Debates of May 27th, 1998

Competition Act

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the long term viability of the Canadian freshwater fishery.

I am delighted to see that this issue has started to attract real political and public attention. I am also pleased to declare that this new focus has started a dialogue between stakeholders and government, hence promoting constructive criticism of the effectiveness of the program, the public image an the spending habits of DFO.

The Great Lakes commercial and recreational fisheries are among the world's finest. It is estimated that the Ontario sport fishery alone annually contributes over $60 million in GST to the federal treasury alone, a figure that does not consider the millions of tourist dollars and other economic spinoffs that result from the fishing industry. In short, the Great Lakes offer Canadians much more than fish.

The standing committee recently completed a tour of the Great Lakes region endeavouring to examine the geographic locations that are most dependent on the fishery. To this end, we invited stakeholders to come forward with their ideas and comments. I would describe the trip as productive. However, what we witnessed and what we were told can only be described as troubling.

DFO's public image seems to be floating belly up. Power devolution and spending cuts have decimated DFO's Ontario operations and as a result we encountered the perception that DFO has only a minuscule impact on the daily lives of those involved in the industry, an impression that seems to grow with every dollar cut from DFO's Ontario budget.

I regret having to sound alarms. However, we must take note of the emerging trend in Ontario. I do not advocate casting away money. However, I do believe that strategic investment is needed.

The committee recently put forward reports on the failing status of the east and west coasts fisheries, fisheries that only a short time ago sustained millions. Those reports outline a bleak coastal situation. If one believes in foreshadowing, then these documents could have implications here. In essence, by opting for inaction we opt to continue along a path toward the end of this country's freshwater fishery.

In 1492 Columbus wrote that the fish in the Grand Banks were so plentiful that they slowed his ships. What a difference a few years can make.

I would be remiss if I failed to congratulate the current minister for his actions on this matter. This minister has taken a personal interest in the affairs of DFO in Ontario. The minister recently stated that the government remains committed to protecting the inland fisheries resources, particularly of the Great Lakes. To prove his sincerity, shortly thereafter he announced an increase to the sea lamprey control budget, a move applauded by stakeholders across all Ontario.

The aforementioned represents a first step. However, there is much yet to do. The committee will be presenting a report on the status of the Canadian freshwater fishery based on information provided by individuals and groups that understand the issues better than almost anyone here, the frontline stakeholders.

I recently presented a motion in committee calling for the long term adequate and priority funding of the sea lamprey control program which was adopted unanimously by the committee. Members, including the parliamentary secretary, eagerly await the minister's response to this motion.

We must work to resolve the many potentially devastating issues facing our fishery. The Great Lakes are a substantial inland resources. With that in mind it is our duty to take a proactive leadership role in their management. By working co-operatively with stakeholders, with the U.S. through the international joint commission and by consulting the province of Ontario we will ensure the sustainability of this resource.

I have lived my entire life only a few miles from Lake Huron. As such, I am acutely aware of the pivotal role the lakes play in the socioeconomic development of their bordering communities. I urge members to realize this fact also. It is time to fish or cut bait.

If we do not have the infrastructure, personnel and funding in place to effectively manage the Great Lakes, we must make it available. Failure is not an option. We must learn from our past mistakes and move to ensure that the Great Lakes continue to be a valuable asset to the people and to the economy of central Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize the hard work of the member for Huron—Bruce on both the fisheries committee and on his trying to achieve and arguing for funding for the sea lamprey program in the lakes.

For members who may not be aware of this issue, sea lampreys are parasitic eel like fish that as adults attach themselves to other fish species and feed on their prey's body fluids. This is why they can cause great harm to fisheries resources and why the Great Lakes fisheries commission has worked over the years to control them. After spending four to seven years in a larva phase a sea lamprey lives one to one and a half years as an adult. It is during the adult phase that sea lampreys cause the most harm, killing up to 40 pounds of fish before they return to the rivers to spawn and die.

The main method used by the Great Lakes fisheries commission to control this parasite is to apply a lampricide in the rivers where the adult animals spawn. Although toxic to sea lamprey, the chemicals used have minimal effects on plants and other aquatic organisms.

As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced on April 1 of this year, the federal government has renewed its support for the Great Lakes fisheries commission. The federal government will contribute $6 million in fiscal year 1998-99 to continue the sea lamprey control program, an increase of over 14% over the last year. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans commitment to sea lamprey control is also not limited to funding for the Great Lakes fisheries commission. In addition to direct support for control of the parasite, the department carries out freshwater science programs that provide indirect support to the commission.

The hon. member would like a long term commitment with respect to funding for a sea lamprey control program in the Great Lakes. I am sure he would—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the time has expired.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise this evening on this adjournment motion to ask the government for additional information on the entire question of unemployment insurance.

The Bloc Quebecois has decided to make this week in parliament employment insurance week. We have poured our energies into drawing the government's attention to the experiences of the unemployed.

I think we have succeeded. We have pointed out totally unacceptable situations, such as the fact that only 41% of those unemployed are receiving benefits. Even worse, only 26% of young people paying premiums actually end up receiving benefits. This is totally unacceptable. And the government has not denied it.

The only reason offered by the Minister of Human Resources Development is that employment insurance requirements were tightened to keep students in school. I consider this an insult to our young people who have finished their studies and are entering the labour market. Is the minister unaware of what these people do as a job? When they enter the labour market they find precarious jobs, short term contracts for a few weeks or a few months.

In the first year they have to work 910 hours to be entitled to employment insurance, that is 26 weeks of 35 hours each. If it were possible, it would be 62 weeks of 15 hours, but there is no such thing as a 62 week year. There are only 52 weeks in a year.

In the end, with the new criteria, young people are systematically excluded, and three out of four unemployed young people do not receive benefits. That is totally unacceptable.

The week was encouraging because employment insurance and what the unemployed are going through drew public attention and because the Bloc hung on and made its point and got public support.

The sad part is that the minister talks about concentrating on active measures. They are important, but the federal government has delegated them to the provinces to a large extent under manpower agreements. However, the federal government has not delegated what it calls passive measures.

Making sure someone has a decent income between jobs is not what I would call a passive measure. I think this kind of measure is essential to ensure that an unemployed person has a decent income and is able to meet his or her daily financial obligations.

Employment insurance is also an active measure because it keeps people off the welfare roles. It is a known fact that, when people are forced to rely on welfare, when they receive welfare benefits over an extended period of time, it is much more difficult for them to re-enter the labour force. They lose touch with the existing networks. They are no longer used to compete for jobs. These are difficult situations.

The employment insurance program prevents people from having to rely on welfare. It is not a gift. Employment insurance is an acceptable social safety net that allows people to stay in the system.

For a long time, there was an agreement in Canada whereby resource based regions, such as the maritimes and certain parts of Quebec, would develop our natural resources in areas such as agriculture, forestry and tourism. On the other hand—and I will conclude my remarks on that note—central regions would have year round jobs. This agreement was broken by the employment insurance reform—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, in reply to my hon. colleague I would simply like to repeat what was told to him a short time ago. It is something which I think the hon. member understands very well.

Since March 1997 social assistance caseloads have declined in the provinces throughout Canada. The most recent figures from the Government of Quebec show that 436,200 households were on social assistance, which is the lowest number of cases since January 1993.

Some EI recipients eventually turn to social assistance, but a proportion of social assistance recipients have always been persons who either did not qualify for EI under the old rules or have exhausted their EI benefits. The vast majority of EI claimants, however, do not exhaust their benefits. They find other employment within 40 weeks of becoming unemployed.

As was told to the hon. member just on Monday, the government's employment insurance reform included bold new measures to help modernize the system and to better help Canadians to find and keep a job.

First, we chose to invest more funds in active measures such as wage subsidies or self-employment assistance to help Canadians return to work as quickly as possible. These measures have a proven track record in helping people find jobs and get back to work.

Second, we have broadened the eligibility for these measures so that all Canadians who received EI or UI in the last three years can now benefit from these active measures as can people who collect maternity or paternal benefits during the last five years and then withdrew from the labour force to care for their child.

These are very important measures that I am sure the hon. member will appreciate. We have actively engaged the problem of unemployment, especially youth employment, and we are succeeding in the battle.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and Canadians all across Canada are very concerned about our environment and what we as a society and as a country are doing to our environment both good and bad.

People know and understand that we need to do everything possible to protect and preserve our environment. People know and understand that we must not make decisions which will have harmful effects on our environment. People also know and understand that we need to pass on a clean and safe environment to future generations of Canadians. We owe this to our children and to our children's children.

The disposal of nuclear waste is a concern which is important to all Canadians. There is more than 1.2 million bundles of spent fuel, nearly 30,000 tonnes, in temporary above-ground storage at nuclear facilities across Canada. A lot of work has gone on to find a solution regarding proper and safe disposal of this kind of material.

I remind the House that the Atomic Energy Board of Canada Ltd. supported by Ontario Hydro has spent a considerable amount of time and resources on research to prove that creating enormous vaults inside the granite of the Canadian Shield is the best and safest method of disposal of nuclear waste.

The Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. research showed that technology behind the proposed burial was safe. However Canadians remain sceptical and are not convinced that the solution was absolutely foolproof.

Accordingly a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel decided it could not endorse disposal of nuclear waste in this manner. The panel is quoted as saying “While the safety of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concept has been adequately demonstrated from a technical perspective, from a social perspective it has not”. In addition the panel said “the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concept in its current form for deep geologic disposal does not have broad public support and does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada's approach for managing nuclear fuel waste”.

As a federal government we need to make a decision on how to provide long term management of nuclear waste. It is important that we do so knowing that nuclear waste can remain harmful to the environment and health for up to 500 years and radioactive for as long as 10,000 years.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is straightforward. What does the government plan to do to dispose of nuclear waste in Canada?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for a very important and pertinent question. The member has raised the question on the floor of the House of Commons on several occasions. He has also met with the Minister of Natural Resources to discuss the matter in person. I think the House should show its appreciation and respect for the hon. member's very diligent interventions on this issue.

Let me be quite clear that the present practice of storing nuclear fuel waste at the reactor sites throughout Canada is done in a very safe, efficient and responsible manner. However the Government of Canada wants to be more sure that we have an appropriate long term solution for the waste that is created in our Atomic Energy of Canada Limited facilities as well as facilities throughout Canada.

We would like to develop the concept of deep geological disposal of nuclear waste in the granite rock of the Canadian Shield. This was a proposal which was investigated under a public review of this concept which was initiated in 1998 under the federal environmental assessment and review guidelines order.

An eight member Canadian environmental assessment panel chaired by Mr. Blair Seaborn held public hearings in five provinces which have a nuclear interest. On March 13, 1998 the Seaborn panel released its recommendations to the government regarding the safety and acceptability of the AECL concept.

The Seaborn panel report found that from a technical perspective, safety of the geological disposal concept had been adequately demonstrated from the conceptual stage of development. However the disposal concept in its current form did not enjoy broad public support.

The panel recommended that a nuclear waste management agency be established quickly. The panel also recommended that the first steps for such an agency would be to deal with the stated lack of broad public support necessary to ensure the acceptability—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)