10 years.

Back in the mid-1990s the committee met, discussed the issue and suggested to the government at that time that it take more severe action and a more aggressive stance in defending the fish. What we have seen since then is a heavy reliance on NAFO and on the procedures that are inherent in that organization. The fact of the matter is there has been a complete failure by NAFO to act in a responsible way and to ensure that its member states are obeying the law. All this has occurred at a time when the Canadian fleet has been tied up to the wharves to protect the fish within our 200 mile limit.

As the House knows full well, fish cannot pick out the picket fence at the end of the 200 mile limit, so they freely cross back and forth through these international waters. It is no good for the Canadian fleet to be tied up when the communities in Newfoundland will suffer if there are fishermen who are illegally exercising their option to pursue the fishery at will outside the 200 mile limit.

The issue here was how to protect those stocks, not just the stocks of the nose and tail of the Grand Bank but all of the stocks which freely cross into the 200 mile economic zone of Canada. That was the dilemma that faced the committee.

We have tried the NAFO issue. Canada is being marginalized in NAFO. The member states do not want to pay attention to us. They do not understand the real concerns that we have, not just in furthering our own interests but in protecting the fisheries resource. That is the issue behind custodial management. Canada is not just saying that it will take this over lock, stock and barrel and claim the water column for its own. We are saying that we want custodial management to protect the fisheries resource for all user groups, those with an historical attachment to it.

I would like my friend from Cumberland—Colchester to respond to that very clear issue and statement of the fisheries committee that the intention is to preserve the fish for all nations that want to harvest it and that have been harvesting it for so many hundreds of years.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition this morning on behalf of constituents and other folks throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia, including people from the Quesnel area of British Columbia and even people from Ottawa.

The petition has to do with the constitutional obligation of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to protect wild fish and their habitat. The petitioners note that the auditor general and others have found that the minister is currently not fulfilling his obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat.

They call upon parliament to direct the minister to fulfill his obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat from the effects of fish farming.

[Petitions, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition which draws to the attention of parliament the fact that the minister of fisheries has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat. The petitioners note that the auditor general and others have found that the minister of fisheries is not meeting this constitutional obligation. They call upon parliament to require the minister to fulfill his obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat from the effects of salmon farming.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the signators note that the federal minister of fisheries has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat from the effects of fish farming. As the auditor general and others have pointed out, the minister is not fulfilling his obligation.

The petitioners call on parliament to ensure that the federal minister of fisheries fulfills his obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat from the effects of fish farming.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. In the first petition the signators call to the attention of parliament that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a majority of people in this country. The courts do not seem to be defending the will of the majority.

The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps to ensure that materials which are produced and promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities are outlawed.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-56 because of the effect the bill will have on our society and, most important, on future generations. I am concerned about the bizarre duplicities in the bill which leave important moral questions in the hands of a few or even single appointed individuals unknown to most Canadians.

I am concerned that the government has brought the bill forward in such a way as to avoid questions about life which it believes may be troubling politically. I am concerned that the government would use the promise of banning obviously abhorrent practices such as human cloning as a means of avoiding debate on a few of the more politically troubling issues surrounding stem cell research.

In his March 4 column of the National Post , Andrew Coyne exposed the tragic failure of the government to address the critical issues raised by the possibilities of science today. He began by describing the dilemma of Maureen McTeer:

On the CBC, Maureen McTeer--lawyer, feminist and freelance medical ethicist--was ticking off the reasons she opposed the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos for medical research, as would be permitted under proposed federal guidelines. She was passionate, even immoderate at times.

It was an affront to human dignity, she said. From the moment the egg was fertilized, it became part of “the human continuum.” To allow the killing of embryos before the proposed 14-day limit and not after was a specious distinction, an attempt to obscure the enormity of what we were doing by denying the humanity of the lives we were destroying. Nazi scientists, she said, shrugged that the victims of their experiments were “only Jews.”

Now we were saying “it's only a fetus.” At which point, one of her befuddled fellow panellists felt compelled to ask: “Aren't you pro-choice?”

The ethical confusion which surrounds this debate is not Ms. McTeer's alone. The Government of Canada is itself, in Mr. Coyne's words:

--twisted into the same contradictory pose: attempting to define and assert the state's interest in the rights of the fetus, while officially denying that it has any--at least, as far as that would imply any legal restriction on abortion.

Ms. McTeer attempted to square the circle this way. When it comes to a conflict between the rights of the child in utero and the rights of the expectant mother, “we have decided” that the mother's rights “trump” those of the fetus. The rights of medical researchers, on the other hand, do not carry the same weight.

That is:

A pregnant woman has an unrestricted right in law to kill the fetus she carries, right up until the moment of birth: because she does not want to interrupt her career, because she doesn't care for the father, it doesn't matter. She holds “trumps.” A scientist, however, may not do the same to another fetus in the course of extracting embryonic stem cells, even in the first 14 days, in pursuit of medical advances that--who knows?--might save millions of lives.

The logic or lack of logic inherent in the government's position on matters address in Bill C-56 make my head swim. On the one hand we would allow a woman to abort a fetus but on the other, would punish her by up to 10 years in prison for donating an unfertilized egg for use in therapeutic cloning, a process where, for example, her egg would be injected with someone else's DNA to produce an embryo from which embryonic stem cells would be extracted in the hopes of coaxing them to grow into an organ needed by the donor of the DNA.

To put it in clear, unmistakable terms, under Bill C-56 it is okay to destroy a fetus on whim but it is not okay, in fact it is punishable by 10 years in prison, if one destroys with the intent of improving someone else's quality of life.

The question is: how did the government lead us to this baffling juncture? The answer is patently obvious if one considers the principles upon which Bill C-56 is presumably based. Although they may be commendable as written, they are more remarkable for what they do not say.

Most notably absent is any clear definition of what constitutes human life or when human life begins. Unless and until these fundamental principles are clearly addressed and defined, confusion will prevail. It is virtually impossible to write a coherent and consistent bill, a bill which will withstand the challenges already being prepared by those who would clone humans and conduct other outrageous experiments.

The fundamental principles governing assisted human reproduction are matters of unparalleled significance to our society. They are in fact cornerstones of our society. They define us as people. They are matters of importance to all members of our society, those with religious faith and those with none. As my friend from Calgary Southeast noted in this place, even if we do not believe in the intrinsic sanctity of human life, surely we can all respect the dignity of human life.

There is another matter that I would like to briefly address. Let me note that although my comments will be brief, that in no way detracts from the significance of the issue.

Recently I received a communication encouraging me to support embryonic stem cell research because of the hope it offered a person's mother who is suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. I know something of Lou Gehrig's disease because I lost my mother to it. I also know that there is more hype than hope in embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has a number of problems. Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield in England said “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge”. Doug Melton, a Harvard University researcher, said “In my view (human embryonic stem cells) would degrade with time”.

Human embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully in clinical trials, have a lacklustre success in combating animal models of disease and carry significant risk, including human immune rejection and tumor formation. Speaking about embryonic stem cells, Glenn McGee, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, told M.I.T.'s Technology Review that “The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after stem cell transplant might turn out to be a Pandora's box of stem cell research”.

In stem cell research dealing with Parkinson's disease, there have been nothing but problems. The results have been horrific. In 15% of the patients the transplanted fetal cells went out of control and produced irreversible and devastating changes in the patients' brains, resulting in muscle spasms, sucking movements and writhing, which could not be controlled by any medicine.

The case for adult stem cell research is different. The retrieval and clinical use of these cells is morally acceptable and there is no unreasonable hazard to the patient. Adult stem cells have been located in numerous cells and tissue types and can be transformed into virtually all cell and tissue types.

Multipotent adult progenitor cells are stem cells found in bone marrow in adults that can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into. They seem to grow indefinitely in cultures without losing their characteristics and do not seem to form cancerous masses or cause tissue rejection. These cells may turn out to be the most important cells ever discovered and they can be produced in virtually limitless supply.

It is worth noting in conclusion how important this issue is to us as humans. Vaclav Havel, the president of the Czech Republic, noted:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Eric S. Cohen, managing editor of Public Interest , writes:

The ancients knew better, and it is to their old wisdom that modern man must return. In both the classical and biblical vision, death awakens man to the preciousness of life; mortality awakens him to the possibility of transcendence; and constant recognition of his own imperfection reminds him of the need for restraint and repentance.

In his misplaced quest for autonomy--freedom from want, freedom from morality, freedom from death--modern man has forgotten how to see; he has turned his back on his essential nature. He treats the human experience of incompleteness--the fact of suffering, alienation, and death--as a problem to be solved, a sickness to be cured, a stirring to be forgotten. And so he forgets what his wise and wondering ancestors remembered--that man is not fully of this world; that the beginning of wisdom is not only realizing the limits of one's knowledge but the ultimate meaning of one's limits.

[Petitions, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition from citizens of Richmond, Delta and other places in British Columbia who would like to remind the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he has constitutional obligation to protect wild fish in their habitat.

They note that the auditor general and others have found that the minister has been negligent in his duties to protect wild salmon and the habitat from the effects of salmon farming. They call on parliament to remind the minister to fulfill his obligation to protect wild salmon and their habitat from the effects of fish farming.

[Petitions, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which acknowledges that the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat.

The petitioners note that the auditor general and others have pointed out that the minister is failing to meet that obligation. They call on parliament to require the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to protect all wild fish and their habitat from the effects of fish farming.

[Petitions, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from citizens throughout British Columbia who call to the attention of the House that the minister has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish in their habitats. They point out that the auditor general and others have completed reports which demonstrate quite clearly that this is not the case. They request that parliament require the minister of fisheries to fulfill his obligation to protect wild fish in their habitats.