Debates of Feb. 26th, 2003

Fisheries

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Chairman, my question will be very short. The minister was just talking about the increase in the seal hunt, which has gone from 312,000 last year to 350,000 this year.

There is a problem. We have been negotiating with the Koreans for years without being able to break into this market. We have been negotiating with the Americans for years and are unable to break into this market. If we increase the number of seals caught, the markets have to open up.

When we put a question in the House to the minister responsible, he says, “We are in negotiations”. Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the softwood lumber situation. One of these days we will be told once again that there is no solution.

Is it possible that one day the Korean and American markets will open up?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Chairman, this is certainly desirable. We are working within international free trade organizations. The Minister for International Trade is working very hard on this issue.

We must recognize that without access to these markets, the seal market has been very good. Prices have been very high; demand was good. It seems it will be the same this year; things are looking very good. I think this industry will be successful again, which will be good for the communities in northern Quebec, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Newfoundland and Labrador, and all the communities that depend on this industry.

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. He may think the NDP cannot count, but there is one thing for sure: the NDP knows when there are fish in the ocean and when there are not, and at present there are not. So being able to count is not important.

I remember when the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans carried out a study and former Liberal MP George Baker—whom I can name, now that he is no longer a member of this House—and the other committee members presented recommendations to the government. I remember that George Baker did not even come to the House because the Liberals were going to vote against his recommendations. Even the member for Miramichi, who had promoted his recommendations, voted against them. Never mind not being able to count, he did not even know what he had recommended.

Did the government not agree at that time that there was a problem? First, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had done its job and presented recommendations to benefit the fishery. Second, this week there were news reports that the minister is prepared to take a look at the situation for Newfoundland and Quebec, but what about the fishers of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia?

Take groundfish as an example. Whether there is one fisher or two or three hundred of them, each should have equal treatment, regardless of where he or she comes from.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for his more or less accurate account of parliamentary activities in recent years. I will defend this past year, because as the minister in charge, I made the decisions.

Regarding the effects on New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, there will certainly be some if the most drastic decision is made in connection with the cod quotas for next year.

Without downplaying the effects on these communities, these are hardly comparable to the effects in the Gaspé, the Lower South Shore and Newfoundland and Labrador, where communities are very resource based. In some cases, it represents between 80% and 90% of their revenues, which are not very high to begin with.

This was revealed in the analysis conducted in conjunction with the provincial governments. All federal departments with responsibilities in these areas are encouraged to help these communities as well as the five provinces concerned.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

There is less than a minute left. The hon. member for St. John's West.

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

Madam Chairman, we will undoubtedly have several rounds of questions tonight but for now I will ask the minister this. In relation to his dealings with the planned closure, if that is the word, or in his addressing of the decline in the Atlantic cod stocks, will the minister come up with a plan to deal with the people directly affected and make sure that they are accommodated within the fishery rather than closing the fishery?

If the minister has already made the decision to close the fishery, is he, his department and the government in general addressing the compensation package that will include something besides dealing with HRDC and ACOA, an extension of EI benefits or make work programs, because they are not acceptable. What is requested is that provision be made within the industry so that those people can live and survive and operate to some extent which will keep them involved until we can turn around the resource.

The minister will learn, if he stays around tonight, and I know he will because he is very good at that, there are ways that can be done. If everybody cooperates we might see a fishery of the future, which very few people have faith in right now.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Chairman, the communities themselves have been doing a lot of work on these issues.

In Newfoundland the all party committee has been working and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers has been preparing some recommendations that it will be presenting to the FRCC. In Quebec the industry and the province are working together. They will be preparing some recommendations for the FRCC and I believe for myself also.

Looking at all aspects and depending on what decisions are taken on how that would apply, we have not made a decision. I have not made a decision on those cod stocks. I am waiting for the process to go through.

As to the question of compensation, federal and provincial, my job is the protection of the resource and the protection of future fisheries. I have made sure, working with my provincial colleagues, that we give to the relevant departments and the provinces all the information on economic effect so that the proper decisions can be taken. I will continue working with my colleagues in that way.

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

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to discuss fisheries issues in Canada.

Fisheries issues are extremely important both on the east coast and the west coast of our country. They are and have been the economic engine on both coasts in various periods in history. In many respects they still should be. In fact they still would be if they were managed in an appropriate fashion.

I would like to address two areas of concern this evening. The first area is the mismanagement of the Fraser River fishery this year. The second issue is the impending cod moratorium.

The government reorganized the fishery in 1996. It reorganized the fleet on the west coast of Canada in 1996. Fleets were cut back drastically. The number of boats fishing the Fraser River in any one opening decreased from about 1,500 to 1,800 prior to 1996 down to only 400 licensed vessels now. Previously a small boat fleet could fish from Washington State all the way to Alaska, any water, any fishery. After the reorganization in 1996 they were restricted to one of three areas.

The end result of all of that was that in 1999 for the first time in history there was no commercial fishery on the Fraser River. In 2000 there were about three days of fishing. In 2001 there was no fishery again. This past year there were only three days of fishing.

What was especially tragic about this past year was that there were 15 million sockeye returned to the Fraser River. The 15 million sockeye represented ample opportunity to fish regardless of the problems with late run stock. We do not stock fish in the middle of the year to protect the late run fish because the early stock comes back early and are going to die anyway. We have been through those numbers and there is just no percentage in doing it. The cost to the economy of British Columbia this year was close to $200 million.

To put that in perspective on how poorly this was managed, for the gill net fleet in 1987 where there was a return of 12 million fish, there were 7,800 boat days of fishing. This past year with the return of 15 million fish, there were only 1,300 boat days. In 1987 with the return of 12 million fish there were 780 same boat fish days. In 2002 with the return of 15 million fish there were only 48 same boat days.

That is a tragedy in any man's language. It is a huge cost to those people who made huge investments to maintain their vessels and to fish. It is a tragedy as well because when there is overspawning we do not get more fish back four years later. When there is overspawning there is going to be less fish that come back.

As an example, in 1989 the department allowed an escapement of 3.1 million sockeye and in 1993, four years later, over 24 million came back. In 1993 it allowed an escapement of 6.4 million and 16.4 million came back. One can see that the numbers are dropping. That 1993 number was the highest previous escapement on this series in the Fraser River.

In 2002 there was an escapement of 11.3 million fish. My bet is there will be a drastic reduction in returns in four years. It just does not pay. The loss to the economy in British Columbia is not only the $200 million that were lost this year but it is going to be tens of millions of dollars four years from now.

On the issue of the cod stocks, there is a huge problem because when we talk about cod stocks we are not just talking about the fish. We are also talking about it being the economic engine that drives Newfoundland and Labrador. No other province has been harder hit by the moratorium than Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fact of the matter is that since 1992 according to the FRCC, the numbers of cod are down. That is the best estimation of the scientists and the fisheries professionals who are involved in the FRCC. However, they have not been asleep.

The FRCC has made recommendations on catch numbers. The minister and others have heeded the catch numbers that the FRCC has recommended. Where they have failed, and failed miserably, is in the cautions the FRCC made about matters like seals. Let me read from the May 2001 report on 2J3KL cod:

The FRCC has grave concerns that seal numbers have increased substantially in Smith Sound in the past 2 years, and that this one remaining aggregation [of cod] may become the target of increased seal predation. That seals should be able to depredate the last remaining large aggregation of northern cod is unconscionable and unacceptable to the FRCC.

Yet the government did nothing about that. The report also states:

The FRCC recommends that areas be identified where cod are aggregated during winter or where seals are inflicting high mortality on cod, and these areas be designated as seal exclusion zones. Within these areas, measures must be taken immediately to protect and conserve cod.

What the FRCC meant when it said seal exclusion zones was no seals, none, zero, nada. We must get rid of them. We cannot allow them to attack the spawning stocks. We have to protect those very precious spawning stocks.

The government failed to heed that warning. That is a tragedy. That is why we are at the brink today, because the government has repeatedly failed to address the issue of seals.

The FRCC spoke many times on this issue. In the April 2002 report for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, it said, “Predation by seals is now the dominant source of exploitation on groundfish in the gulf”. It is the dominant source of exploitation and what do we do? We set catch limits. Yes, we listen to that, but we ignore the dominant source of exploitation. That is simply unconscionable. There is no excuse for ignoring that.

Dr. Daniel Lane said in that report:

Reductions in seal populations are required in areas where groundfish spawn and on juvenile groundfish in the 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.

How much clearer can it be? There is a problem here and the government has repeatedly refused to address the issue. There is simply no excuse for it.

Our science and knowledge is limited. Granted, we have been fishing the fish for 500 years, but there is a lot we do not know. However, when a group like the FRCC can make a very distinct recommendation, then we know that something has to be done.

It is not that these seals just eat the whole fish. I know there are some who say they only eat so many pounds a day. I have seen the damage that seals inflict on salmon on the west coast and I suggest it is probably the same on the east coast. They take a bite out of the belly and leave the rest. They go for the liver and stomach and do not want the rest. They do not want the filling; they just want a bite out of the belly. They kill the fish, time after time. That is a huge problem.

We have an issue here that the government has ignored. It has ignored the recommendations of the FRCC on seismic activity. It has ignored recommendations on increasing surveillance of fisheries and so on. It is a tragedy.

We have to remember that even if the FRCC comes down and recommends that a small fishery be allowed this year, the horror of a closure is still going to be hanging over our heads, because these stocks are not going to recover over night. Dramatic action is required by the government and it has to happen soon. It should have happened 10 years ago but it has to happen soon.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the member for his comments. On the question of sockeye, I understand the frustration that we could have had more harvest, however that is why the review conference is going on. Does he not recognize the fact that we did increase the harvest in mid-season by over one million? I believe it was 1.6 million in that case.

Will he recognize that there is not necessarily a direct inverse relationship between the number of escapements and recruitment, that there are other factors that come into play like ocean conditions? Will he not recognize that nobody can understand why the salmon have returned in much better shape this year and why there was less mortality, and that there are conditions in the open ocean that we do not understand?

Will he not recognize that in the last year, since I have been minister, I have taken the recommendations of FRCC very seriously by using a flexible management approach on the seals, ensuring that we harvest to a level that would stop the growth and establish a plan for the next three years that would begin a reduction in the herd? Will he recognize also that we started the process for exclusion zones to see how that could work, where it would work, and where the cost effectiveness would be?

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

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the serious questions posed by the minister.

I understand full well that there is not an inverse relationship between the number of spawners that hit the spawning grounds and the returns four years hence on sockeye. However, I understand clearly that if we were to overcrowd the spawning grounds we would get less fish back. That is simply a fact. I do not think there is a scientist familiar with salmon on either coast who would argue with that. I have seen it.

When the fish come back in appropriate numbers they dig in the gravel and lay their eggs. The gravel remains relatively undisturbed after the eggs have been laid. If we were to have wave after wave of fish coming into a spawning area the ensuing waves would simply dig up the area where the eggs have been laid before. The fish try to lay eggs on top of that and there is mass confusion, and we end up with fewer fish the next time. Fewer fish survive, fewer eggs hatch and we end up with less fish. That is simply a given. Whether anybody has determined what the ratio is on that, I do not know, but it is a given fact.

The department did allow a slight increase in the allowable catch over the summer. However, let us not forget that the total commercial catch last summer was only 2.18 million. There are probably 6 or 7 million more that could have been caught and still allowed for an adequate number of spawners. Not only an adequate number of spawners but an optimum number of spawners. That did not happen.

The issue was not protecting the early arriving late-run sockeye stock. We had expert testimony before the committee a year ago last spring. Dr. Ian Todd of the Fraser panel and the international commission said that we should not sacrifice our fishing opportunities on the mid-summer runs to save these late early arriving fish runs because they are going to die anyway. He added that if we do not harvest those mid-summer runs to the optimum level, then we are going to overspawn. In conclusion, he said that we are going to have problems not only with the mid-summer run, but we are not doing anything to help the late summer runs. That advice was given prior to the 2001 season and it was ignored by the minister's predecessor.

I know the minister was new on the job then, but that was the case again this year. It was a drastic error and a huge cost to the British Columbia economy and it will continue to be.

I understand there have been some steps taken toward stopping seal predation. However, the fact of the matter is that if this country is interested in protecting the fish stocks on the east coast, we will have to take a strong stand on the seals regardless of what the international outcry will be. The way we will accomplish that is to take control not only of the Grand Banks themselves within our 200 mile limit, but we must take control of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, and manage that fishery for the people of the world and for Canadians. That is what has to happen. Until that happens we will continue to have those problems.

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

Madam Chairman, I have been sitting on the all party fisheries committee for the last couple of months and the first thing that we find out is that the fishery has never really been treated as an important issue by the federal government until such time as it is looking at an economic and social disaster.

Let us look back at the billions of dollars that have been spent to alleviate the plight of fishing communities hard hit by the first cod moratorium. If even a tenth of that money had been previously spent in some fisheries management, perhaps there would not have been any need for the programs that we had at that time. Maybe the province would not have lost 70,000 people that it lost in out-migration over the last decade.

Concerns are high indeed that the government would be closing down the remaining northern cod fishery. The minister has all but made that announcement here tonight. What I have been really interested in finding out is, why has the federal government cut back so much on the science associated with seals?

In 2000 for example, DFO estimated that harp seals in 2J3KL consumed 893,000 tonnes of caplin, 186,000 tonnes of Arctic cod and 37,000 tonnes of Atlantic cod. Scientists are saying that the diet data from the inshore showed that the per capita consumption of cod by harp seals did not even decline with the collapse of the cod stocks.

I am sure that the hon. gentleman has a great deal of concern about the science associated with the cod stocks and seal predation. I would like the hon. member to comment on why the federal government has cut back so much on the science associated with seal predation and cod stocks?

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

Madam Chairman, I thank the hon. member for the question and I will not presume to answer for the government. I am also mystified on why there has not been more done in the way of science on most species of fish on both coasts because there is a dramatic need for that.

Since the moratorium, we are now pursuing species that we ignored pretty much in the past. We are exploring new opportunities on the west coast as well and yet we are not doing near enough science. But on this issue of the seals, the science has been done, and it is pretty darn clear and a matter of common sense that there is a huge problem.

The FRCC, which is a science-based organization, understands the science of the fishery and the impact of seals. It has clearly, time after time, pointed out that there is a huge problem with the seals and yet it is saying it has been ignored. As late as January 2003, in the latest report, the FRCC said last year's recommendation of evaluating Bird Island as a seal exposure zone for the protection of juvenile ground fish is still deemed necessary. Its recommendation even now is not being followed. That is the problem here. Members are ignoring reality across the way.

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

Madam Chairman, my hon. colleague has raised many issues but my question to him is on a postcard. We have heard the hon. minister say that the funding in the budget was great and wonderful for the Coast Guard. Yet, his own commissioner of the Coast Guard, John Adams, said it needs a minimum $400 million, but there was $95 million in the budget.

I would like him to respond very quickly as to why the commissioner of the Coast Guard says we need $400 million and the minister responsible for the entire department says the $95 million was just adequate?

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

Madam Chairman, again, I cannot understand the way the Liberals do the numbers over there, but the Auditor General evaluated the Coast Guard fleet at $2.4 billion. She said that if we were a private owner, if we were the former finance minister, that we would invest about 4% a year in fleet revitalization and replacement. That comes out somewhere around $40 million a year. We have not been doing that in the last few years.

In fact, the Auditor General also noted that even moneys that were designated for fleet revitalization were siphoned off elsewhere so they were not dedicated. That is part of the problem with the structure of the Coast Guard where it is part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The problem is that it cannot protect its own budget because instead of reporting to the commissioner here, it reports to the director general on the west coast and elsewhere in the country.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Chairman, earlier, before coming into the House of Commons chamber, I reviewed statistics from Fisheries and Oceans Canada going all the way back to 1980. I was wondering how Quebec had managed not to rebel. Over the years since 1980, the Government of Quebec has been asking the federal government to recognize the division, along provincial lines, of the access to common pool fisheries resources in order to stop the erosion of Quebec's historic share.

I must quote a very specific example of the situation some species are in. In recent years, that is from 1995 to 2000, when we look at the fisheries in Quebec, the overall loss in tonnes suffered by the industry has been absolutely terrible.

For the crab fishery, the loss was 983 tonnes; for cod, 2,450 tonnes; for the gulf shrimp, 275 tonnes; for the northern shrimp, 27,159 tonnes; for black turbot, 2,069 tonnes. We lost a total of 32,936 tonnes in terms of fishing rights in Quebec between 1995 and 2000.

We are facing a very serious situation in Quebec. There is this continuous erosion. The situation is worsening, with the prospect of a moratorium on cod.

First, I want to review the past a little, to see what was done in Fisheries and Oceans since the federal government took over. I would simply point out that, in 1992, the Canadian government signed the Rio Declaration, which contained the precautionary principle and the sustainable development principle.

In the fall of 2001 in Paris, this same government took part in a week-long international conference, five days from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. I attended this conference, and I am still yawning. We prepared fisheries plans at this conference. It was on oceans, law of the sea, fisheries, aquaculture, sustainable development and the precautionary principle. We prepared the plans together to ensure the future of the fisheries.

In the fall of 2002, after the Johannesburg summit, this same government—which had agreed with what was prepared in Paris—signed the same plans that were submitted. If we look at the past—I hope that the future will be different—we see, in terms of federal fisheries management, that marine resources have been unfairly distributed.

I noticed this earlier and I pointed it out; Quebec's historic shares are not being respected. This is extremely important to the Gaspé. In the Gaspé, the fisheries are part of its history, they built the Gaspé, they ensured its development.

The cod moratorium, obviously, could kill an entire industry, a traditional industry that has developed over the years and that is internationally renowned. Cod, for example, is dried and salted.

Marine resources are unfairly distributed. In the past, the department showed a certain lack of responsibility. There were numerous hesitations by one minister after another in making decisions to protect the resource. If the resource had been protected, we would not be here today facing the possibility of a moratorium on cod fishing and, possibly, other types of fishing.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is no protection outside the 200 mile zone. NAFO member countries come to fish, they literally come to steal our resource without any real control measures and without sufficient action being taken by the government to make these people understand that we need to protect our resource, that we need to maintain it not only for us but for future generations.

We can also say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not really cooperated with Quebec, with the rest of the provinces and with fishers. I am still talking about the past.

All we hear when we meet fishers and other stakeholders is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does hold consultations everywhere, but every time, the result is the same; it does not change anything whether or not there are consultations. The government consults us, but it does not heed our recommendations. It consults fishers, but it does not heed their recommendations.

Let us take the seal industry as an example. Fishers have been saying for years that seals are the main predators for cod and groundfish. Fishers who are there have been telling the department for years that seal quotas have to be increased so that predation by seals is less damaging to the resource.

Unfortunately, it is only this year that quotas have started to increase significantly. Now, as I mentioned to the minister earlier, we must develop markets so that this industry can prosper. If it is not replaced, the existing fishing industry will at least have to be rejuvenated, particularly with regard to the development of the seal industry.

I want to come back to the possible cod moratorium, because this is an issue that I think is very important. I am not sure if it was a good idea for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to throw out the idea that there might be a cod moratorium right before Christmas.

If I were one of the 4,000 workers affected, I am not sure what kind of a Christmas I would have had. I do not know how I would have taken the news, knowing that I am an EI recipient, knowing that I was coming up to the spring gap, and not knowing if I would have a job and if I would be able to provide for my family to live decently in the spring, when I would no longer be receiving EI.

What we were calling for, when the idea of a possible cod moratorium was raised last fall, was a real support program. But when we talk about a real support program, we are talking about a program that will help people survive and get through the crisis. We are not talking about the current EI measures, which do not support people enough to get through them the crisis.

What I mean by a support program is a support program for the regions that are affected and direct support for the people affected. What happened in the early 1990s, when the first moratorium was set, was that there was an assistance program, but it did not necessarily assist the people who were affected, the plant workers. Fishers wound up without any income and on social assistance because the assistance programs did not target them properly and did not meet their needs.

You cannot take fishers out of the industry when they have worked in it for 30 years. You cannot make them into high tech workers overnight. That is impossible. We have to provide targeted assistance programs that meet these people's real needs and provide them with an adequate income.

If people wind up in difficult circumstances, it will be because of mismanagement at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Therefore, as we have pointed out on several occasions, we must create assistance programs through all the organizations, whether it is fishers who will be affected themselves or fishers' associations, particularly on the Lower North Shore and the North Shore of the St. Lawrence River, because they are the ones who could be the most affected.

We are talking about over 4,000 people who could be affected, not just in the Gaspé. These 4,000 people include over 1,000 workers in Quebec. When we talk about 1,000 workers, we are not just talking about 1,000 individuals, but about 1,000 families that will be affected.

In the Gaspé, this is a catastrophe, because the unemployment rate is already very high. The region was hit very hard by the 1992 moratorium. Whenever there is a crisis in the fisheries, the region experiences a catastrophe that generates gloom. It is very hard. When it hits, some 1,000 jobs are lost overnight, which means that 1,000 families are in dire straits and that about 3,000 or 4,000 individuals are affected.

This is very hard in a region where unemployment is already very high, because these people no longer have any hope. They do not know where to go. They do not necessarily have the training to do something else.

It is essential that the federal government be involved in and committed to a true assistance program. It must not do what it has done in the past, and it must definitely not rely only on what is provided under the employment insurance program.

In 2002, the total allowable catch for cod was 7,000 tonnes in northern Gaspé and 6,000 tonnes in the south of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Economic spinoffs are of the order of $30 million, for a poor region like the Gaspé. So, this is very important. This is $30 million which, all of a sudden, is available to thousands of people who collect employment insurance benefits during part of the season. This $30 million is very important for the economy. I could go on, but I will get back to this later on.

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

Madam Chairman, I listened very closely to my hon. colleague's speech. However, I would like to point out a few inconsistencies and perhaps give him the opportunity to enlighten us.

First, he said that in the past the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans always worked without really consulting anyone or, if there were consultations, they were a sham because no one was listening to the fishers.

The decision by the minister last year to allow the seal quota to increase to 305,000 individuals, and to increase it again this year over a three year period up to 975,000, clearly shows that the minister listened to what the fishers have been demanding for many years, which is to increase the quota.

On one hand, the member said, “Look, maybe the minister should not have talked about the possibility of a moratorium last autumn, because it sent shock waves through the communities concerned by this issue”. On the other hand, he said, “They act quietly, in secret”. I think the minister was being honest when he said that the depletion of the cod stocks was a serious issue. Some decisions are hard to make. It took a lot of strength and honesty to warn these people that there were some serious problems with the cod stocks.

Therefore, I think the hon. member would acknowledge that, last fall, following their conference, Atlantic ministers asked the minister to take action. So, the government could not have acted in secret. It acted quite openly. I would like the member to clarify that for us.

The other point may be more telling. The hon. member told us that Quebec's share of quotas dropped by 32,000 tons from 1995 to 2000.

This is what I would like the member to tell us: if Quebec's share has been so drastically reduced, does he not remember that, between 1995 and 2000, it was the Bloc members who travelled to the maritime regions of Quebec to defend the interests of their province and who then let huge quotas be transferred to the other provinces, at the expense of Quebec.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member started at the end. I merely wanted to tell him that Liberal ministers managed the fisheries, and that Quebec has long asked to be involved in managing, for one thing, the fishery in Quebec. We are asking to manage the resource.

So, if it had not been for federal Liberal ministers, if the Quebec government had been managing the fishery, perhaps Quebec would not be experiencing so many problems in this area today. That is my answer to the hon. member.

I would like to point out something else. The hon. member said that the minister was honest in telling people that there might be a moratorium. People should not be told there might be a moratorium unless there are measures to help them. It is simple. To announce a possible moratorium, you say, “In the event of a moratorium, we will try to find ways to help you”. You do not say, “There might be a moratorium, thanks, have a nice day”. That is not how life works. If I tell you I am going to cut off one of your feet, I am going to tell you why. And I am going to tell you, “I am going to help you. I am going to try to look after you”. This is an example. If I am a doctor, and I tell you this one day out of the blue, I am at least going to offer you something to offset the news. I am going to say, “You will get something; we are going to try to help you”.

However, this is not what the minister did. The minister said, “There may be a moratorium, but we do not know what we can offer you. Perhaps we will help you. We do not know. There are programs in place”. We are told again today, “I am not responsible. It is other departments that are responsible. So we will sit down together”.

But we may be a month away from a moratorium. Imagine people in their living room saying, “In one month, I will have no job and I already no longer qualify for employment insurance, because the Liberal government cut my benefits. I am stuck in the gap”. What a life. What hope is the government giving to these people? Absolutely none. It tells them, “We will sit down and review the situation”. But we are a month away from a possible moratorium. I am sorry, but it is a little late to start thinking. The government should have begun its thinking process long before; it should have set up a committee with the provinces and the main stakeholders, as we had asked back in November, but this was done only after the holidays. Again, this is a little late.

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

Madam Chairman, I certainly appreciate the member's comments. He is a great member of our fisheries committee and is very knowledgeable on these fisheries issues.

I would like to ask him a question. I have a report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Science Branch, the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, which is “not to be cited without permission of the authors”, but I guess in this place that really does not matter. It is an assessment of the cod in the southern gulf of St. Lawrence. It states that the directed cod fishery in the southern gulf of St. Lawrence was closed in September 1993 and states:

The trend in the research survey index since 1993 suggests there has not been any increase in the abundance of the stock. Weights-at-age appear to be increasing but are low and natural mortality...appears to remain high...The stock assessment indicates population biomass remains low, similar to the mid-1970s, and is near the lowest seen since 1950. The spawning stock biomass in 2002 is estimated at 84,000 t[onnes] compared to 87,000 in 2001 as estimated in the previous assessment...Rebuilding of spawning biomass over the next 2-3 years is unlikely.

To me this suggests that we have a problem that has been longstanding. The member has suggested in his comments that the government has ignored the fishermen in the area, the people who have an interest in the fishery. Here we have the government's science department saying something very definitive and very clear. In his estimation, why has this message not been getting through to the government across the way?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Chairman, that is exactly it. I will simply give Newfoundland as an example.

With the committee, in Newfoundland, we met their minister of fisheries and some of his predecessors, as well as industry stakeholders. What they told me—and I will never forget what I heard in St. Johns, Newfoundland—was this: since 1949, that is since they handed management of the fisheries over to the federal government, things have gone from bad to worse.

There is a reason for this. It is because the federal government was unable to manage the resource. It did not invest enough in research. We do not even know as yet what the real problems affecting the resource are, whether in the gulf or off Newfoundland, and in the Maritime provinces.

Someone has already brought up the seal question. Seals eat a lot, and my colleague has cited some examples, but do we know what one eats in a year? Not yet. There has not been sufficient investment in research for us to know that a seal eats x pounds of cod. What the scientists tell us is that there has not been sufficient research to provide an accurate answer.

There ought to have been sufficient investment, as soon as DFO was created and took over management of the resource, to provide proper knowledge of the resource so as to manage it properly. But that is not what happened. As one of my colleagues has said, the fisheries have never been of any great importance to this government.

It is no big deal to make 4,000 people unemployed tomorrow morning, or so we are being told.

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

Madam Chairman, I will mention one of my biggest concerns. There was a 10 year moratorium on the cod fishery in what is called 4Vn, and I have a question for the hon. member before he leaves; he is probably hungry. My question, of course, is about the 10 year moratorium on drag fishing of cod just off the coast of Cape Breton in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This year, unbeknownst to anyone, and who knows why, the minister made the decision to allow dragging in 4Vn just off the coast of Cape Breton and just inland off P.E.I.

We know that these cod stocks are fragile and precious. Why would the minister allow dragging, the most inefficient and most destructive form of fishing, in a precious cod stock when now he is saying that we have to preserve the stocks? I would like the member's comments on that, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

The hon. member for Matapédia—Matane has 20 seconds to respond.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Chairman, why is the minister allowing dragging? I think that it is completely incomprehensible. I think that all fishers, whether they are lobster or crab fishers, would all say so. Drag fishing completely destroys the ocean floor and breeding grounds. It is simple, but I do not understand.

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

Madam Chairman, first I want to mention a few concerns I have with what the minister said. He said that the government did not want to take financial estimates from the NDP. This is from a government that brought in Bill C-68, a $1 billion cost overrun on a $2 million gun registry; this is from a government that brought in a disability tax credit that punished well over 120,000 disabled people in the country; this is from a government that brought in an airport security tax, the highest in the world; and then it punishes the fish industry. This is all from a government of this nature.

I will talk about fish. In 1998, which the hon. member for Labrador and the hon. member for Burin—St. George's were present for at the time, although the member for Burin—St. George's belonged to another party back then, we prepared a unanimous report on the east coast fishery. We made wonderful recommendations that would have addressed a lot of the problems of today. We had a vote on that report in the House and, guess what? The nine Liberals, who signed off on that unanimous report, voted against it. The reason is that those who did not vote against it were not in the House to vote for it. The fact is that there were five members of that committee who were in the House and voted against it. The others were afraid to be here to vote for it.

In 1999 we had the west coast report, a unanimous report by a Liberal member. We voted on it. Four members of the Liberal Party who were here voted for it. The rest stayed away. The fact is that this is why we have problems in the fishery. We prepare unanimous report after unanimous report with Liberals signing off on them. We had a very good member, George Baker, from Newfoundland. We had a good member from Miramichi as chair. We had a good member from Malpeque, P.E.I. as chair. Now we have just as fine a chairperson from Ontario. The fact is that report after report gets completely ignored by the government. That is problem number one.

Problem number two is that in Atlantic Canada the fishery is still the number one employer and we have completely disregarded the hopes and aspirations of Atlantic Canadians. One just has to look at the Mifflin plan on the west coast or the Anderson plan, and long before that, which is where, in my mind, the destruction of the fishery started, the Kirby report. These were all by Liberals.

Now we have the minister from Nova Scotia. When will his name be added to the litany of disgraceful fisheries ministers who have destroyed a resource? I say that because time after time in committee, be it in fisheries or anywhere else, we ask deputy ministers, commissioners and people in the fishery department exactly what we should say and do and they tell us. They give us advice but that advice is ignored by the higher ups in Ottawa. Why that is we do not know.

However we do know that on the west coast 40% of west coast salmon are controlled by one entity, and that is Jimmy Pattison. One entity controls 40% of a public resource. On the east coast the corporatization of a public resource is going on as we speak. That is graceful and despicable and it has to stop now. The fact is these corporations are not going to compensate the fishermen of Labrador and Newfoundland, Quebec and my province of Nova Scotia.

If people really want to know what is wrong with the fishery, they only have to go to the wonderful town of Canso, Nova Scotia. It is not in my riding but it is a 400 year old fishing community that is just about dead. The resource swims right by the pier and fishermen do not have any access to it, none whatsoever. It is disgraceful.

We have brought up the law of the sea. Over 120 countries in the world have ratified the law of the sea but this country has not. My question is, why?

Sable Island gully has asked for protection. It has been waiting five years for protection for that and there is nothing today. We hear it is going to come but nothing has happened so far.

What about NAFO? We have made recommendations about overfishing of the straddling stocks off the 200 mile limit. Absolutely nothing has happened so far.

The reason the salmon swam up the rivers on the west coast was that regional decisions were not allowed to be made. Officials on the west coast would say “Let us make a decision. We will allow a $200 million economic activity to happen”, but it was not allowed to happen because of the management right here in Ottawa.

One of the recommendations we made concerned the 1,600 people who work at 200 Kent Street. No one fishes for lobster in the Rideau Canal. No one is seining at all in the river in Hull. The fact is that these people should be where the resource is. I know the member for Labrador agrees with me on that.

Just recently, in a television interview, the hon. member agreed that decentralization of management should be the government's number one priority. When the member has his opportunity to speak I would like him to talk about that because he is absolutely right, we must have that. People who work with the resource should live where the resource is, not in Ottawa where decisions are made constantly.

We constantly hear about the cuts to DFO. Three years ago I asked the acting commissioner of the coast guard, Mr. Turner, about cuts to the coast guard. He said that $200 million was diverted from the coast guard into DFO. We just heard about the budget. The hon. minister, who I consider to be a good friend, says that the budget is great, the coast guard is wonderful and it is fabulous that money was put into the coast guard. What he forgets is that John Adams, the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, just the other day said that the coast guard needed $400 million this year, not over a period of time but right now.

The minister is not even listening to his own Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. It is no wonder people are so frustrated and angry at this department when we have the person responsible for the coast guard saying one thing and the minister saying something completely different. It is unconscionable.

Will the people of Canada accept another TAGS program? I suspect that when the minister announces another billion dollar aid package, the people of Canada, maybe even the chairperson of our committee, will question why we are spending another pile of money on fishermen on the east coast. That is a very valid question.

Since NCARP, TAGS and every other adjustment program, we have spent $4.2 billion readjusting the east coast fishery. What do we have? We have a corporatized fishery, seals running amok and people leaving Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over 40,000 people have left the wonderful province of Newfoundland and Labrador since 1992. That is disgraceful. The fact is that most of these people were gainfully employed in the fishery. I know it must pain and hurt the representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador to see their outports and small communities dying like that. It is unbelievable. We know it happens on the prairies with the farmers but, in typical Liberal fashion, if it is an independent fisherman and their family or an independent farmer and their family, who really cares, unless they donate to the party. It is disgraceful.

This is about the 10th debate that I have participated in after the regular business of the day since I came here in 1997. We have brought up the exact same issues since 1997. Other people brought it up long before I did. Since 1992, when the cod moratorium started with John Crosbie, we are now 11 years later and we are back at the same problem.

What is the government going to blame it on, the environment? Is it going to blame it on seals? Is it going to blame it on fishermen? Let us remember the excuse of “too many fishermen, not enough fish”.

This is the government that allowed dragging off the coast of Cape Breton 4VN when there was a moratorium for 10 years. How can the government possibly allow the most destructive method of fishing when the stocks are so fragile? How can it do that? We will never get an answer from those people because there is not one. How can it allow dragging? Why the Liberal backbenchers have not said anything publicly on that is beyond me. If they are serious about it they should really say something.

We have to understand that there are many problems with the fishery but the problems start at the top. We have problems on the west coast, problems on the inland fishery, problems in the north and the east, and it is all centred around DFO in Ottawa.

It is time the government started listening to the fishermen and their families in coastal communities across the country and just maybe it will get the answers it needs.

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

Madam Chairman, the hon. member said that I had never spoken publicly on the issue but that is not correct. I have spoken many times and I am not shy. If it means being on the side of the government that is fine. If it means being offside, well that is fine with me too. That is the way I operate.

My question for the hon. member is quite simple. We have a lot of fishery along the Labrador coast in the north of Canada and a lot of people from the south share in our fishery, but not a lot of people from the north have the opportunity to share in the fishery of the south. In other words, I subscribe to the rule of adjacency. What is the hon. member's take on that?

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

Madam Chairman, there is so much opportunity to go after the Liberals, but I happen to like this particular member and so does my mother. I want to say that I also subscribe to the principle of adjacency. Adjacency is something that is not often discussed in our debates. When we discuss fisheries there is so much to talk about and adjacency is the reason.

It is interesting to note that the hon. member today in a television interview said that he believed in co-management. Co-management of the fisheries just happens to be the NDP policy. We want to thank the hon. member very much for that.

I support his efforts and anyone's efforts in terms of adjacency, especially when it comes to those people in the most regional outports of Labrador and especially in the beautiful territory of Nunavut.