Jean Crowder

[Fisheries Act, June 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, what the member highlights is the fact that we have a bill that has been presented to the House without a lot of forethought. It appears there is a great deal of confusion about what the actual impact would be on the ability of the House to continue to have oversight.

As the member pointed out, it is absolutely essential that the House and the committee do not lose their ability to ensure our fishers and our industry are being well served and well protected. In terms of more public scrutiny, we have observed in any number of areas that what we need is more openness and transparency in legislation and in the way departments operate, not less. Anything that will contribute to less oversight by the House and less transparency before the House is not something I would support.

I come back to the need for us to have an integrated strategy. We one-off things with a bill like this, I am very concerned about what the longer term impact would be and what it all means in terms of the health of our fisheries.

[Fisheries Act, June 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues from the Conservatives and the Bloc have raised some important issues regarding Bill C-52. We are hearing that there is a need to act expeditiously; however, this bill it seems has had little thought. We have heard that there are some concerns that if this bill is not passed that it is going to seriously jeopardize the management of the fisheries in Ontario.

In fact, some of the literature that has come out of the department talks about the fact that the need for this bill is a key part of proper management and control of the fishery as well as conservation and protection of fish.

It seems to me that if we are that concerned about protection and management of the fisheries, and that if we are prepared to act in such a rapid fashion over an issue that is impacting on Ontario fishers, that surely after years and years of concern that has being raised in other fisheries, that we could be acting as expeditiously as possible.

Part of the challenge is that many of us do not have faith in what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, more commonly referred to as DFO, is doing with the management and protection of fisheries that many Canadians are asking for.

I come from the west coast constituency of Nanaimo—Cowichan and we have a longstanding history around management of fisheries. This is not the first time that we have raised issues around the health and safety of our fisheries. I need only to go back to the 2004 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I will read a couple of points out of that report because there have been years of concerns raised and still we do not have policies in place. The report stated:

Overall, we are not satisfied with the progress made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in responding to the recommendations we made in the three previous audits in 1997, 1999 and 2000. While many stocks are abundant, some Atlantic and Pacific salmon stocks are in trouble. We continue to identify significant gaps in managing risks. - The department has not finalized the Wild Salmon Policy, which would set out clear objectives and guiding principles. The policy would also bring together biological, economic and social factors- for fisheries and resource management, habitat protection and salmon enhancement. - There are shortcomings in information on salmon stocks and habitat and scientific knowledge on the potential environmental effects of salmon aquaculture and aquatic ecosystems. - There are weaknesses in regulatory approvals, enforcement and monitoring of salmon aquacultural operations. This includes approving aquaculture site applications, assessing cumulative effects and monitoring salmon aquaculture operations to prevent harmful destruction of habitats. - There has been inadequate co-ordination between federal and provincial governments in managing fish habitat, undertaking research, approving aquaculture site applications, and sharing information.

The report goes on to talk about the three previous audits regarding the salmon stocks on the Pacific coast indicating that they were under stress. In 1999 they found that Pacific salmon fisheries were in trouble, that the long term sustainability of the fisheries was at risk because of overfishing, habitat loss and other factors.

I only have to point back to previous stories that came from the west coast. It is legend, but the Cowichan elders in my riding talk about the fact that they used to be able to walk across the backs of the salmon to get from one side of the river to the other. They talk about the fact that fish were so plentiful that they would jump into the net. Today we are in serious trouble. Today we are lucky if we can even see a fish on the Cowichan River

Recently under Canada Reads, one of the books was called Rockbound . It is a wonderful story of Newfoundland at the beginning of the last century. The story talks about the very hard life that fishers have, but it also talks about how plentiful fish were at that point.

The minister spoke about the need for the modernization of the Fisheries Act and a comprehensive review and reform. Yet we continue to wait for this to happen. We have heard some of my colleagues across the floor say that we have had a Fisheries Act in place for 137 years and that act has failed to keep pace with the changes happening in Canada.

I want to talk about the current DFO wild salmon policy. At the time the commissioner for sustainability issued her report, the wild salmon policy was still to come. In December 2004 the wild salmon policy was issued for review. It has been in the public domain for a number of months and in April a new draft was to be available. Apparently it is available. One cannot get it online. One must send an email to get a copy of the current wild salmon policy.

My understanding, although not really clear, is that the next stage is the development of operational guidelines. When I look at the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website and its information sheet from February 15, it talks about what is new in the policy. I thought this was a really interesting statement. It talks about the state of disarray in the ministry. It states:

The Wild Salmon Policy proposes a fundamental transformation in the way Pacific salmon, their habitats, and dependent ecosystems are managed.

Many of us would say that it is about time and ask how many more times we need to hear that. It goes on to state:

The WSP is a commitment to restore and maintain biodiversity in Pacific salmon (including their habitats and related ecosystems). The policy formalizes a gradual evolution in salmon management that has happened over the last 20 years. While management in the past was focused on the major stocks and fisheries, today attention has turned to the protection of biodiversity and a broader array of benefits from Pacific salmon.

That is great. How many salmon have been saved by this gradual evolution? What we have seen with this gradual evolution of policy is a Pacific wild salmon stock that is under ever increasing threat. We do not want a gradual evolution policy. We want a policy that can be implemented immediately and one that is actually going to do something about enhancing the health and vitality of our salmon stocks.

The salmon stocks are absolutely critical, and I am talking wild salmon, to the health of British Columbia fisheries. I am speaking more specifically, because that is where I come from, around the coastal communities.

The Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council talked about the fact that the fishery is not just about economics. It is also about social, cultural and environmental issues. In its May 5 release it stated:

The federal government’s capacity to conserve and scientifically manage the Pacific salmon fisheries continues to be eroded, according to the annual report of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (PFRCC).

The report, issued today, notes that Fisheries & Oceans Canada has been focused on dealing with budget cuts when it should be directing its attention towards managing this valuable resource. It questions the government’s capacity to do an effective job in areas of enforcement, habitat protection and restoration, salmon enhancement, research and stock assessment, and also calls for the Department to open its management to public scrutiny about the effectiveness of its choices.

I would welcome more public scrutiny of how this department is managing our fisheries. This has been an ongoing saga. When we start looking at the value of the fisheries, we talk about the fact that the fishery stock has actually been contributing substantial amounts of money to the B.C. economy.

In a paper that was prepared in May 2004 by the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, it talked about the value of the commercial fishery to British Columbia. This was a submission to the public review of the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas in May 2004. In its executive summary, it stated:

The commercial fishing industry still generates revenues in excess of one-third of a billion dollars ($358 million in 2002) and contributes $170 million to BC’s Gross Domestic Product. Between 10,000 to 15,000 people earn a living from fishing or working in fish processing plants, a variable number because of a variable fishery."

Much more is at stake, however, if one looks at the magnitude of the entire marine sector in B.C., including marine tourism, the sportsfishing industry and aquaculture. According to a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, B.C. marine-based industries employ over 20,000 and contribute a total GDP over $600 million and revenues far in excess of $2 billion. The importance of the commercial fishery to smaller coastal communities and First Nations is far more significant than the simple economics would suggest, as in many cases, fishing is the major or one of the major job producers in many communities. Generations of First Nations people and non-native fishermen have relied on the fisheries for their livelihoods.

One only needs to look at communities like Sointula to see what is happening to some of our coastal communities. As the fisheries become increasingly threatened, and increasingly concentrated I might add, there has been much talk about the ITQs in terms of how it affects coastal communities, not only the fishers but also suppliers, the marine repair sector, and as this paper points out, tourism and sports fishing. It is very important that we have an integrated, comprehensive strategy that looks at the vitality of our fisheries.

I have spoken in the House in the past around community economic development. One of the underlying principles of community economic development is that we have local control over local resources. I have heard many of the fishers from the east coast say that it is the local fishers, not the big corporate, business fishers, who understand what is happening on the ground. When there is local control over local resources, we end up with communities that have an inherent interest in preserving that resource.

This is a vital part for which many fishers are asking. They are asking for a different look at the way communities are included in the conversations around these fisheries.

In 2002 the Pacific Salmon Foundation did an analysis on where money was going in fisheries. I do not have much hope that the situation has changed. It talked about the fact that $44.5 million per annum had been cut back from salmon restoration programs by the government. It then goes on to do a detailed analysis.

However, the foundation also talks about the fact, as others have alluded, that fisheries is a very complex field to manage. We not only have a very important federal government role in it, but we also have a provincial government role. It talks about the fact that although the federal government has responsibility for fisheries, salmon and salmon habitat, most of the impact that affect salmon and salmon habitat are the responsibility of the provincial government. It talks about hydro generation, agriculture, mining, forestry, water and urban development. It talks about how critical it is that both levels of government be involved in coming up with solutions, which leads me back to the current bill.

On the one hand we hear that this is an absolutely essential piece to protect Ontario fishers. On the other hand there are concerns about how this legislation would affect fishing communities from coast to coast to coast. Here we have an example where we have one provincial government at the table with one small piece of a bill, yet we have, as far as I can see, no consideration of how other provincial governments may be impacted by the legislation.

The bill is being touted as a technical piece of housekeeping that is required to clean up some anomalies in the regulations and that it is an important piece for us to look at so we do not impact Ontario fishers. I would encourage the government to move forward on looking at the overall fisheries in Canada. Instead of just talking about the need to modernize the act and to have comprehensive reform, we get on with doing it before the west coast ends up in the same position as the east coast, with a cod moratorium that does not look like it is going to be lifted in any kind of timeframe. We do not want to see the wild salmon stocks in British Columbia end up in that same position.

Those salmon stocks are not only important for the culture of first nations, the economy and environment, they are also an integral part of our entire ecosystem. Many of our other critters depend upon fish, whether they grizzly bears or whatever. It is important that we ensure we are not doing something unintended with legislation. It is important that we step back and take a look at the overall fisheries and get on with ensuring that we have a fishery for our children and our grandchildren.

[Fisheries, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, people are dying while they wait for a more straightforward answer on this.

How about another topic? In 1992 Canada banned the toxic malachite green. In February, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found malachite green in farmed salmon. Our health regulations can only protect us if they are actually enforced. Where is the zero tolerance for this dangerous chemical and why are fish hatcheries still using it?

[Taxation, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a former Supreme Court justice revealed the government has pocketed over $2 million from the compensation fund for victims who contracted HIV from tainted blood. While victims are waiting to access the funds, the government is taxing any income from the fund. This is plain meanspirited.

Will the fund be tax exempt? Will the $2 million taken from the fund be returned? Or will the health minister continue to victimize these people?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that exactly fits in with the description that I had around the challenges that many women face. Men and women with disabilities who are, by a variety of circumstances, only able to work part time or seasonal or non-standard employment pay into the EI system and are just as disadvantaged as women.

If we want to encourage people's participation to whatever extent that they are able, we must look at a system that recognizes their differences.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues here. When we are talking about investing in skills development, I came from a university/college background, so I absolutely support investing in skills development. However, one of the challenges with the existing programs is that they are often narrow in scope. They are often fairly complicated procedural mechanisms for people to access. They are not often seated in the reality of many people's communities.

They tend to be a one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach that do not recognize the needs of the fishery workers in New Brunswick, the forestry workers, and the fishery workers on the west coast. So, yes, we should invest, and yes, we want to have investments and contribute to a healthy economy, but we need to be more flexible in our approaches around this.

On the issue around reducing taxes, although I would applaud reducing taxes on people who earn less than $20,000, we often look at tax reduction as a simplistic approach to fixing a complex problem. Unless we seek those kinds of measures within the context of a broader social strategy, they will fail.

People pay minimum taxes on $20,000 as it is. However, we must look at initiatives like affordable housing and education. We need that comprehensive strategy in order to ensure that people have a way of getting themselves out of poverty.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for sharing his time with me.

I hear a great deal of talk in the House about how wonderful the employment insurance program has been for Canadians, but I need to focus people's attention on what some of the changes have meant over the last several years.

I applaud the member for Acadie—Bathurst for bringing forward this very important motion to deal with one aspect of the employment insurance program.

In 1990, 74% of unemployed Canadians were receiving what was then called UI. By 2001, only 39% of unemployed Canadians were entitled. That is a huge shift in public policy leaving some of our most vulnerable people at risk.

Because I am the women's critic for the NDP, it would be remiss of me not to point out that in 1990, 69% of unemployed women were covered, but by 2001 only 33% of unemployed women were covered by EI. That is a shameful record. It has actually driven more Canadians into poverty. These numbers are from the Canadian Labour Congress and they talk about the fact that EI cuts are the single most important reason for the rise in child poverty. Sixty per cent of the million workers cut from EI eligibility had incomes below $15,000. This loss in benefits averaged $4,832.

I have a couple more numbers to present before I put the face of a person on this reality. We have seen that in many places women have been disproportionately hurt. What we found is that only 33% of unemployed women receive benefits compared to 44% for men. In five provinces, insurance coverage for women is below 30%. In Ontario only 23% of unemployed women get EI. In some cities only 20% of unemployed women get EI. That is outrageous in an age where we talk about gender equity.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst did some investigation and there was a report called “The Human Face: Employment Insurance”. Someone from my riding, Jack McLellan from Nanaimo, British Columbia was quoted as saying that he had attended the funeral of a co-worker, Brian Gellhoed, a victim of our eroded social safety net. Brian had taken his own life after his EI payments stopped. Too proud to sell his home and the personal belongings he had acquired during his lifetime in order to qualify for welfare, Brian preferred to end it all.

It is absolutely shameful that we talk only about numbers and not about the human face of what happens to people in our communities who no longer have this very important social safety net. Not only do Canadian reports talk about the fact that this is a shameful state in Canada, but we have been cited under international conventions. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has specifically called for a gender based analysis of the employment insurance program because it so seriously disadvantages women.

In addition, FAFIA has conducted a gender based analysis of the last budget, but specifically talks about the fact that the employment insurance legislation has disadvantaged women who are often part time, seasonal workers and are in and out of the workforce due to factors well beyond their control. This very good motion by the member for Acadie—Bathurst would help redress some of these issues.

In addition, women often have to take on other responsibilities. They are often primary caregivers in their home. They are often involved in senior caregiving. Women are often in and out of the workforce through absolutely no fault of their own. If we are truly committed to equity and gender equality, for women's equality in this country, we must look at the employment insurance legislation in this light.

Many studies talk about the impact. Even Statistics Canada talks about it in a report which notes that not collecting EI has important implications for an individual's probability of being poor while unemployed. Regardless of the policy environment, poverty is significantly higher among those who experience unemployment but do not receive EI benefits.

About 60% of the million workers kept from EI eligibility had incomes below $15,000. We keep talking about strategies to address child poverty. We do not have child poverty unless we have family poverty. This translates to the fact that we have so many women who cannot access this important social safety net.

The tightened eligibility rules for employment insurance have done one thing. We talked earlier about the fact that fewer and fewer women were actually able to receive employment insurance. To put this into context, benefits were reduced to 55% of income and this is the lowest percentage in the history of employment insurance in Canada. The replacement rate of income was 67% in 1971, 60% in 1980, 57% in 1993 and 55% after 1997.

Given the fact that many women and men are earning less than $15,000 a year, we ask them to go on employment insurance earning only 55% of that. How do we expect Canadian women and men to feed, clothe and house their families? I challenge any member in the House to live on that kind of family income. None of us would be willing to do that. In fact, we are asking people to live in third world conditions.

When we talk about commitment to families and the importance of healthy families to nurture our communities, our economy and our social well-being, we must commit to employment insurance programs that support those values.

The steelworkers provided a report called “It's a Balancing Act: A Steelworker Guide to Negotiating the Balance of Work-Life Responsibilities”. That report talks about some real challenges and asks parliamentarians to take a stand as they move forward to improve the lives of Canadian women and men.

We often hear about the fact that these wonderful changes to maternity and paternity leave have made a huge difference in the lives of Canadian men and women. The problem is that many Canadian women and men no longer qualify. The steelworkers specifically say that although the length of maternity, paternity and parental leave has increased to a year, the benefit rate and eligibility requirements leave many families without protection. I applaud the fact that we have seen some improvements in those areas, but many Canadian women just cannot access it.

We are talking about workers who are disadvantaged by the current regulations. Currently women and men who are self-employed cannot access the employment insurance program. When we are talking about maternity and paternity benefits, we are talking about a great gap in wage supports for men and women who are actually a vital part of our Canadian economy.

We keep talking about entrepreneurial spirit. We keep talking about small business being the driver of our economy. Yet, the very people who are engaged in those kinds of activities and are self-employed do not qualify for benefits that would help them keep their businesses vital, active and contributing in the longer run.

In conclusion, the motion before the House is a small step toward ensuring that the Employment Insurance Act more readily meets the needs of workers in Canada. If we value our workers and communities and say that our families are important, we must ensure the social safety nets are there, so that Canadian men and women have some certainty after their employment ends that they have some income to feed their children and keep themselves stable.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his tireless defence of workers in this country. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act has been a critical factor coast to coast to coast in supporting workers, their families and employers in the community.

The member alluded to the fact that this was a very important measure for workers who are hardest hit in regions with very high unemployment. That takes place coast to coast to coast and is very important for workers. The member also alluded to the fact that there are other necessary changes that need to happen to the Employment Insurance Act to ensure that our workers can rise above poverty in Canada.

I would like to ask the member, what other measures does he think are really important to be addressed in the long run for workers in Canada?

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal cuts to the EI program in 1996 hurt women workers more than men. Studies show that cuts to EI benefits have made a significant contribution to poverty among women and their families.

Human Resources Canada knows its policies are unfair. Its 2004 assessment report said that women exhaust benefits in higher proportions than men and that since women are more likely to work part time hours they establish claims with fewer hours of work than men resulting in fewer weeks of benefits.

Although women who work part time pay EI premiums on every paycheque, they often do not qualify for maternity benefits because they simply cannot qualify under the 600 hour rule. This injustice has to end.

Across the country only 33% of women workers who apply for EI are deemed eligible and are able to access the fund when they need it the most.

Tomorrow, through the NDP opposition motion, all members of the House will have the opportunity to make the system work better for Canadian women. This is about making the system fair for all Canadians and ending the discrimination that exists in the current federal program.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is around the fact that we have now seen several months of testimony. We have spent millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer funds to fund the inquiry. We know for a fact that Canadians are very upset and concerned about the information that has come out of the Justice Gomery inquiry.

I have to qualify this by saying that I am no lawyer. However, what I heard earlier in the House was that there had been a Supreme Court decision that clearly set out the parameters for what was allowed in this type of inquiry and that commissioner responsibilities were clearly laid out.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh talked about the fact that the motion would contravene what the Supreme Court had laid out. Could the member explain how the motion would be seen in the light of previous decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court?