Debates of Nov. 30th, 1998

Small Scale Fishing

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should declare an international week of awareness about the benefits of small-scale fishing for the environment and for the sustainability of communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House and the Canadian people for the opportunity to speak to this motion.

The motion basically states that we should respect and honour those fishermen, fisherwomen and plant workers in our coastal communities, on all three coasts, and those who fish in our inland waters of the Great Lakes and in the inland waters of provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

It all started in the 1950s with the invention of the freezer trawler and the ocean factory freezing draggers. These technological advances, the new way of catching fish, have literally destroyed different species of stock throughout the entire world.

In 1977 the present Governor General, Romeo LeBlanc, was the fisheries minister of Canada and he extended our limit from 12 miles to 200 miles. One of the reasons for doing that was to have greater control of our ocean resources.

The unfortunate aspect is that the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated, quite rightly, that governments of the past, Liberal or Conservative, have favoured the large corporations over the inshore sector. I thank him for that admission.

This motion does not in any way reflect on monetary value from the government. It does not reflect in any way any on political partisanship. This motion honours those fishermen who risk their lives every day on the oceans to put food on our tables.

It was announced today in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that search and rescue crews are searching for three more fishermen who are presumed drowned. There were five fishermen on that ship. Two bodies have been found and three more are still missing. Fishermen spend their entire lives working so they can put food on our tables. All this motion does is honour and recognize them.

November 21 is international oceans day. On that day we stop to reflect upon what benefits the oceans provide the human race. We also reflect upon those individuals who work in the resource in all countries.

The resources of the oceans do not just belong to Canada, they belong to all Canadians and to all human beings in countries bordering oceans.

In Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland and in other coastal areas we often see on top of people's homes architectural pieces called the widow's walk. The widow's walk enabled women, especially the wives of fishermen, to watch and hope that their husbands or sons would come back from fishing. Widows' walks can still be seen throughout Nova Scotia and in other provinces as well. They were put there so that the wives could watch for the return of their husbands and sons from their perilous days or weeks of fishing.

Fishing in the old days was not like it is today. It was not the hook and line and small dory fishermen who destroyed the fishery, it was advanced technology. It used to take weeks to catch the fish. Now it takes just minutes.

Today is the opening of the lobster fishery in West Nova and literally thousands of small boats will be out fishing. The chances of some of them not returning are very real. Fishermen risk their lives to earn their livelihood. It is said that farming is one of the most dangerous occupations. Fishing is right behind it. Every year we lose dozens of lives in our coastal communities to fishing.

This motion proposes that we honour fishermen internationally for one week a year. It would provide the opportunity to reflect on what benefits small scale fisheries bring to Canada.

It would be a tragedy if we lost our coastal communities to a lack of resources. Currently in Halifax there is a week long conference on the oceans. This motion is in perfect timing with debates concerning what the world should be doing with the resources of the oceans.

Recently we had the Swissair disaster in Nova Scotia. The very first people on the scene were inshore fishermen; people from Sambro Head, Blandford and from the St. Margarets Bay area. They were the very first people at the scene when that Swissair plane went down.

If we continue in our ways and force fishermen and their families out of these communities that type of ability will be lost forever.

It is not a good idea to pull people out of their communities and move them into urban centres. We absolutely cannot do that.

Again, this motion would allow us to honour for one week of each year these people and their commitments, their ancestors and their communities. I will ask for unanimous consent later on in the debate for this to be made a votable motion.

Many people in my caucus agree with the fact that coastal communities, inland communities, small communities are really what make this country great. They built this country and they will sustain this country.

All I am asking parliament to do, this House of Commons, this very respected and hallowed place, is to honour the inshore fishermen and the small scale fishery, which was, by the way, very sustainable. It went on for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Just recently, since 1956, we have destroyed many aspects of the fishery. Now we are slowly starting to consult and to work with people in the industry to rebuild the stocks and to make employment in the industry as equitable as it was before.

We know there have been changes to the fishery, some good and some bad. All this motion asks for is one week to recognize the hard work of these people, what they do for our environment and also what they do to put food on our tables. It is important to reiterate that these fine, outstanding people risk their lives every day on these small boats, mostly to sustain those in urban centres.

A lot of the children of these fishermen will not realize what it is like to be with their dad, mom, uncle or brother on a small boat because, as we speak, more and more small inshore fishermen are being forced out of the industry. Even the government admits that big scale, big corporate fishing is the way to go. I am certainly not here to debate that. That debate is for another time in our committee hearings.

I know that the parliamentary secretary who is here today realizes that beautiful Prince Edward Island also has thousands of inshore fishermen and that these people risk their lives as well. Members of the Reform Party, including the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, my hon. colleague on the committee, also know that there are hundreds of people in their ridings who realize their livelihood from this resource.

When we travelled to the riding of a former member of our committee, the member for Vancouver Island North, thousands of people came to speak to us about the feasibility and the possibility of retaining small scale fisheries to keep their communities alive. Many of these communities are coastal communities. They do not have road access and many other things that the great urban areas have.

It is an honour, a privilege and a real treat to go to communities like Sointula, Alert Bay, Port Hardy and Prince Rupert, B.C.; Burgeo, Newfoundland; Malpeque, P.E.I; Sheet Harbour, Sambro and Shelburne, Nova Scotia; Broughton Island, Baffin Island in the Northwest Territories and thousands of other communities. It is an honour as a parliamentarian to visit those communities.

All these people ask for is the opportunity to remain in their specific field of fishing. They do not want to become rich. They just want to make enough money to maintain their livelihood and look after their children. That is not very much to ask.

This motion would recognize a symbolic week. It would be a gesture from the House of Commons saying “We respect you. We appreciate what you have done in the past and will do in the future. We will honour your commitment to fishing and providing sustenance for our tables so that we can survive as a species. We will do that by giving you an international week”.

Some people may say that it will be difficult to have an international week. It was difficult, but we managed to do it fairly quickly on the land mines issue. We give the current Minister of Foreign Affairs top marks and a lot of credit for his efforts and other countries' efforts in establishing the treaty on land mines.

If we can do that we can certainly honour fishermen in all coastal regions around the world like those of India, Bangladesh, Namibia, the United States, Chile and Canada. I could go on and on. All nations that have coastal communities and people within those communities can certainly get together either through the UN or through parliament to recognize these communities, fishermen and their families throughout not only Canada but the entire world. It would be a symbolic gesture. It would go a long way toward honouring their commitment to the economy of nations and to the livelihood of their communities.

It is a real pleasure to speak today. I hope the government of the day and future governments will be able to respect and honour small scale fisheries and the people who live within those communities.

There have been many protests directed toward government. I remember the ones in February 1996 when many inshore fishermen occupied DFO buildings because of their perception that their livelihoods were being taken away from them and traded over to big corporations. That argument still continues and the battle still continues.

The unfortunate part right now is that people have given up hope and dignity. The motion will restore some hope and dignity to the lives of these people. I do not have to go into the number of suicides of inshore fishermen and plant workers which have recently happened in South West Nova. A rash of suicides is also happening on Vancouver Island. These people were at one time proud people who worked hard in the fisheries and made a little money to look after their families.

The unfortunate part is that in their perception, and sometimes in their reality, their livelihoods have been taken away by the government or past governments in co-operation with big corporate industry. Evidence abounds which indicates the government today is still favouring certain sectors of the fishing industry over those of the small inshore fishers. That debate would be for another day.

I ask for the indulgence of the House. I will at the end of my speech ask for the motion to be votable. It is not a monetary motion. It is not a motion that binds the government or future governments in any, way shape or form. It is a symbolic gesture to say to people in the inshore communities and our coastal communities that we respect them, that we honour their way of life, and that we will do all we can as a government and as an opposition to respect their way of life and their families.

I thank all members in the House who are taking part in a debate which I think is a very important one.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps I could seek clarification from the hon. member. Is he seeking this consent now or will he do it in his five minute reply?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

In my five minute reply.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the motion of the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should declare an international week of awareness about the benefits of small- scale fishing for the environment and for the sustainability of communities.

I have had the opportunity to travel with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to many small communities with the fisheries committee. I firmly believe that fishing, farming and other rural communities are the lifeblood of the nation. We have to do everything we can to ensure their viability.

Declaring a week of awareness is not the answer. At the very end the member opposite dealt with the facts when he said it was nothing more than a symbolic gesture. It has to be much more than that. We on this side of the House believe in taking some action. Symbolism is not enough.

If we are to have an international week of awareness we have to put people on the issue. We have to hire people. We have to put out publications. It takes money and time. We are trying to expend our efforts improving the fisheries rather than that which is typical of the New Democratic Party. It wants to theorize, study and go on for years. We on this side of the House believe in making some hard decisions and taking action. We have begun to see evidence in the last year in terms of improvements. In fact Premier Tobin mentioned that the other day.

Awareness is already taking place and taking place vividly. Last week at the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, a national forum held from November 21 to November 23, the minister, elected officials, industry representatives and fish harvesters met to work further on a vision of the fishery which recognizes gear sectors and opens the lines to communication. It was an attempt to work in unison with the industry as a whole. It was a recognition by people practising in the industry of its importance and that there is a future for the fishing industry.

When Premier Tobin spoke—

[An hon. member]

Who?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member opposite is asking “Who”. Premier Tobin is well known. I believe he was called Captain Canada at one time when on behalf of the government he ensured that we put the run to the foreigners at one point in time. He ensured that the fishery would move ahead for Canadian fishermen.

In his remarks Premier Tobin made very clear that although many people in Canada think the fisheries is a basket case that is not the case at all. The main reason the Newfoundland economy is predicted to do so well this year is because of the fishery. It has improved and is healthy. There are problems in terms of the Atlantic cod fishery but the fishery is improving. The value of landings has improved. I believe in the province of Quebec the value of landings has improved 39% since about 1982.

One of the most important points I want to make is that conservation is the government's top priority when it comes to managing Canada's fisheries resources. In the case of the fisheries this means conservation comes before other priorities, as worthy as they may be, such as job creation and economic development.

Although members opposite very seldom admit it, we are working on job creation and economic development through the rural initiatives of the Government of Canada rather than just fisheries policy in and of itself. We are doing what we can with fisheries policies.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made the point many times in terms of conservation that the fish must come first. It must be obvious by now why this is so. Discussion on fisheries policy would be much more productive if everyone would realize that the old ways must change, both the old ways of thinking and the old ways of fishing. We need to acknowledge that things have changed and that current conditions demand both drastic short term measures, many of which we have taken, and the long term will to change.

If we need to mark anything, it is the passing of the old fishery and the birth of a new conservation based fishery. Its design and development is still unfolding. Many members of the House are members of the fisheries committee. It is an integral part and hears what fishermen in the fishing communities have to say. It listens to them and brings reports, even when they are critical of DFO, to the House to add to the debate so that we develop a fisheries for the future which keeps communities in mind. The design and development of a conservation based fishery are unfolding day by day and aggressively under the minister of fisheries.

The government's ultimate objective is to have a sustainable fishery. This means fisheries that are economically viable and ecologically sound, fisheries that can support communities and provide fishermen with good incomes within sustainable limits.

To accomplish this the government has taken steps to reduce the number of people who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods. These steps include temporary income assistance, early retirement incentives, licence buy-backs and other measures to assist communities to adapt to the changing fishery.

We also need—and the government is working on this as well—to reduce harvesting capacity. As always the government is open to suggestions in terms of how to do that best in maintaining and supporting communities.

Why has the government taken these important steps? The answer is simple: so that those who remain in the fishery can make a decent living without overfishing, as has happened in the past, and without relying on government subsidies.

Conservation is the top priority in fisheries management for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Practising conservation and enforcing conservation are the only things standing between us and the loss of our fish stocks. We cannot allow the mistakes of the past. We on this side of the House have learned from the mistakes of the past. We cannot allow mistakes of the past to be part of the fisheries of the future.

If people think a moratorium is painful, let us imagine living in a world without fish. That was clearly the road we were on until the government took the leadership to develop new policies and to take action to ensure there are fisheries for the future.

The issue is not as implied in the motion by the member opposite. The issue is not large scale fishing versus small scale fishing. That is not the issue at all. The issue is taking only as much fish as the resource can support and as much as a well managed environment can produce.

The fishery of the future needs a place for both the large scale and small scale fishery. Most integral to that are those communities which depend on fishing for their livelihood. These are the guiding principles the government follows.

The fishing industry has to be able to live within strict conservation guidelines without relying on government support. That means the industry has to be able to withstand the ups and downs of commerce, the price fluctuations, and the ebb and flow of demand and supply without subsidies. That means the industry has to change, which is why the government is talking about fewer licences, multi-species licensing and a professional industry.

I want to quote an editorial from the Fishing News by James Pugsley when he talked about the federal plan. He indicated that the federal plan, although not perfect, was the best bet at this time. He said the actions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to move a sustainable fisheries model allowing only a conservative fishing effort that will not threaten stocks comes after two decades of warnings from the department's own fisheries. In the editorial he said that was the way to go. We believe in action.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the issues raised in the motion, I will comment on a few remarks made by my two hon. colleagues.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated that side of the House believed in action, that it needed to put out publications and spend money. He is absolutely right. That is the action the government has taken. Government members talk about conservation and continually about a sustainable fishery, but when the actions of the government—and I will give specific examples in the few minutes—are not coming through.

We have applauded the government on the conservation side with respect to the coho in British Columbia. When we really look at it, though, the government spends more money putting out publications to prop up the image of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans than it does actually looking at that resource.

I acknowledge and commend the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who brought the motion forward. Maybe I do not entirely agree with his motion, but I do agree with what he is trying to achieve and for that I could support it.

Like the member from the other side I believe we need more than a symbolic week or gesture. Those were the words he used. He really means that he wants action. He is not just suggesting that we honour the fishermen, that we recognize them and make this a symbolic week. He recognizes the need for action.

The motion is “that, in the opinion of this House, the government should declare an international week of awareness about the benefits of small-scale fishing for the environment and for the sustainability of communities”. He is talking about small-scale fishing which is more important than his concern about a dedicated week. That is the issue.

I put this to the minister in committee last week. I told him that it had been brought to my attention by those in both sectors on all coasts that the voluntary retirement program is squeezing out the little guy. It is squeezing out the guy who cannot afford it. The only ones left are the big companies, the people with deep pockets who can afford to ride out the storm.

The government is in the process of reducing capacity. Its second attempt under the Mifflin plan did not work. It reduced the size of the fleet and then allowed people to buy multiple licences. Our capacity remained the same although there was a lower number of boats. These are very real concerns on both coasts.

The minister has brought forward a voluntary licence buy back. It will reduce the size of the fleet and hopefully the capacity. I support that. By making it strictly voluntary, the person in a small fishing community who is struggling, the individual boat owner, the guy who has a family operation and who employs three or four people will have no option but to take this voluntary buyout. He does not know how he is going to feed his family. They are struggling up in northern Vancouver Island.

I agree the fishery can be rebuilt. I believe there is a fishery out there. If we do things right we can have a fantastic fishery in three or four years. The only people who are going to be left to fish this resource are those with the deep pockets, Seafreez and all the big fish companies of this world that have big factory freezer vessels. They can afford to ride out the storm.

I put that to the minister. The minister flatly denied it in his response. He said “Second, on voluntary retirement you said flatly that you do not think it should be voluntary, that we should not help the persons who want to get out”. That is absolutely wrong. That is not what I am saying. We must have a system in which we can help these people. Forcing them to retire their licences, forcing them to retire generations of family traditions and livelihood is not the way. We must be able to help these people ride out the storm as the people with the deep pockets can do on their own.

The government has to come up with a plan that will force a reduction in capacity equally among all sectors. That includes the big vessels, the gill netters, the trawlers, the seiners. It should be done proportionately and equally. The little guys, the trollers on the west coast of Vancouver Island did not get one fish allocated to them this year, yet the seine fleet was out there fishing. The little guys are being squeezed out.

It applies to the other sectors as well. The member across from me would probably agree that the sports sector needs its capacity reduced equally. These are all sectors within the fishing industry that need reductions applied in a fair and equitable manner so the small boat fleet does not take the hit alone.

The junior minister of fisheries and oceans said that the ultimate object is a sustainable fishery. I totally and wholeheartedly agree with him. I have worked with him on committee and privately. We have discussed this issue seriously. We have had some fruitful discussions. The problem is we have not seen any action by the minister and he knows it too. From my experience at least, if he were the minister of fisheries we would get a lot more action out of him than we would out of the current minister.

I have some specific examples. Only last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans again gave hundreds of tonnes of Canadian fish in Canadian waters to foreigners. He relaxed the Canadianization policy. This was done to Seafreez, a large company in Nova Scotia that said it could not keep its plant open unless it had an exemption to allow foreign vessels to go out and catch 40% of the remaining quota. This is in turbot.

No attempt was made to get Canadian vessels out on the water. Why was that not done? We know no attempt was made. I have spoken to fishermen throughout Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. They are asking for access to this resource. The minister took the easy way out and allocated, under pressure from the big companies.

The member opposite knows the recommendation. He is a member of the committee and agreed to the east coast report. Recommendation two of the east coast report, also known as the Baker report, reads:

The committee recommends that Canada cease giving permission to Canadian companies to hire foreign vessels and foreign crews to catch fish in Canadian waters as long as Canadian fishermen and Canadian vessels are available to do the same.

Canadian fishermen are available. We need action and not action just by putting out publications. The action we are looking for is not spending $5 million in British Columbia to prop up the minister's image which was done. We need action to make sure that all these cuts that reduce capacity are done in a fair and equitable manner among all sectors, the sports sector and all sectors within the commercial sector, within the sport lodges. We cannot single anyone out.

Although this policy does not single anyone out explicitly, the net effect is it is wiping out completely the small boat fleet on both coasts, the guy or woman who employs three or four people.

I applaud the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for bringing this issue before the House. I do not believe that having a declared international week of awareness is necessary. We need action from the government, and not to keep hearing the walk and talk of conservation. We have seen it in a few areas but a lot more needs to be done. There are 21 fish companies that want access to this resource but they have been denied. They are not given access.

The voluntary licence program is destroying the small boat fleet. I would ask the junior minister of fisheries and oceans, which is how he likes to be referred to, to talk to the minister about restructuring the voluntary licence buy back so that it will be done in an equitable manner and that we will not destroy the small—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Burin—St. George's.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the motion put forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and commend him for the resolution. I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting the member's motion. The debate has become quite wide ranging between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the fisheries critic for the Reform Party.

The inshore fishery, the small boat fishery, has always played a very important role in Atlantic Canada. It has always been a very important sector of the fishing industry. In Atlantic Canada, and I can speak most readily about Newfoundland and Labrador, the inshore fishery and the offshore fishery have coexisted. There is a great desire within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for that to continue, for there to be a coexistence of the inshore small boat fishery and the offshore fishery.

Our offshore fishery is very limited these days because of the downturn in our groundfish stocks. Most of the trawlers of the major companies have been decommissioned. We are finding in Newfoundland and Labrador today that more small boat fishermen have to go further offshore to try to make a living. That ties into the member's comments when he said that right now there is a search and rescue effort going on somewhere in the Atlantic region looking for some fishermen who have been lost.

Over the last number of years,the number of lives that have been lost on small boats in Atlantic Canada is staggering. That ties directly to a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We called upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to review the vessel replacement program. The minister's response was that one was done a few years ago and he thought that was good enough.

Because of the downturn in the fish resources, small boat fishermen are venturing further offshore to try to make a living. Consequently they are going into more dangerous waters. They are going further from shore. We all know that weather changes very quickly in the Atlantic and many of them are getting caught on the water in boats that are too small to be that far from shore.

I say to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore that I have no problem whatsoever with declaring an international week of awareness about the benefits of small-scale fishing for the environment and for the sustainability of communities. Hundreds and hundreds of small communities in Atlantic Canada are in danger of extinction. The outmigration from those communities is staggering.

When I visit the riding of Burin—St. George's on a weekly basis, which I did again this weekend, and go to many of those communities, I do not see very many people who are less than 45 or 50 years of age. All our young people have left their communities and their province to seek employment elsewhere. It is mainly because of a downturn in the fishing industry. It is very, very difficult to go into those communities and see the few people who are left there, those who happen to have a government job, who teach, or the few who still fish. The major employer in each of those communities for the most part has disappeared because of the downturn in our fish stocks.

The small boat fishery is still a very important part of our fishery and should remain so. Having said that, when looking at the employment opportunities today in the fishery, there is no doubt that we have to use larger boats for the middle distance fleets and for further offshore to access some of our fish resources.

My friend from the Reform Party is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He made a comment about the turbot issue and about Canso and about whether or not the minister of fisheries should have allowed a foreign vessel to catch that fish. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had a choice: to permit a foreign vessel to harvest that fish and take it to Canso for processing which created or saved 125 to 150 jobs; or to leave the fish in the water. That was the choice the minister of fisheries had.

In my view if a Canadian vessel, a Canadian enterprise could have been found to harvest that fish, that would have been desirable. It is my understanding that the company could not find a Canadian vessel or a Canadian enterprise to do that. Consequently the minister was left with the choice either to allow a foreign vessel to harvest the fish and take it to Canso to protect those 125 jobs or to leave the fish in the water.

In my view, the minister of fisheries only had one choice, to allow the fish to be harvested. What good would it have been to leave the fish in the water? The fish could not be reallocated because they were allocated to the processing company in Canso.

I wanted to comment on that because we all favour Canadian fishermen and Canadian boats harvesting the fish. However that is my understanding of the situation.

[An hon. member]

Tell your friend Crosbie.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Crosbie?

[An hon. member]

Yes, John.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

He has been gone so long that I have a hard job remembering his name. Why are we talking about John Crosbie? Why do we not go back to Roméo LeBlanc, Pierre DeBané and Brian Tobin, all of them?

The parliamentary secretary raised the issue of the foreign fishing and the driving out of the foreign fleets. I have to be careful what I say. I noticed the parliamentary secretary did not elaborate too much on the Estai affair either, I guess for good reasons that we will all know about before too long.

Then we re-evaluate Premier Tobin's involvement in the foreign fishing effort and what the costs will be to Canadians and the Canadian government.

Conservation has to be key, for there are still too many unanswered questions, too many unknowns, about the health of our fish stocks. There are too many unknowns about fish biomass, too many unknowns about the effect of different gear types on our fish stocks, too many unknowns about the impact of seals, too many unknowns about the effects of harvesting certain fish stocks on the food chain.

At a time when we need more financial support for research and scientific effort, this government has decreased the amount of funding for science and research in DFO to a limit that is unacceptable. If we are serious about understanding the fishery, about conservation, about a fishery of the future, about protecting our coastal communities, now is the time to beef up the research and science effort of DFO, not take away from it.

I say to the parliamentary secretary that yes, the government has made some good decisions. The government continues to make some bad decisions. But if we are serious about rebuilding our fish stocks, if we are serious about a regeneration, if we are serious about a fishery of the future, now is not the time to decrease the spending efforts of DFO in research and science. They should be increased so that we reduce the number of unknowns about the fishing industry, the unknowns about fish biomass and the unknowns about the food chain.

I say to the parliamentary secretary to go to the minister of fisheries, go to cabinet ministers and beg them to restore the funding for DFO science and research because we are at a critical time in our history where we really need to understand the ocean, the environment and we need to understand the various fish species and the biomass.

I want to conclude by saying to the fisheries critic for the New Democratic Party from Sackville—Eastern Shore that I will be supporting his motion.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. Having sat on the committee with this gentleman I must say he has been a valuable asset on the committee. I value the input he has put in from time to time.

This is an interesting topic but I will not be supporting it because it probably will not be a votable item. I think it is important that we have this debate and discuss the importance of fishers in Canada. I want to lend my support, at least in measure, to that part.

The motion speaks about the opinion of the House in terms of declaring an international week of awareness regarding the benefits of small scale fishing on the environment and for the sustainability of communities.

We have heard many times in the House that the first priority in managing fisheries must be conservation. We can all see the results of putting other priorities before conservation. The effects are evident in the state of the fish stocks on both coasts and in the negative impact the fishery closures can have on people who depend on this industry.

However worthwhile other priorities are, they cannot come before conservation. Without conservation there will be no fish resulting in no fishing industry, no jobs, community disruption and the loss of $2.8 billion a year in seafood exports.

Putting conservation at the top of the list where it belongs changes this whole picture. We must now consider any proposal in light of how it affects conservation. For example, what do we want to see? Do we want to see more and more fishermen on the water competing with one another for an ever diminishing supply of fish, making less and less every year, relying on government subsidies and eventually exterminating the fish stocks? Or do we want government to implement a conservation based management regime that makes decisions based on how they will affect fish stocks in the long run? The right answer is obvious.

We need a sustainable fishery and a regime where a professional core of fishermen practices responsible fishing using conservation harvesting technologies. We need a sustainable fisheries that delivers a good living to those who work in it and an industry capable of weathering the ups and downs of fish stocks and markets without government subsidies.

Conservation must come first. By putting in place this conservation based management we can also create the conditions for a healthy fishing industry. It will not be the industry of the past. Conditions have changed as they have in all industries. We cannot continue using the fishery as a tool for social welfare and economic development. That is the practice that got us to where we are today. Change is necessary.

We know that leaving the old ways behind is causing pain for many Canadians on both coasts. The government has not ploughed blindly ahead oblivious to the human cost of this change. Instead it has moved to ease the pain and smooth the transition for Canada's fishing communities.

On June 19 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the minister responsible for ACOA announced a package of measures worth $730 million to assist those affected by the crisis of the east coast fishery. At the same time the government announced a $400 million restructuring initiative for the west coast salmon fishery.

The east coast measures included $250 million for a voluntary groundfish licence retirement program, approximately $180 million in final lump sum payments to clients of the Atlantic groundfish strategy, and $135 million in adjustment measures to provide fishery workers with access to tools and resources to leave the fishery. It provided up to $100 million for community and regional economic development and up to $65 million for early retirement.

On the west coast the $400 million package included $200 million for fishery restructuring. This was designed to develop more selective fishing practices and balance fleet size with the salmon resource. It included $100 million for early retirement and adjustment programs on behalf of displaced fishery workers and community development. The package also included $100 million for measures to protect and restore salmon habitat. This package would provide funding for habitat initiatives, foster community based stewardship programs aimed at protecting habitat from further damage and extend community restoration and enhancement partnership programs.

It must also be recalled that in the 1998 budget the minister moved our baseline funding for the sea lamprey program from $5.3 million to $6 million. That was a very positive initiative for those of us in central Canada. For those who may not know, the sea lamprey has plagued the sports fishing industry for many years and because of the good will of government of the past and because of our association with the Americans we have been able to limit that species from becoming so dominant that it would completely destroy our sports fishing industry.

The minister saw fit to increase that number to $6 million. It is my hope the minister on baseline funding will provide us even a further increase for that funding in future years so that we can come to rely on that and the sports fishing industry can go forward. It provides for the Government of Canada coffers, in GST alone, $65 million or thereabouts and perhaps even more than that. It is important that we rely on government funding to keep this sport alive.

The government understands the need for change. We need to involve and assist those who are affected by this change. In the best Canadian tradition the government has moved to help Canada's fishing communities deal with the consequences of these changes. They are not always easy.

The government is also continuing to support the development of the aquaculture industry. This industry shows good strong growth and good prospects and is an important contributor to sustainable employment in rural and coastal communities. The government will announce the appointment of an aquaculture commissioner in the near future to facilitate further sustainable growth of the industry.

When it comes to helping Canada's rural communities, many of them fishing communities, the government is paying attention. Rural issues were a theme of the government's 1997 election platform. The government has undertaken a series of policy initiatives, including the creation of a national rural initiative. In the $20 million Canada rural partnership program, $5 million a year for the next four years was announced in the 1998 federal budget. This program provided funding to pilot projects developed by rural associations, organizations and residents to test new ideas in partnerships with government departments.

The Canadian rural partnership program also forms the framework for the Government of Canada's rural development strategy. The program is overseen by the minister of agriculture and is intended to ensure that federal programs, policies and activities provide a co-ordinated network of assistance to rural communities.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans strongly supports this initiative, particularly as it meets the needs of Canada's coastal communities. The program is being designed and implemented by an interdepartmental working group but the ideas and energy behind the project come from rural Canadians.

In 1998-99, $3.2 million will be used to fund a series of pilot projects that will build an existing rural network and support greater grassroots participation in community based development. These projects will test new ways of responding to rural issues such as the need for better access to investment funds and health care.

This goal is to fund projects that help rural communities to develop the tools they need to improve their quality of life and compete in the global economy.

Just last September the minister of agriculture was in Newfoundland to announce 12 Atlantic regional projects. These projects ranged from coastal geoscience to cultural tourism and are being undertaken with the help of close to $500,000 from the Canadian rural partnership program.

Of the 12 Atlantic projects, 2 are slated for Newfoundland, 4 for Prince Edward Island, 5 for Nova Scotia and 1 for New Brunswick. These projects are concerned with finding ways to diversify the economy and generate economic growth.

The federal government has given rural communities a high priority and we can see that it is moving to help them to survive and prosper in the realities of today's world.

Coupled with the assistance of east and west coast fisheries already in place, we can see the government is doing what is needed to ensure the sustainability of Canada's fishing communities.

Once again I must say to my colleague I appreciate his effort in putting forward this motion. It was good for us to have had this debate. I think it has drawn an awareness to the importance of the fishery.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank everyone, even those on the government side, for speaking on the debate today. They keep talking about conservation. The fact is that for 450 years Canadians on the east coast, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador, knew conservation techniques long before this government ever realized it was an issue.

The member from Ontario mentioned the TAGS program and the post-adjustment programs. In reality what has happened is that inshore fishermen whose livelihoods have been there for close to 500 years are being given anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 and told that's it, time to move away. All that has to happen is for anyone to go to Catalina, Newfoundland to see bordered up houses where the people have just abandoned them. Imagine if people in downtown Toronto, Etobicoke or in areas like that were told to abandon their homes. Here is $3,000, move somewhere else. It is an absolute shame.

The parliamentary secretary realizes what this motion does and the member for Burin—St. George's has echoed it exactly. Last year I moved a motion in committee that the finance department forego the cuts to DFO because we required the funding in DFO and move ahead in science and research and other development areas within DFO in our coastal and inland communities. Unfortunately the Liberal members on that committee did not vote that motion in. My understanding of their commitment to further funding for DFO is rather lacking in terms of that.

I would be remiss if I did not mention our inland communities of Manitoba, the Great Lakes, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Northwest Territories and Yukon, as fewer salmon are going up the Yukon river because of our dispute with the Alaskans.

I will be asking for unanimous consent to make this motion votable. I know very well that if I put a monetary value on this issue it would not have a hope in God's green acre of going anywhere. It would just be a symbolic gesture. This standing committee has issued six reports but we have had no action on them at this time. In fact, a few of them have been disregarded totally. It is a symbolic gesture to give hope to the inshore fishermen who only want to earn a livelihood so they can answer to their families and their communities.

The corporations are answerable to shareholders and need an ever increasing profit. A lot of inshore fishermen have been bought off and told to leave while the allocation of the resource has been given to larger corporations. It is really gut wrenching to go to those communities and see the heartbreak going on. All this was was a symbolic gesture to honour and respect them.

With the indulgence of the House, I will be asking for unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

I wish the government side would honour the motion in order to honour the men and women and the workers of the resource who risk their lives every day in order to put food on our tables.

I thank the members for Burin—St. George's, Saanich—Gulf Islands, Huron—Bruce and Malpeque for speaking to the motion today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore have the unanimous consent of the House to make his motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend and repeal other acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Extradition Act

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.