Debates of Feb. 26th, 2003

Fisheries

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Chairman, obviously, if the cod fishery should close, a couple of thousand fishermen or more will be out of work because of the federal government's mismanagement of the fishery.

In a statement the minister made in Halifax he said “I'm trying to figure out what aid is available to communities that would be affected by the closure of the east coast cod fishery”. The article goes on to say “He has asked the provinces to inventory their programs as well”.

That hardly strikes me as a firm federal resolve to take full responsibility for another fisheries disaster happening on the federal watch.

A few minutes ago I think the member said that we did not need another TAGS program, that it would not serve the fishermen well. I am wondering what kind of options would be open to the federal government to compensate fishermen and their families. Should there be a package to help fishermen in this regard? What are the options open to the federal government in the member's opinion?

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

Madam Chairman, I am certainly not against another assistance package for fishermen who are displaced, if indeed the decision is made. What I am against is the fact that Canadians may question another one and they may want to know what is going on. Maybe that is what we need in this country.

This will be the fourth aid package, by the way, for east coast fishermen. Eventually the taxpayers of Canada are going to ask some questions.

My fear is that the aid package will maybe assist the fishermen and their families in a minimal way but it will not assist their communities. For example, when fishermen make money they spend the money in their community. What will help that community? What will assist the hardware store, the grocery store, the gas station or the outport community? What will help them? Will they be compensated? They were not the last time.

My fear is that the government will just look at the fishermen not at the community. As it has done repeatedly, it will go back to the province and download that responsibility to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for example, and that is unacceptable. These people do not want an aid package. They want to work. They want to fish. We believe if it is done sustainably they should be fishing.

We go over this again and again. The problem lies within the top of DFO. It is not the fishermen and their families who are causing the problem. It is the management of DFO and it goes on and on.

Are we going to be here four years from now and debate this again? More than likely we will. When will it change? Unanimous report after unanimous report by our committee and many others and the government ignores them.

The absolute worst thing the government did just recently, after it had talked about the fragility of the stocks, how precious the stocks were, how conservation and the precautionary principles were the number one mantra, and it allowed dragging in the gulf after a 10 year moratorium.

My question to any of the government members, and I love it when they get up: Why did they allow dragging at this very sensitive time? It is unconscionable.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to all of those who have participated this evening and in particular, my friend from the New Democratic Party. I listened very closely to his observations about how Canadians might feel if indeed there is another aid package for displaced harvesters and fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador or Atlantic Canada.

I am sure the hon. member is well aware that we have an exploding seal population that is consuming extraordinary amounts of fish resources. Therefore I am wondering if we can count on the hon. member and his party to try to bring Canadian public opinion on side that there must be more seals harvested, that we must reduce the seal population so the seals will consume less fish resources and our food chain replenishes and we will see a rejuvenation of our cod stocks. Can we count on the hon. member and his party to persuade Canadians that this issue has to be dealt with?

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

Madam Chairman, I would refer the hon. member for Burin—St. George's, who I consider to be a good friend, to the 1999 seal report. I would ask him to read exactly what the minority report has to say. We support the vast majority of the report, the fact that the seals are a harvestable product. We support the economic opportunity from seals.

I keep hearing about seal exclusion zones. We never hear how that would be done. What does that mean? We are asking for clear clarification of that. We supported, without hesitation, the increased seal harvest that the minister did over a three year period.

Also, we want the government to do exactly what our report said, and that is to find markets for the seals, open them for those products and ensure that seals are fully utilized. Therefore, the economic opportunities from seals will exist throughout all of Atlantic Canada with the regular fishery.

We have always supported that and we will continue to do so.

[Georges Farrah, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Chairman, my colleague said earlier that the people in communities would be hit hard by a moratorium, that people want to fish.

He says that we should decentralize fish management, that all of the officials are at 200 Kent Street. We may or may not agree on this point.

Given that we have a specific short term problem and that there is a lack of resources that will have quite a negative impact on our communities, what does the member suggest to respond to the crisis we are experiencing? What would be his suggestion, other than to say that people want to fish? We agree with him on that, but if there were no fish, what would he do?

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

Madam Chairman, if the government decides on a moratorium and the fishery has to be shut down, there has to be compensation not only for the fishermen and their families but for their communities as well.

Also, the member wants quick remedies. Put money into the Coast Guard. Ensure there is enforcement out there. Let us not forget that recently a Russian vessel had 49 metric tonnes of moratorium cod in its hold. What happened? The vessel went back to Russia.

Let us enforce the 200 mile limit. Let us ensure that there is no illegal fishing out there. Let us open up the market on the seals and ensure that the seals are fully utilized. Let us ensure that the fishing is done through a hook and line method and not through dragging.

If the member wants some specifics I can go on all night. However, I know I am about to be cut off. Put the money into enforcement and into management. Allow regional managers to make decisions when they deem it necessary, especially on the west coast. If the regional department had been allowed to make a decision, then $200 million of economic opportunity would have happened and would not have been wasted.

If those types of things happen on the east coast, then we to stop them. We have to put faith in our east coast people. We have to put faith in our fishermen, their families and their communities. These people make a living from the resource. They feed us. They risk their lives when they are out on the water. We need to concentrate and look at their needs.

If the fishery is to be shut down, ensure these people are looked after as well as their communities. Do not download this problem to the provinces.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Chairman, when we agreed to the debate, we agreed that it would be on fisheries generally because people in other parts of the country have problems with the fishery besides those of us who represent the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Within our own region, there are other problems besides the pending action, which is the best word to use, because we do not know what will happen in relation to the downturn in the fishery, particularly the decimation of the cod stocks.

We have a major problem with licensing. We have people who have never caught a fish in their lives who hold all kinds of licences. We have fishermen who have done nothing but fished all their lives who are being told they are not fishermen anymore and that cannot get a licence. That is thoroughly and utterly disgraceful, and the department has to start addressing that problem.

We also have a problem with buyouts. Just over the last few years we saw a number of fishermen who decided to get out of the fishery and they sold their licences. I believe we had four different buyouts. One was given a lump sum, tax free payment for the licence. The next group got a lump sum payment but were charged taxes on 50% of it, another group on 75%, another group on 25%. There have been all different kinds of arrangements with CCRA and nobody understands the process. Of course some people who were hit with taxes on the full allotment got very little out of it. They gave away their livelihoods and realized that the return was nil. That is another problem that has to be addressed.

Those are for other forums when we have time to really get after the minister on them. With the little time we have tonight, the pending crisis is the Atlantic cod stocks and what is happen with them.

My colleague from Sackville--Musquodoboit--Eastern Shore, where I had a very enjoyable weekend speaking with his friends, mentioned the possibility of dealing with the fallout through some kind of make work program or some kind of handout to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me make it quite clear. We do not want handouts and we have never asked for them.

If people look back in history, Newfoundland came into the Confederation, or as we say, Canada joined us, in 1949. We did not come into the Confederation empty handed. We came in with more resources per person than any other part of the country brought into the Confederation. In relation to the fishery, we came in with the richest fishery in the world.

I was only a kid at the time. I remember standing on the side of the road watching salmon jump all over the harbour where I lived. I remember watching fishermen come in with their herring nets and their catch of herring. I remember running across the beach and bouncing up and down on the spawn that the caplin left as they moved out to sea. I remember watching boat after boat come in loaded with codfish. It is not there today. The food fish is not there.

I could thrown in squid, which we all loved in the fall because of the fun of trying to catch squid and keep away from getting squirted in the eye. Squid and caplin were the prime food fish for the cod in our respective area, and undoubtedly also herring. We do not see them anymore. Consequently we do not see the cod anymore. We cannot have one without the other.

In those days I remember one occasion when I had just got my first gun. Some young friends of mine rushed in and said that there was a seal in the harbour.

[An hon. member]

Register it.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

We did not have to register it then. It is registered now.

A seal at the time was news. We only seldom saw a seal in the harbour. Of course they wanted to see what kind of a shot I was. They found out.

The truth of the matter is we had all kinds of fish, as my colleagues opposite are aware, and we had very few predators. When spring comes and I am sitting on my front porch, I see more seals than I see herring, caplin, cod fish or salmon. There is something wrong with this imbalance.

What is the one word that perhaps could solve this problem? That one word is science or lack thereof. We talk about complete and utter mismanagement by the department of fisheries over the years, and it has happened. A lot of fingers can be pointed in a lot of directions, but they should mainly be pointed at the governing body. It is ultimately responsible.

When we joined Confederation, the federal government took over management of our fish stocks. We cannot manage anything if we do not understand it or do not know what is happening. If the scientific knowledge base in a major department responsible for our oceans is reduced to the point where it is practically nil or the scientists themselves within the department start complaining about the lack of action within their division, it is a very serious situation. The age of many of the scientists is such that within a very few years they will have retired without any effort made whatsoever to replace these very knowledgeable individuals. If we are wondering how many seals there are or what they eat or their effect on the cod stocks or where the caplin are, we could have these questions answered if we have proper scientific knowledge.

Regardless of that, as a result of science, as a result of improper enforcement measures and a lack of caring, we are faced with a situation where the people who participate in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador will once again get hammered within the next few weeks.

We do not want handouts. It is a shame the government does not have a vision. A few short years ago we had one of the most abundant resources in the country, a renewable resource, a resource that was looked after, managed, patrolled and policed. If we could hold the level of stocks, the food and cod fishery and any other groundfish and pelagic we wanted to keep and added to that the sedentary species like crab and lobster, which have become so valuable, Newfoundland on the fishery alone could be an extremely wealthy province. It does not matter whether it is our hydro power or our minerals, they have been developed for somebody else.

Will the people of Canada stand back and see another handout go to Newfoundland? Since 1949 the people of Newfoundland have made tremendous contributions in what they have given Canada, from the use and abuse of our fishery, to the minerals that have gone to all parts of the country for processing and job creation, to the hydro power that has flowed throughout this country.

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

That is in Labrador not Newfoundland.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. The member is correct. It is Newfoundland and Labrador but most of these resources come from the Labrador section.

We have spread these resources across the country with minimal effort, not counting the use of our air space that puts hundreds of millions of dollars into the central coffers and we do not get a penny.

We do not want handouts. We want a chance to manage, to control and benefit from our own resource. We would be a contributing partner in Canada, not there to take. We are contributing partners but we could do it formally and in the recognized sense, if people only understood it.

I thank members from the Alliance, the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals, all of whom are here tonight to debate an issue so near and dear to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our future. Unless we co-operate and understand each other, we will get the we should not have it attitude or whatever, and we do not want that. We want a fair deal.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to commend my colleague from St. John's West for a most passionate and understanding speech about the plight and how far we have come or have not come since 1949. As well, the member for Delta—South Richmond referenced the FRCC report and seal exclusion zones. I really wanted to ask the member for Delta—South Richmond the question, but I will ask the member for St. John's West.

How would he describe a seal exclusion zone? How does he see it working? Does he think that a seal exclusion zone would work if we put up a number of signs saying “no seals allowed” or “enter at your own risk”? Would we put a big net across some inlet or bay or erect a fence?

Every now and then the issue of seal exclusion zones comes up. No doubt it was mentioned in the FRCC report a couple of years ago. Occasionally it surfaces again.

How would the hon. member with his experience and who can now see the seals from his porch because there are so many of them in his home community, see a seal exclusion zone working? I am at a loss to understand how it would work.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Chairman, my hon. colleague is on the fisheries committee as is the member from Labrador. The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore talked about reports that were brought in and then voted against. Let me say that any work that has been done in our committee, with the prior chairman and the present chairman, has been unanimous. We have had a very unified committee. I think it is because of that the minister got the money for his Coast Guard, that he got the money for his infrastructure. We have created an awareness of this overall problem.

To answer the specific question, I would think that the member is just as familiar with rural Newfoundland as I am. I would suggest to him there are two types of predators we should keep out of areas where cod congregate and breed at certain times, the various nurseries. One would be the foreign activity and dragging in general in these zones. That can be regulated.

With seals, I am not aware that seals would read signs or if we put nets out how practical that would be. I am sure it is not possible. But I would suggest to him that he has many constituents and I have many constituents who could tell us how to create seal exclusion zones. That might be the way to go.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate my colleague from St. John's West on a great speech. It showed that he understands the fishery very well.

The people in Newfoundland and Labrador and successive governments there have been calling on Canada to exert custodial management of the fish stocks that straddle the 200 mile limit. There is a 1995 United Nations protocol on straddling stocks that came into effect in December 2001. The European Union has yet to ratify that protocol. The European Union's behaviour to date indicates that it is not going to be keen on ratifying such a system, which is why Canada has to take the bull by the horns and take unilateral action on custodial management outside the 200 mile limit.

Would the hon. member care to comment on that?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Chairman, I wish I had a couple of hours for this one. The member well knows how near and dear the custodial management and the extension of our boundaries are to me and to the other members of the committee.

If NAFO does not have the teeth to enforce regulations outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap, somebody has to do it. Canada is the adjacent state.

A good question to throw out is, why has Russia been able to apply to the United Nations to extend its limit to take in almost half the Atlantic Ocean? There are at least 30 other countries that have bought the specific software for putting in such a request and they are just waiting to see if Russia is successful in getting its boundaries extended. Our government has not taken any kind of action.

Also outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap, Canada controls the land base itself. We control the sea bed, what is in it and what moves adjacent to it, the sedentary species. If we have such control, why do we let foreigners drag their heavy doors through our property? Nobody has ever addressed that or taken it to court, and we are told we might have a case.

We have not had any leadership from our country in relation to protecting our resource. It is only fish. I said earlier, a properly managed fishery could turn around the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and contribute significantly to turning around the future of Canada.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will give my hon. colleague from St. John's the opportunity to elaborate a bit further. We heard from the Canada Lands Surveyors the other day regarding the opportunity of expanding the 200 mile limit. They indicated that even though we have not ratified the law of the sea, we may have legal jurisdiction to continue to do that.

I remind members that the Flemish Cap, nose and tail of the Grand Banks used to be called the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Now it would be the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to let the member go on a bit more about that because he is right. If we had the courage and fortitude to stand up for Canadian fishermen and their families, we could extend that limit tomorrow.

I could give the assurance that the rest of the world would say that we are not kicking the foreigners out. We are basically saying that they are now going to fish under the quotas we set and that we are going to monitor and make sure they have the quotas, that there is no cheating, that no one is skimming from the top. We are going to make sure that they only have the fish they are allowed to catch and after that they can leave.

A lot of people think that we would kick people out permanently. That is not true at all. We want to operate it under a Canadian management regime with the science and enforcement to ensure that the fish will be taken according to the regulations and not according to the cheating that is going on now.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Chairman, the member is so right. What Newfoundland and Canada have asked for is just to manage the quotas that are allocated by NAFO so that the other nations that have had rights out there almost as long as we have can continue to fish as long as they obey the rules. In fact, we could benefit from more off-loading and whatever, as long as they obeyed the rules.

The member is right. They were always the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. When we came into Confederation we brought them with us, but Canada changed it and referred to them as the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. It says “o-f-f”, with that extra “f”, but it is not. It is the Grand Banks of Newfoundland without the extra “f”. They are our banks, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if members recall that not too long ago I raised a question about the parliamentary committee. It went to Newfoundland and to the Atlantic region.

At that time I remember that George Baker said the problem was in the Grand Banks where the foreign fishing was happening. There was a unanimous recommendation that some changes had to be made. I recall that he did not vote on the recommendation. At the same time the member for Miramichi did vote on it and he became the chair of the committee. He was kicked out by the Liberal Party because of the position that George Baker took.

The people of Newfoundland supported what George was saying should happen. The foreign fishery was coming in and just taking over. It did hurt.

Would the member agree with me and the people of Newfoundland that George, being from Newfoundland and coming from the region, was right, and the committee was right because all parties agreed with the recommendations, except the government which refused the recommendations? That was a few years ago. It probably would have saved the fishery and it would not be where it is today.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Chairman, that is a serious question. Again that is right. If government had only listened to, and I will not say the committee because what the committee was bringing to government was the same as what our own committee brought to government, the views of the people as presented to them in the various hearings. Nobody knows how to solve the problems better than those faced with the problems every day.

Unfortunately with some of the committees in the past, reports were put together, submitted even unanimously and then people voted against them in the House. That has not been the case with our present committee. It does not matter to which party members belong, we have stood by and supported the recommendations strongly and hoped the government would listen.

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

Mr. Chairman, as co-operative as I would like to be with my hon. colleague, I cannot forgo my slot on this very important debate this evening.

I want to commend all of those who have participated in the debate, both for the questions and the answers. I think there is one thing we realize, those of us who have been involved in fisheries issues for a number of years and those of us who have served and are still serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and it is that we have a very sincere group of individuals who work on that committee. They take their work very seriously and realize that regardless of party affiliation we all represent the same people and we all try to work in their best interests.

This is a wide ranging debate in which we are talking about fisheries in general. Of course for me the region of the country that matters most, not that I do not care about the west and the north and the Great Lakes, is certainly the Atlantic fishery, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

I want to say at the outset that a couple of positive initiatives have been undertaken by the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the last short while, which I think should not go unnoticed. I can be very critical when I have to be, but I think it is also very appropriate that we commend when necessary and when deserved.

I would like to commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his recent initiative pertaining to the temporary crab harvesting permits, which he has converted into licences now. For some while now this of course has been a desire of those crab fishermen and in particular the union that represents them. I think that is a very positive initiative.

There is no question in my mind that the minister's recent announcement on the three year allocation of seals is positive. It is a move in the right direction. There is no doubt considerable debate about whether or not the numbers taken will see a decrease in the seal population, really a wide ranging debate, but again we have to come back to the issue of utilization. If we were to take more seals than the market could consume, what would we do with the seals taken? That is the issue on seals.

I think that in all fairness the minister is moving in the right direction. He has increased the seal allocation for the next three years and there is a carryover provision in case there are bad ice conditions or bad harvesting conditions. At least if they are not caught not this year, the catch can be carried over, which I feel is positive.

Another initiative that has caught much attention in the last few years and has not been dealt with is the vessel replacement program. That has been ongoing for quite some time. Because of the changing fishery, in Atlantic Canada in particular, there is a desire on behalf of fish harvesters to at least have the flexibility move to larger vessels for safety and comfort. There is a changing fishery because of the very issues we are talking about tonight, a moratorium in the past and a potential moratorium now, and harvesters are having to move to multi-species fishing, having to go to larger vessels and having to be more mobile to make a living.

I know that there is a consultative process ongoing right now, but I sincerely hope, and I am sure all members present sincerely hope as well, that we reach a successful conclusion on this issue, because it is very important for the reasons I have outlined, in particular the issues of safety and comfort for crews who have to go further from shore and further from home to try to make a living. I hope we will see a successful resolution to that before too long.

When the minister spoke tonight, he gave an overview of fisheries within the country. He talked about some pending difficult decisions that may have to be made, particularly with respect to the gulf cod fishery and our northern cod fishery. Let me be categoric and to the point: My preference is that there not be a closure of either one of those cod fisheries.

A number of speakers this evening have given an historical overview of what has happened since we have imposed moratoriums in different zones. There is one thing that I think is consistent. Where we have imposed moratoriums in the past, we have not seen an increase in the biomass in the zones that have been shut down.

There is something other than fishing pressure that has caused the problems and that is still causing the problems. That is why I am going on the record as saying I do not support a closure of those fisheries. In particular, I do not support a closure of the gulf fishery, where even though the stock is not in great shape I guess it is fair to say it is in better shape than the cod in 2J3KL. I am hoping we can avoid a closure.

I do not wish to upstage the all party committee, which has been doing some very good work in Newfoundland and Labrador. A number of my colleagues are members of that committee and are present this evening. I do not want to upstage them, but I think if we do move to more conservation friendly gear types, if we look at issues and species in the food chain, which the member for St. John's West has already referenced as being so important in the food chain for cod, if we take some measures that will strengthen and regenerate that food chain, then I think we will see a regeneration of our cod stocks. I think it is going to take a number of initiatives by the minister and by the department to make that happen.

A number of speakers this evening have also referenced DFO science and the need for more financial resources to boost up the scientific branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I could not agree more with all those who referenced that tonight. We have gone through approximately 12 years of a moratorium now. My view has always been that in troubled times such as these we do not cut back on our scientific branch. We should boost it up. We should give it adequate financial resources to do its work.

We need to determine the causes. Yes, there is no question that fishing pressure, fishing practices and abuse by some individuals, and by our own in some cases, we cannot ignore that, has led to the problem. It is my sincere belief that we really should have maintained a more than adequate scientific branch at DFO instead of going in the opposite direction.

I think it is incumbent upon me now to say this in light of the budget of just a few short days ago, in which there was significant reference to the government's scientific program in general. What I want to say to members present tonight, to the parliamentary secretary to the minister and to the minister and his staff who may be listening is that I hope there is a very concerted effort put forward to find adequate financial resources to boost the scientific branch of DFO. I am sure that somewhere in that broad, general government scientific program we can find adequate dollars to significantly and properly boost this scientific branch of DFO, because we really need to know the answers.

We know some of the answers. We know some of the problems. We know that gear types have been destructive in some cases. We know that seals consume an extraordinary amount of fish resources. We know that we are taking species other than cod from the ocean, which is interfering with the food chain. But I think we really need a boost in that DFO scientific branch.

A number of speakers this evening have referenced the Coast Guard as well. The minister himself referenced it. There is no question that $95 million is positive. I think what it will do is relieve the pressure on the operating and maintenance budget and consequently enable the vessels to sail more. We know they need to sail more. We know they need to be at sea more. The vessels have not sailed at times when they should have because there have not been adequate financial resources for them to do so. I think this $95 million will at least reduce the pressure on the operating and maintenance budget and allow the vessels to be at sea more, where we want them.

I have covered a number of issues here. The one I have not touched on is custodial management. I think my position is quite clear on that. I do support the Government of Canada implementing a custodial management regime, a Canadian fisheries management regime. As a number of speakers have said already this evening, it was never the standing committee's intent in its report to kick the foreigners off the nose and tail of the banks and Flemish Cap. It was to look at historic fishing practices and to look at historic total allowable catches. But any regime must be a management regime that is implemented by Canada, and it has to be managed by Canada. If necessary, it should be paid for by Canada, because we cannot afford to lose this very valuable protein resource for the world or for this great country.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member a question, because I know he is very knowledgeable in the fishing industry. We know that there are approximately a million pups being born every year. I know he speaks highly of the fact that his government decided to increase the allocation and have a carryover provision, but it does not come close to doing the harvest of seals that is required to save the cod stocks. I want to know what his view is on that and I want to know what his party's stand is on that. I think his party has failed miserably with regard to this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I want to reiterate once more that the minister's decision of this year to increase the seal allocation is a positive move. No doubt, as I said before, there is a debate on whether the numbers that we are taking are sufficient to decrease the seal population.

I guess what I have to say to the hon. member is this. There are two extremes in this debate. One is, let us go out and wipe out several million seals. The other is, let us take a seal allocation that the market forces will consume, so that we have markets for the product, a total utilization of the product. These are the two extremes of the argument.

To be very honest, to be totally responsible tonight, not wanting to be irresponsible, I think the seal allocation and the numbers of seal that should be harvested should be market driven. I have to try to answer the member's question by a question. If we went out and took two million seals and the market would only consume 500,000 seals, what would the member suggest we do with the other one and a half million seals? That is the dilemma. That is the predicament. That is where the debate is, in that range.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. referenced some comments I made earlier, which I think showed some confusion in his mind about the impact that seals have had on the fishery. Certainly his comments just now in response to my friend on this side show that the confusion persists, that it is deep within him.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Confusion is an operative word when we talk about the hon. member. He started out as a Tory. He should have known that there were problems with the fishery. Then he jumped ship.

I would like him to know this. The council, the FRCC, reported that there were two million seals in the eighties when there was an abundance of cod. It estimates now that there are at least eight million of them. That is why the FRCC recommended that certain areas be designated as seal exclusion zones. The FRCC was very clear. It said:

Reductions in seal populations are required in areas where groundfish spawn and on juvenile groundfish nursery areas. Unlimited, unhampered and unrestricted seal predation on highly vulnerable groundfish cannot be allowed to continue if groundfish stocks are to be allowed to rebuild.

It is very clear that the FRCC is recommending a very substantial cull of seals. There is no question about it. It would be far in excess of the minimal amount that the minister has allowed this year. It would be far in excess of that.

It does not take a genius to figure this one out. If we have eight million seals and we are only culling 300,000, we are not going to be eliminating some of the herd. We are not going to be cutting it back down to the point where we have maybe two million, three million or four million seals. It is simply not going to happen. They talk about seal exclusions. Any fool knows, or should, that seals do not read. They may read better than some on the other side, but we should understand that some drastic action has to be taken. If the member is not certain about what the FRCC means by seal exclusion, he should ask the FRCC. It means a drastic elimination. I would like the member to comment on that.