Debates of June 4th, 1998

Dna Identification Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 9, 1998, at the end of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you might find unanimous consent in the House to read the clock as 5.30 p.m. so we could proceed to Private Members' Business, provided that the member proposing the private members' bill tonight is present in the chamber. If he is not present, may I suggest that we suspend to the call of the Chair but to no later than 5.30 p.m., in order that the member wishing to present the motion can do so at an earlier time than 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there agreement to proceed as such?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.57 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 5.02 p.m.)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Fishers Bill Of Rights

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

moved that Bill C-302, an act to to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nova Scotia.

I believe if members look carefully and examine what has happened since the election last year, this is the first major fisheries bill to be introduced in the House. I am very pleased that it is mine and coming from the opposition side of this House.

This sends out a certain signal to the fisheries community. I do not think the government has been listening carefully to what is happening in the fishing community.

Canada has been abused by other countries in terms of offshore fishing. Successive governments have never really stood up for our fishermen and outlined the rights of fishermen. That is what this bill is intended to do. It is the fishers bill of rights. I know the word fishers is more politically correct today but I am from the old school. I still use the term fishermen. I hope my colleague from Quebec forgives me.

What I am attempting to do with this bill is give fishermen the right to be consulted. Examine what has happened on the east and west coasts and with Great Lakes fishing. We are also talking about Lake Winnipeg.

Fisheries from coast to coast are in desperate straits. What they need is some protection. What we have to do is consult with the fishermen. I am convinced that had we consulted with fishermen from day one we would not be in the state we are in today where on both coasts of this country we are into a situation of vanishing stocks.

We have allowed foreign overfishing for years. As a result we have a fishery in Atlantic Canada that is almost broke. Cod have virtually disappeared. Groundfish in some areas have virtually disappeared.

I am not standing up to blame the present government because that would be wrong. I am not standing up blaming the government I was part of from 1988 to 1993 because that would be wrong.

It has been a succession of governments, regardless of political stripe, making errors along the way but never really standing up for fishermen. Now we have a fisheries on the east coast that is virtually in collapse.

The other part of this bill I think fishermen will take a keen interest in and support is that when support programs for fishermen are being negotiated they have to be at the table.

Whether they are talking about support programs to move them from fisheries into something else or to buy back their licences, they have to be consulted from day one. That has never happened.

Where was the consultation from the very beginning in terms of the TAGS program? It was a program basically invented in Ottawa. Again, I am not blaming any government. It was invented by bureaucrats and administered by bureaucrats. From the very beginning there was no consultation with fishermen.

The other problem I see where it would have made a big difference is on the conservation side if fishermen had been consulted. There is no secret that in the early days of international overfishing our fishermen knew what was happening. They saw huge quotas granted to outsiders, outside countries coming into Canada and fishing our stocks. The result was well known by fishermen at that time as to what would happen. It is like the old story about Canadians. We are much too polite to tell it like it is.

I remember the story of a Canadian in New York. When a New Yorker stepped on his toe the Canadian looked at the New Yorker and said “excuse me”. The New Yorker said “you must be Canadian”. He asked why. “Because you are the only people in the world who apologize if someone steps on your toe”. Is that not what we have done internationally?

I can remember when Premier Tobin stood up internationally for fishermen. I was the first one to applaud him. The former fisheries minister, Mr. Crosbie, was very congratulatory as well. We had a politician who for the first time in recent Canadian history stood up and told it the way it was.

We might debate whether the outcome of that was successful. At least the international community heard us. All politics aside, it is something we should have done years ago. What the fisheries minister was doing at the time was listening to those people he represented regardless of political stripe. That is what we have to do.

Testimony was heard by the fisheries committee of what some of our fishermen go through in terms of income and cost of getting on the water or attempting to catch fish that are not there. Some of this is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Fortin on November 27 gave his testimony to the fisheries committee. I use his testimony to show just how ridiculous the situation is. This year he caught $40,000 worth of fish, gross. His earnings were $16,000, of which he paid $5,500 in fishing expenses, $5,400 in fuel, oil and other things, $5,525 in repairs because they were out of luck, $4,775 for electronic equipment, $1,500 in groceries because they live on the water for days. He paid $4,000 in car insurance because he has a family to support at home. He paid $1,400 for the CSST and $2,400 for other expenses.

Then there was interest on the loan he had to take out from the credit union and taxes. That is 25% of the boat payment. He has a deficit of $30,000 and $10,000 in expenses, and they still want to take his TAGS benefit back. He said he cannot accept that.

Who in this House could accept that? I think it goes right back to the bill I brought into the House. Again I stress it is the first major fisheries bill to hit the House since the election of last year. There is a deficit on that side of the House in terms of what it could do today to pay attention to fishermen, the people the government is supposedly representing back home.

That is just a small example of what has happened over the years. What we have to do in the House is say fishermen have certain rights that cannot be taken away by governments. When rights are taken away to fish and to make a living, they are to make sure there is adequate compensation. When the compensation package is decided upon fishermen will be at the table. They will be there helping us make the decisions. It will not be left to bureaucrats in their ivory towers in Halifax or in Ottawa. It will be in consultation with fishermen.

I will pass over the remainder of my time to my colleague from Nova Scotia. I am sure he can carry on this debate. I thank the House for waiting for me to arrive. I know the previous debate collapsed a bit early. I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. member for South Shore.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in the House to the motion of the hon. member for Charlotte on a fishers' bill of rights.

The state of the fishery in the country is far too often overlooked, specifically in Nova Scotia and certainly in the South Shore riding which I am honoured to represent and in my neighbouring riding of West Nova which is very aptly represented in the House of Commons.

We talk to the people in the fishery. We know the people in the fishery. I am not a fisherman. I do not contend to be a fisherman but I certainly have many constituents who are fishermen. The South Shore riding is the largest single fishery riding in Canada with 800 and some registered fishing boats in Shelburne county alone. Queens county has another 200 and some and Lunenburg county has 180. It is a tremendous resource.

That resource is no longer there. That resource has declined. As the member for Charlotte mentioned, it declined over the years because of bureaucratic intervention, because of government intervention. He did not want to point the finger at anyone. I do not think I am willing to do that either. Certainly all governments of all parties have made major mistakes in the fishery and I think to this very day they continue to make them.

One difficulty I have with something called a fishers' bill of rights and the public right to fish is that I am not sure we any longer have a public right to fish. We cannot simply buy a fishing licence today and go fishing. There is no fish to catch. There are ITQs. There are community quota groups. There are all kinds of restrictions against fishing. The public right to fish is something I am very much afraid we may have lost a long time ago.

Even in new fisheries I have a number of cases—and I am sure members opposite have a number of cases—where people in an experimental fishery were not even granted the first licence to be given out in that fishery, whether it was an experimental shrimp fishery in St. Margaret's Bay or a clam fishery in the midshore, the endshore or the offshore. The people who developed those fisheries, the people who did the experimental work, very often were overlooked when it came to licences in direct contravention and contradiction of the Fisheries Act.

The hon. member for Charlotte mentioned TAGS. I would like to talk for a moment about the failure of TAGS to address the problem. To begin with TAGS was designed for ice plugged ports in Newfoundland. As an afterthought it was thought that it could apply to diminishing groundfish stocks in Nova Scotia. They brought TAGS in combined with a licence buyout that did not take enough out of the fishery. The TAGS program only covered the first $26,000 of gross landings by any fishing boat. After that they had to buy it back.

Let us figure out what it takes to accumulate the first $26,000 gross of a fishing year. They pay for their steamboat licences. They pay for their crews. They pay for their provisions. They pay for their diesel. They pay for their onboard catch monitoring. They pay for any ITQ transferring they do. They have not made any money and they are over the $26,000 gross.

The people who tried to work were penalized. The people who benefited from TAGS were the people who decided to sit back and improve their golf game or to go trouting. For the fishermen who tried to continue to work and to feed their families it was a dismal failure. That is the best thing that can be said about it.

We move on to the situation these people are still in with diminishing fish stocks. The south shore of Nova Scotia and parts of southwest Nova are extremely lucky. We have a few fish left. We are a long way from having a successful fishery. There was quota by every community group in Nova Scotia left in the water last year, quota they were unable to catch or quota that was not there.

We are encouraging the shacking of small fish. Shacking is a term fishermen use for throwing fish overboard. If they have a quota and they are only allowed 4,000 pounds of haddock what are they to do with the small ones? They cannot afford to bring them ashore as little haddock are worth 40 cents per pounded compared to big haddock which are worth $1 a pound.

It is a very dismal situation these people find themselves in. They are environmentalists and conservationists and they understand. They also have families, mortgages and car payments and have to attempt to make a living. The fishermen of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Newfoundland and Quebec are in dire straits as a result of TAGS.

We can look at the effort out there on the ocean by dragger fleets, seiners and foreign fleets. They have caught our bait. They have caught our food fish, our cod, our haddock and our halibut. It goes on and on.

This year Atlantic salmon stocks are expected to be at an all time record low of returning winter salmon to the rivers of southwest Nova. These rivers are under stress. We know acid rain has stressed the ability of the spawn to survive in the rivers. This is not rocket science. We understand that pollution is a factor.

We are at an all time low and we have the most stringent conservation methods we have ever had. No longer are estuary fisheries allowed at the mouth of rivers. Mature salmon can no longer be kept. Fishermen are encouraged to keep only grilse and only male grilse.

The aboriginal fishery takes male grilse out of the fish way for its allotment. This is not a threat to the salmon going upriver to spawn and reproduce.

What is a threat has been the fact that the federal government has allowed a foreign fishery in St. Pierre and Miquelon to buy the gear of the Newfoundland fishermen who sold their salmon gear to St. Pierre and Miquelon fishermen and set that gear in a 10 mile swath 200 miles long out to the edge of the shelf. No one in the House or on the fisheries committee or in the department will convince me that this has not affected returning fish to Nova Scotia.

For a long time we had a moratorium on commercial salmon fishing, which is indicative of the state of the fishery. The real money in the fishery is made from haddock, cod and flounder. The sport fishery is important but the real money and the real livelihoods of the majority of the people are in the ground and lobster fishery.

We have more pressure now. We have complete devastation in the fishery. Now in the lobster fishery there are more lobster licences and more effort in the lobster fishery than there has been in the past 50 years.

The point is that the lobster fishery needs a much more serious, increased effort. It is the sole provider of many families in Nova Scotia, South Shore and southwest Nova. That fishery is under serious pressure. I suspect it is under serious pressure in P.E.I, Newfoundland and parts of Quebec. We have to be very careful how we treat that fishery if it is to survive.

In my closing remarks I would just like to say a bit about the inability of the government to come forth with a proper buyout program for active licences. The licences on the banks about which there is some discussion about buying, the licences that have not been used for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, are not catching fish. We do not have to worry about those licences. We should buy the active licences and put a restriction on bringing an inactive licence back into the fishery.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-302.

The bill that is before the House is very laudable in terms of its intentions but is seriously flawed in terms of its approach. I can even agree with the intent of the member opposite in terms of what he is trying to do through a fisheries bill of rights. I say laudable in its intention because the hon. member is as obviously motivated by a concern for Canadian fishermen and Canadian fishing communities as we are.

I am sorry to say that this afternoon when we were dealing with a very important bill, the United Nations fishery agreement, his colleagues walked out of the committee. Two very important witnesses were before us. We were trying to deal with the issue of straddling stocks and getting a United Nations fishery agreement through in legislation so that Canada can be one of the initial 30 to ratify the agreement.

I am disappointed and concerned about the opposition members walking out. They should not be playing political games with an issue that is so important to fishermen by walking out of the committee when we had two very important witnesses before us.

Let me deal with the bill. It is seriously flawed in its approach which would not help Canada's fishing communities deal with the realities they face. In all seriousness it could well undermine Canada's conservation efforts and damage the fisheries. I know that is not the member's intent. I am sure he intended otherwise, but that is the reality of what could happen with the bill.

Several issues need to be addressed, in fact too many for me to cover in 10 minutes. However, let us start with the wording of the bill which suggests that these communities would be better served or somehow protected from hardship if fishermen had certain legislated rights:

—the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

We cannot know exactly what is in his mind but perhaps the hon. member thinks fishermen need protection from us or from supposedly arbitrary decisions by distant officials in governments that affect their lives profoundly but over which they feel they have no control.

We can all sympathize with anyone who feels this way, especially when they face hardship as a result of certain decisions being made by governments and fisheries managers.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been holding very extensive hearings across Canada since last September. I believe in November we held hearings in Newfoundland and eastern Canada. We have held hearings on the west coast. We have held hearings in the eastern Arctic. We have held hearings in the Great Lakes region.

I believe the committee will be coming down with very strong recommendations related to all those points that the member is talking about which concern the rights of fishermen. I think we will find when the committee reports that there will be sound recommendations with respect to finding ways to ensure that fishermen are consulted, that their rights are protected, that fisheries conservation remains a priority, that fishermen are involved in the discussions and consultations on fishing quotas and so on.

What fishermen need and want is the chance to make a good living on the sea, not just for today and tomorrow but for the next decade and the one after that. That is what this government is trying to do with its various efforts.

Fishermen not only want that for themselves, they want it for their children and their grandchildren. That is what they need.

Depending at the moment on where they live and what they fish, they may face reduced quotas and closed seasons. We recognize that. Or they may, on the other hand, depending on where they live and what they fish, already be seeing the benefits of the government's efforts over the last few years to restructure the fishery.

The last member who spoke mentioned the lobster fishery. Although we had to take some strong measures this year to ensure that lobsters are there for the future, the lobster fishery is indeed quite healthy. We have to ensure that the egg production is there for the future, but it has been the mainstay in terms of the fishery in Atlantic Canada.

In Atlantic Canada, even with the groundfish turndown, which we have learned some lessons from, the economic returns as a result of the expanding shell fishery and lobster fishery have been increasing dramatically and providing good incomes for those fishermen and those communities. We are already seeing some benefits from some of the actions the government has taken.

Whether we like it or not, no legislation is really going to change the reality. The reality is that we cannot exploit the sea and its resources as generations before us have done. It is a very complex industry which today's government has to manage very carefully, with the best scientific evidence available, for the benefit of everyone: for the fishermen, for the communities, for the industries that utilize those fish stocks which are caught, and for the industries that provide the equipment and the technology to the fishing industry. These industries are not only on the three coasts, they are in central Canada as well, in terms of the economic spinoffs from the fishing industry.

In this day and age, with the kind of technology and equipment that is available, in many cases decisions must be made quickly. This bill, although I know it is not its intent, would in fact institute a review process that would be extremely cumbersome and time consuming. The implementation of necessary and quick decisions could be delayed until all appeals had been exhausted. The most important element concerning fisheries management in the future, although it is not the intent of the bill, is that it could be brought to a complete standstill.

I know that is not the desire of the member opposite, nor is it his intent, but that is the reality of where Bill C-302 could lead us. It could drive fisheries management to a standstill.

I will tell the House of the five principles that guide the government. First, the fishery must be environmentally sustainable. Second, it must be economically viable. Third, it must balance harvest capacity with the available resource. Fourth, participants must have a greater role in the making of decisions, and we are really working on that. Fifth, our fishing industry must be internationally competitive.

This government is moving forward on those principles. Conservation is a key priority. I am sure that in its hearings process the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will continue to push us on those principles and foster us with even greater ideas down the road.

However, I am sorry to say this bill will not help us in achieving the principles this government wants to move forward on.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was with no pleasure that I left the fisheries committee this afternoon. The witnesses who appeared before the committee this afternoon were there at my request. When the government ganged up on the opposition to ensure that the committee could not insist Premier Tobin appear before it on a very important matter, we had to express our displeasure.

I am pleased to speak at second reading to Bill C-302. The bill put forward by the member for Charlotte contains three main elements. The three elements are: protecting the public right to fish, involving Canadians who fish for a living in the consultative and decision making process, and establishing that compensation is due when fishing rights are abrogated by decisions not involving the affected parties.

I strongly support the public right to fish, which has existed in common law since the Magna Carta in 1215. It should be common sense that if such a right has existed for so long there should be no need to implement legislation to preserve this right. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This government would prefer to obliterate this right because it is totally compromised by its inability to provide statutory authority to its divisive aboriginal fisheries strategy pilot sales program.

In the last parliament the government introduced a new fisheries act that would have given the minister the ability to grant a private right to fish for commercial or sports purposes to any group currently in political favour. It is fortunate that Bill C-62 died in the last parliament.

Reality does not always reflect common sense. We like to think rights do not need to be spelled out because everybody knows we have them. We think the rights apply to all, but in fact they only apply to this Liberal government because it is playing the power game. We can see from our many statutes that the power groups only sometimes agree to give rights to other groups. That is why these groups fight for and obtain things like the public right of access to fish.

This is what happened. The king assumed he had the right to do whatever he wanted with the fishery. The public got together, created the Magna Carta and told the king otherwise. That is why the public right to fish is a written right. It is a hard won right and it must be carefully guarded or this power group will take it away when we are not looking.

The fishery is a public resource and the responsibility of the minister is for conservation, management and protection. The minister does not have the right to decide who gets the fish. However, in the management of the fishery there will have to be decisions made about who gets licences and when the different fisheries should be opened and closed. In making these management decisions fishermen should be consulted and permitted to contribute to the decision making process.

Because resources such as fish are limited, we the public have to decide who can access them or who has the right to catch fish. That is why we have limited entry licensing and designated core fishermen. But we have delegated the responsibility for making licensing and opening decisions to the government. After all, we think that is what government is for. Unfortunately, the government has a political and power based agenda that influences its decision making. We saw this most clearly, as I stated, with the racially divisive AFS introduced in 1992.

Do we want to delegate this kind of decision making to one person alone, to one person who may be influenced by specific interest groups who do not see the big picture? I do not think so. Bill C-302 tries to prevent this situation from arising. I agree with its broad intent.

The preamble presumes that Canadians who fish for a living are the most knowledgeable about the fishery. Although those who fish are certainly in this group, there are others such as scientists, social policy makers, DFO officials and field workers who have a great deal to contribute. In other words, good advice can come from a diverse group but must include those involved who fish for their livelihood.

In clause 4 of the bill fishers are given the right to be heard in the process of government decisions respecting fish stock assessment, fish conservation, quotas, licensing or the public right to fish. This right should be established and is not exclusive of other parties. The government would be under no obligation to vigorously follow the advice of the fishermen, but it would certainly move the agenda along from the current situation. Current governments are notorious for pretending to involve people in decision making and then doing what they want anyway.

Clause 5 proposes items on compensation. What is needed in all government activity is transparency. If people see what the government is doing and there is no secret as to why things are done the way they are, I believe that people will not feel their rights are being trampled on. They will rarely feel the need to continue to fight the results.

If the provisions are mandatory and if they are carried out, then there should be no losses, as contemplated by clause 5. There should be stern consequences for any government that tries to abrogate the public right to fish. But as we know from experience, monetary consequences such as compensating people for the loss of their rights do not protect the right itself.

I have been a vocal supporter of the public right to fish, as well as an opponent of ministerial discretion in making up rules about who gets to fish and who does not.

I fully support the intent of Bill C-302. However, there are some minor changes that I would like to see. It is important that those making a living from the fishery do not have their rights abrogated, leading to a loss, without consultation, if they have not been involved in the whole process.

It is important in our ongoing battle to keep the government from making further inroads into long established principles for the benefit of the short-sighted government of the day.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Charlotte, who sponsored this bill. It is refreshing to see that some people are concerned about the fishers.

I would like to remind the House that the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans promised last fall, in response to a question from the Conservatives, that a fisheries policy would be tabled in February of this year. We have not seen it yet.

I must also remind the House that the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Desautels, also recommended that Canada develop such a policy. In its absence, we are currently faced with administrative chaos at the hands of the federal government.

I too have some reservations about this bill, but at least someone has managed to manoeuvre through the system and to introduce a highly worthwhile bill. This is very interesting.

Introducing legislation that will give fishers a hand in assessing stocks is very intelligent. Allowing fishers to take part in preserving fish stocks is very intelligent. I do, however, have misgivings about the setting of quotas and about licensing.

As for the administration of public fishing rights, I too would like to see fishers protected. We have to agree in committee on whether it is to protect currently active fishers from any discretionary power the minister of fisheries presently enjoys under the law, which he tried to consolidate in the former Bill C-62.

Those fishers still active are satisfied, but they are always afraid the minister will upset the balance they have achieved. I think it vital that their rights be protected, but, if the public is going to be allowed to fish, the circumstances under which others may enter must be defined.

What I find interesting in the second part of the bill is the discussion of establishing the right of fishers to be informed in advance of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood. I imagine the member is referring to native fishing. Personally, I think it makes good sense to be informed.

However, I will link this with the second right the bill attempts to establish, namely the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly. Let us look at native fishing. I believe in the rule of law, in that, if native people are entitled by treaty to certain things, I am not going to take them away. Except that it is not the fault of the non native fishers and it is not up to them today to pay for everything.

If Canada ever recognizes the rights by treaty, we must be able to compensate the non native fishers currently there. It has to be done systematically.

On the subject of the unfair abrogation of rights, reference must be made to moratoriums. When the minister of fisheries establishes a moratorium, prohibits certain types of fishing, fishers who have always earned their living from this sort of fishing lose their rights and have their lives changed. I think that warrants compensation.

I refer to the famous income support program, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, known as TAGS. We are two months away from its expiry, and fishers are still waiting to find out what will happen.

The members opposite continue to give mixed signals, telling us that maybe the program will be extended and maybe it will not. If such rights had been established, it would be automatic. If the bill goes to committee, we could suggest a few things for members to add.

We in committee saw the nasty tricks the government can play, how it tries to weasel out of its responsibility. If this needs to be formalized, we have a suggestion for members.

The points I would like to develop further concern the establishment of quotas, that is, allowing fishers to take part in the establishment of quotas, and the awarding of licences.

It is not that I am opposed in any way, but going back to the spirit of TAGS and my reading of it, which I shared with the fisheries minister, the fisheries minister admitted in the House last fall that the reason TAGS had not worked, and was a passive rather than an active program, was precisely because Ottawa had not involved the provinces in the strategy's development.

It is therefore important for the provinces as well to be allowed to help establish quotas and award licences.

Canada, a member of NAFO, claims to be a world leader when it comes to oceans management. Canada supplies NAFO with biological data and it is through participation and the sharing of biological information that it is possible to work out a conservation policy as well as decide on what should be caught and what should be left in the water to ensure the sustainability of the resource.

I will talk only about eastern Canada and leave the western part of the country up to the members who represent it. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean in zones 2GH and 3KL—for fishers in the know—why could Canada not operate along NAFO lines and work in concert with the provinces, sharing biological information in order to ensure that there is a conservation plan? The provinces, once they have established the quotas, could then issue licences, that is distribute the resources within their territory.

We must always bear in mind this rule of thumb: every fisher at sea creates employment for approximately five people on shore. The biggest problem, in terms of what we are looking at today, is in the provinces' backyards right now. I think some connections should be made between the two.

The secretary of state listed earlier the five principles that guide the department. He mentioned environmentally sustainable fisheries, economically viable fisheries and talked about Bill C-27, criticizing the opposition for withdrawing its support. What he failed to mention however—and I am glad the hon. member of the Reform Party picked this up—is that the opposition members on the committee wanted to call in as a witness the father of former Bill C-29, Brian Tobin. He is the one who drafted the legislation to preserve straddling stocks in the last Parliament.

This government is making sure this legislation does not have any teeth. My concern is that we end up with nothing. When, across the way, they brag, giving lip service to using to preserve the resource, I think they are taking kid gloves, not to say a 100-foot pole, to avoid taking their responsibilities in this respect, as they did with TAGS.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party and every single fisher person and plant worker that I have spoken to across this country, we want to thank the hon. member from Charlotte, New Brunswick for his private members' bill. It is absolutely fantastic.

It is rather shameful that a private member from the opposition has to introduce a bill of this nature. Even to have to discuss this bill is incredible. He basically wants the rights of fishermen and plant workers to be at the table when discussions or decisions are made on their behalf.

I wonder how much consultation the government did with Bombardier before giving it the largest defence contracts of all time. I bet it consulted big time on that. But when it comes to fisheries matters, there is no consultation at all.

The parliamentary secretary indicated the five principles under which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans operates. I would like to give the Government of Canada and those people listening today the five principles under which I think the DFO operates.

The fifth one is do not tell anything to anyone in a timely manner. Number four, pit one region against another. Number three, waste valuable tax dollars. Number two, put policies in place without consultation with those closest to the industry. The number one principle under which DFO operates is fatten up the bureaucracy in Ottawa and keep the minister in the dark. That is exactly what is happening.

It is unknown to many Canadians, but DFO has about 800 people working for it in Ottawa and I do not see anybody fishing in the Rideau Canal.

The territory of Nunavut has two million square kilometres. Guess how many enforcement officers are up there. For two million square kilometres, there are two. There are six parking lot policemen for the West Block and Confederation building parking lots. It is unbelievable where this government puts its priorities.

I will give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans credit because it is due. He mentioned that the all-party Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will come up with some serious and strong recommendations and preamble language to assist the government in what it should do for the future of the fisheries. I definitely agree with him on that.

Let us face it. Today in the papers there is talk about a crisis with the Atlantic salmon on the east coast. There is talk about a crisis with the salmon on the west coast. That is quite amazing because they are not supposed to join. The common thread is we have a crisis on the west coast, a crisis on the east coast and a crisis within our freshwater fishery in Manitoba and Ontario. What is the common theme of all these three? The DFO.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why since the day I was elected I have been calling for a public judicial inquiry into the practices and policies of this department? This department is completely out of control. It is absolutely out of control. It has no vision. It has no future. A good example of that is the so-called post-TAGS review.

In 1992 the government of the day put a moratorium on the cod and came up with the adjustment programs, NCARP, AGAP and TAGS. To this point $3.4 billion has been spent and there is more capacity to catch the fish today than there was when it started the moratorium. It is absolutely incredible.

I cannot understand why the government will not consult with fishermen when it comes to the allocation of quota, when it comes to the type of gear, when it comes to everything else.

Recently in southwest Newfoundland there was an announcement of a quota of 20,000 tonnes of cod. I would certainly hope that the government would work with the fishermen of that region on a sustainable harvest of that catch.

As we know, Atlantic salmon is in deep trouble. If big nets, big draggers or trawlers are used, it is well known what will happen. A lot of bycatch is going to happen and history shows that a lot of this bycatch will be thrown overboard.

Regarding the issue of TAGS, the fishermen and plant workers of the east coast have been asking and begging for answers from this government. The minister of human resources indicated to this House that there would be a report in place on post-TAGS. What do we get? We get federal officials gallivanting around Atlantic Canada presenting their new vision of the post-TAGS program. It is absolutely unbelievable that he would disregard all members of this House when it comes to such a viable issue. Obviously DFO does not listen to the fishermen and plant workers.

The 1983 Lockeport, Nova Scotia experiment with National Sea pumped hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into this company that just sucked the oceans dry.

In central Canada there is the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. With absolutely no consultation with the fishers of the north, it sort of picks and chooses who it wants to talk to and its policies are set basically on that.

I do not understand why this government has such an incestuous relationship with those people, for example, on the west coast in the Sport Fishing Institute. We have a classic example of Ms. Velma McCall. She used to work for the Sport Fishing Institute. She lobbied very hard for the Sport Fishing Institute to get an exclusion zone of commercial trollers around Langara Island. What happens a year later? This woman is now the ministerial assistant for the DFO on the west coast.

Tom Bird used to work for DFO. Guess who he works for now? The Sport Fishing Institute. The personal relationship between the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Mr. Bob Wright of the Oak Bay Marine Group is absolutely scandalous. They pick and choose their policies, give them to their friends and under no circumstances do they consult with commercial fishermen of any kind or those people of the Coastal Community Network on both coasts.

It goes on and on. These are the types of people who will assist the government and DFO in new policies. They are Eric Tamma, Coastal Community Network from Ucluelet, Ross Helberg, the mayor of Port Hardy, Sam Ellsworth of Nova Scotia, Arthur Bull of the Bay of Fundy region, and Mark Butler of the Ecology Action Centre of Nova Scotia. These five people are just a small example of the experience and the expertise this government needs to listen to.

Again I have to say it is absolutely incredible that it takes a private member's bill in order to push this forward. I really encourage everyone on the Liberal side to take this bill seriously because it really is important and it is mandatory to involve the people who are closest to the resource to have their say in such a viable industry.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. I can prove that allowing fishermen the right to be involved with consultations is a great thing. There is really a unique situation on the north shore of Nova Scotia in my riding where the fishermen for years lobbied the department of fisheries to increase the standards on lobster size and the department of fisheries refused for years to do it.

The fishermen banded together. They made an agreement among themselves to catch and keep lobsters only above and beyond the size the federal government allowed as a minimum. They actually threw back lobsters that were legal in the interests of conservation. This is a really good example of fishermen being involved with their own industry and in consultation.

It is hard to believe the government will not allow fishermen to be involved with these decisions when they have proven they will do a good job.

This bill is about allowing fishermen to have a say, but today in the fisheries committee we were not even allowed to have a say. The opposition members moved to have Brian Tobin, the premier of the province of Newfoundland, testify because he is an expert in this field. He is a former minister of fisheries and he is very well respected. He became Captain Canada and yet the members of the government on the committee voted to refuse to have him. That is like refusing to hear Albert Einstein when talking about the theory of relativity.

He is the expert and it is awful to muzzle this fountain of information and source of wisdom and refuse to allow him to testify at committee.

Bill C-302 is appropriate for fishermen to give them a fishers bill of rights, but we should have a bill of rights too to be allowed to hear the people we have to hear from.

This is a really good example of the department of fisheries trying to muzzle all the information, all the input, all consultation from not only fishermen but from premiers and former fisheries ministers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to follow up on a question which I put to the Minister of the Environment on May 15, when I asked her whether she recognized the usefulness of research and development of renewable energy of the type that is being conducted at Tokamak in Varennes, in the context of climate change.

Given that the Minister of the Environment confirmed the usefulness of such activities, the federal government can no longer claim that it cannot continue to fund the Tokamak project in Varennes.

Yesterday, in another adjournment debate on this most promising research project, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development told me that the decision to withdraw federal support for the Tokamak project in Varennes was made because of financial constraints.

Before being given a similar reply this evening, let me tell you that this is not the case at all. Not only is the money now available since the federal government is accumulating surpluses, but it is also an irresponsible decision from a budgetary standpoint. Why invest in the development of top technical and scientific expertise if scientists must then leave the country to put their expertise to good use?

With the closure of Tokamak in Varennes, the specialists we have trained at taxpayers' expense will be taking their knowledge of nuclear fusion to Japan, the U.S. or the European Community. And what about Tokamak's state-of-the-art equipment and infrastructure? Close to $150 million in public funds have been invested in the past 20 years or so, and are now a total loss, because of this government's lack of vision.

Within a few years, Canada will probably be forced to spend an absolute fortune to purchase a technology it has helped develop for mere millions. In the end, all this will cost far more than its annual investment of $7.2 million in Tokamak.

Such an edifying demonstration of good management of public funds! Such visionary spirit! I must add that the very exacting quality standards at Tokamak, both scientific and technological, have allowed its partners to develop leading edge technological expertise. For instance, one company, MPB Technologies, was able to land a $64 million contract thanks to technology developed in collaboration with the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion.

It is believed that the economic spin-offs from the Tokamak in Varennes bring far more to the federal government in tax revenue than its annual $7.2 million investment in it.

In order to prevent the upcoming dismantling of the Varennes Tokamak's technological heritage, and since the Minister of Natural Resources has shown himself to be open to this possibility, I would like to know how this government intends to make use of the facilities and knowledge of the Tokamak team in the context of related studies as part of its strategy on climate change. Could the government not, for example, continue to develop the Varennes Tokamak's expertise, which is world-renowned, in the microwave sector?

Yesterday, the national forum on climate change was critical of how little the federal government was doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is all the more worrisome because, according to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 will have increased by approximately 11% over the 1990 reference level.

Such a statistic makes it even more important that clean and safe forms of energy, such as the magnetic fusion the Varennes Tokamak is working on, be used in the future. The energy alternative proposed by Tokamak represents a much less serious risk to the environment than the Candu reactor technology, which still has the unshakeable support of the federal government.

This is a long-term undertaking, to which the Varennes Tokamak can make a positive contribution, provided the government lets it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising once again this issue which has a direct influence and effect on his jurisdiction.

This government clearly does understand that the reduction in greenhouse gases does not stop with our commitment at Kyoto. The issue raised here is put in the context of climate change and global warming and innovative solutions around those very significant problems.

The issue of climate change will be with us for a long time to come. However we are acting now to find a solution. Even as we reduce emissions, atmospheric concentrations will continue to rise for many decades before stabilization. This means that we will experience a continued increase in the human influence on global climate.

What is of major concern is the possible future rates of climate change. If we are to keep that rate of change within reasonable limits, we must begin to reduce emissions by applying new technologies within the next few years. We cannot wait decades before taking action.

The hon. member has raised a particular point on a particular issue. This government is always interested in innovative solutions and applying the knowledge and expertise of individuals, of academics, of other governments and as well of people throughout Canada in offering solutions to the climate.

We cannot afford at this time to pursue all options. We have to make choices and this sometimes has to be at the expense of very high risk and very long term expensive options.

We had to make difficult choices in this process. We simply do not have the resources to do everything we want to do but we will continue to work with hon. members and with the Canadian public at large to find the best, least cost, most effective options which will provide solutions in the Canadian context to climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians living in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and indeed Canadians all across Canada are very concerned about our environment. They want to know that all levels of government and all partners are doing their utmost to secure a safe and clean environment for the generations to follow.

Canadians want and demand action on issues concerning the environment. As a government we need to provide vision and leadership in tackling the environmental challenges it faces. We need to provide that vision and leadership in the context of sustainable development strategies which are beneficial for the country.

A key environmental challenge facing Canadians is climate change. Climate change could bring about such possible long term effects as drier summers in the prairies, increases in forest fires and insect infestations, coastal flooding and more frequent extreme weather events. All of this could be very devastating for Canada and all Canadians.

It is clear we need to act now. I am heartened to know that the government has accepted that the risk of climate change is real and that the consequences are potentially very devastating. I am heartened to know that Canada is considered to be a leader in international negotiations on climate change.

The federal government has the responsibility to lead the nation in responding to climate change. It needs to ensure that partnerships are well defined. It needs to have targets to measure progress and it needs to have contingency plans for corrective actions if required.

The federal government should continue to defend the interests of all Canadians. It should lead us into the new millennium with vision and judgement.

In light of all of this, my question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources is simple. What steps are being taken by the government to ensure that Canada meets commitments made in Kyoto last December? What are we doing to secure our environment for future generations?

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to my colleague whose interest in the environment is legendary.

Since Kyoto, we as a government have stopped questioning whether we should be making this kind of commitment. We and the international community have been directing our energies to how to meet our collective obligation to reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012, because meet it we shall. Meeting that obligation will be a difficult challenge involving changing the way we produce and use energy and transport people and goods.

Last month the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of environment and energy met in Toronto. They agreed on a process for the development of a national implementation strategy on climate change to honour our Kyoto commitments.

It will be based on consultations and input from other governments as well as from the private and public sectors. All sectors of society will be called upon to share their views and best practices so we can learn from each other what works and what does not.

Ministers have agreed to move forward in the development of credit for early action and strengthening voluntary action.

I cannot stress enough the government's conviction and commitment to engage with as many players as possible in developing and implementing actions to reduce greenhouse gases. In fact it is the only way to proceed.

By harnessing the impressive creative and innovative talents we have in Canada, I am sure that we can not only meet our emission reduction targets but also have economic growth and improve the quality of our lives. If we can offer Canadians concrete ways in which to reduce emissions or be more energy efficient, they will do so.

Our recent budget will help us do this. The budget will provide $150 million over the next three years to help achieve the following: first, to develop Canada's national implementation strategy to meet the reduction targets of the Kyoto protocol; second, to improve public education on climate change and to engage Canadians in ways to reduce emissions; third—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seven months after the closure of the BC mine, we realize that the Minister of Human Resources Development's active measures are not working.

As of May 28, only 25 former employees of the BC mine had benefited from the minister's active measures. Sixteen use the supportable wage subsidy, nine are in training, either job related or general. Of the 305 miners laid off on November 1 last year, only 25 are using a small part of the $3 million announced by the minister for active measures.

What will the minister do with the money not used? This is the sort of questions the 100 former employees of BC came to ask the minister on Tuesday. They travelled 10 hours by bus from Thetford to Ottawa and ended up with a short meeting with the godfather of the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, the member for Beauce, who simply asked for a photocopy of the file.

The minister should read the recent column by Michel Vastel on the subject. The minister is totally out of touch with reality. He should step out of his limousine. He has never been unemployed. He has never worked for minimum wage. He has never worked nights. He knows nothing of the middle class, the poor of this country who have nothing to give their children before they go off to school.

I remind the minister that his predecessor, Doug Young, made a commitment to replace the POWA with something allegedly better when he axed it on April 1, 1997. The Minister of Human Resources Development has done absolutely nothing. What will he do?

I put the question again: What is he going to do with the $2 million, the $2.5 million left unused in his program? He has no respect for the working class. He has no courage. He refused to meet André Laliberté and Charles Lacroix. What can he offer Clermont Bégin, 63 years of age, whom he wanted to cut off employment insurance claiming that he was not looking hard enough for work in a region where unemployment runs at over 11%?

What can he offer the 58 year old miner, who has a number of skills, but none recognized by other employers?

What about the miner, aged 48, with 28 years of experience and a sixth grade education?

The minister is so timid he did not even appear this evening to answer the men from BC. He sent his parliamentary secretary.

What can he say to Noël Loubier, 50 years of age, with 31 years' seniority at the BC mine? And to Richard Rousseau, aged 49, a labourer employed at the BC mine for 25 years?

I could provide him with a whole series of sad and unfortunate cases, but this minister is still not in touch with reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources I am pleased to respond to this question. It is one of several that have been raised by the hon. member opposite on this issue which is of direct effect and consequence to his riding.

The hon. member has so often raised this question and we have responded in kind appropriately. We have said specifically to the hon. member that this government honours the efforts of workers. We are very much in tune with the needs of workers. That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has pledged a $3 million fund to provide assistance and transitional assistance for this particular industry and sector.

As has been done on several other occasions I am pleased to report to the House that the workers are taking advantage of this opportunity. In addition to the 40 or 50 workers who have sought employment opportunities elsewhere, several are taking on active employment measures. They are taking their futures into their own hands. We are seeing a return to work for that group of workers, not to the extent we would like but it is continuing. We expect to see future mining activity in the area which this group of workers will take advantage of.

We emphasize that while the hon. member opposite postures by suggesting the minister is the most appropriate one at this forum to answer this question, he once again deludes the people who are watching this broadcast. As the hon. member knows it is the duty of the parliamentary secretary. He has asked questions directly to the minister. The minister has responded directly. We are following parliamentary procedure. The minister cares very deeply about these workers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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 6.22 p.m.)