Debates of April 29th, 2003

Cod Fishery

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's West.

I want to congratulate the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore on a great speech. I am absolutely amazed at his knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador and generally of the fishery.

One of the most discouraging things in speaking in this debate is the fact that no matter what is said here tonight, no matter how many good points are made, and there have been some very good points made, and no matter what happens, at the end of the day I do not believe it is going to make too much difference to the bottom line. When this debate is over this evening the fishery will still be closed, the communities affected will still be threatened and people will still be unemployed.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Maybe not.

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

The member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception says maybe not, but I think so. I think the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is going to stick to his guns. If he had no intention of sticking to his guns, I believe the minister for ACOA would be pounding his chest tonight, threatening and asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to change his mind. The minister has been very quiet, so I believe that the minister of fisheries has made up his mind. The fact that we had this debate tonight is not going to make one bit of difference tomorrow.

I am very disappointed not only with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but with the minister for ACOA. Knowing full well the impact that this announcement would have, the minister of fisheries and the minister for ACOA went before the microphones in Newfoundland without a long term plan to place before the people, except the measly $23 million in make work programs. Those are not my words. The minister for ACOA said it himself to the people in Newfoundland. He was making $23 million available for make work programs, no long term plan for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception mentioned it this evening. Ever since 1992 when the first moratorium came into effect, there has been no long term plan for the future of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. What do we have? We have $23 million for make work programs and $6 million announced for a study on seals. That is absolutely shameful.

To announce a $6 million study on seals is equivalent to the Chinese water torture for fishermen. How much more study do we need to do on seals in Newfoundland and Labrador before we come to the conclusion that seals are eating too much fish? Surely it does not require $6 million. It does not require $6 million to know that back in 1992 there were 2.5 million seals in the waters in and around Newfoundland and today in 2003, 10 years later, there are eight million or nine million seals.

If the fish stocks are still in continual decline, then there has to be a problem with the seals out there. The Grand Banks cod stocks we are told, and I think it was mentioned in the committee hearings that we were at, give testimony to the fact that even though parts of that fishery were closed for a long time, the stock never increased by even one fish. There must be a problem with the sealing population.

What is the long term plan that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador? DFO has been saying for years that nature is going to look after the problem. Nature will probably look after the problem when every single fish is gone and the seals starve to death. Nature can only look after the problem if a proper balance is maintained. The unfortunate thing is that the balance between the seal population and the cod stocks has been upset over the years by foreign overfishing, most of it totally ignored by the federal government.

With these two factors at play, combined with the fact that Ottawa has little or no interest in the fishery that caters to a small place like Newfoundland and Labrador, we are fighting a losing battle. We are victims of our geography. We are victims of the fact that we have a small population base. We are victims of the fact that we have too few seats in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One can only imagine the kind of chaos that would have been created 10 years ago if the Atlantic region had 100 seats. The federal government would not take long to deal with the seal population explosion. Foreign overfishing and custodial management would be high on the agenda and would maintain a prominent position around the cabinet table. However, we are victims of the fact that we have a small population. We do not have a whole lot of political clout, so the federal government does not have to cater to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not have to cater to the people of Atlantic Canada.

Is it any wonder that people in Newfoundland and all over the Atlantic region have so little confidence in the federal government, that it is going to represent our interests. It has never represented our interests in the fishery. The cod fishery could be gone forever. There was no long term plan back in 1992 and there is no long term plan for the fishery today. It may never return, and the government still refuses to put its shoulder to the wheel to avert what may very well be the greatest ecological disaster in the history of Canada, probably the history of the world: the complete extinction of the world's greatest fishery resource. That is too bad. I wonder if the people of Canada fully understand or fully believe what is going on here and what has happened since 1992 in particular.

Back in 1949 Newfoundland brought the world's greatest fishery into Canada. We passed the jurisdiction and management of that fishery over to the federal government. Here we are 53 years later. The government is presiding over a disaster of epic proportions.

The government watched without interest as foreigners raped and pillaged the cod stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador. The government watched without interest as the seal herd grew from two and a half million back in 1992 to eight or nine million today, and it did nothing to correct that problem.

As another member before me pointed out, the government ignored the unanimous recommendations of its own fisheries committee on custodial management. It will continue to ignore the recommendations because there is no desire to upset the Europeans. There is no desire to take on NAFO countries who will still continue to pillage and rape fish stocks outside the 200 miles while our fishermen and plants remain idle.

What a sad commentary on our place in Confederation. A once proud nation is what we were prior to 1949. What a sad commentary on the minister representing Newfoundland and Labrador who has done virtually nothing to avert the situation, who has remained silent throughout all the fishery committee meetings on this particular issue and who continues to remain silent.

As a result of the last moratorium back in 1992 Newfoundland lost 70,000 people in 10 years from that small population of a half a million people. We may very well lose another 70,000 in the next 10 years.

Instead of a long term plan, what the minister for ACOA came up with was a great big make work project for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not serving the interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from St. John's East for sharing his time with me.

Let me also congratulate the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for asking for and getting this emergency debate at a time when it is crucial to our colleague from Burin—St. George's who also spoke so well in the debate tonight.

Let me also point out that through the debate we have heard from every party in the House. We have heard from the governing party, which started off the debate this evening. We have heard from the official opposition, an Alliance member from British Columbia. We have heard from the Bloc, a member from Quebec. We have heard from the NDP, a member from Nova Scotia. Now we are back to a couple of Newfoundlanders again. Right across the country, across all political spectrums and from government to opposition, we have heard people talking in unison about a fishing industry that has been shut down by a minister without listening to people who could direct him as to how we could deal with a declining resource without having such a negative effect on the people directly and indirectly involved.

We talk about the people in Newfoundland being upset. It was referred to that some people even tore up or burned the Canadian flag, which is something that should never happen. It is not Canada we should be upset with. We should be upset with the present Government of Canada and in particular, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On this very issue they are the ones, not the people of Canada, not the politicians of Canada, not even some of the politicians in the governing party, but it is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government who made the decision against the advice of everyone connected in any way to the fishery.

Five or six months ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated in this very House that he would have to deal with declining stocks in Atlantic Canada. He basically raised an awareness and everyone in the area interested in or affected by the fishery took notice. Nobody blamed the minister for creating the awareness because the minister was not crying wolf. There is a serious situation in relation to groundfish in Atlantic Canada. There is a serious situation in relation to most of the fish stocks in Canada, whether they be in the Great Lakes, in western Canada or in the Atlantic region, because we have not been good stewards of our resource.

If I had more time tonight, I would love to talk about the other resources of our province, from our water power, to our minerals, to our forestry, to especially the biggest, richest fish resource that ever existed in the world which once swam off our coast. It has been pillaged and destroyed with a lot of people benefiting, the least of whom are the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians adjacent to the resource. And we wonder why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are upset.

When the minister sent up his flares a few months ago, all parties in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, something that never happened before and might never happen again, got together to say “We have a major problem confronting our province and it is about time we put petty politics aside and dealt with it”.

This group, with the help of a lot of knowledgeable people within the industry, from the people in the boats, to the people in the plant, to the people in the science divisions, experienced individuals, unbiased, objective scientists, recommended ways of dealing with it. Make the best of a bad situation was what we had to do. The committee presented the minister with 19 solid recommendations which basically said not to close the fishery, that we have to make sure we keep the people involved.

Scientific advice, properly used and properly focused, would enable the minister to keep the fishery open to some extent. There are other avenues within the fishery. Tonight I do not agree with my colleague from St. John's East and I do not say that very often, but I am the eternal optimist. I think the minister has made a major mistake.

When the minister came to Newfoundland and Labrador and he closed the fishery completely, this is what he offered. He talked about community based economic development assistance, $25 million for short term job creation. That is less than one-tenth of 1% of the surplus in the EI fund. This is what we use to deal with a problem of this magnitude.

He talks about conservation measures, including the creation of seal exclusion zones. When I asked him yesterday how he will keep seals out of an area, he said he was going to ask them to stay away. St. Francis of Assisi should move over because we have a new person coming up. I will say to the minister that I hope it works. I also say to the minister that it did not go over very well in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister also talks about a $6 million program to expand on current activities, and to evaluate and assess the impact of seals on fish stocks. The investment in science will help us learn more about the relationship between seals and fish.

The minister does not have to spend $6 million to learn about the relationship between seals and fish. Morrissey Johnson once said that they do not eat turnips. Seals live in the ocean. They eat fish. With the imbalance that is there now, when we have a million seals, we have a biomass of cod that was 100 times greater than it is now. We are down to 1% of our biomass. As the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception so rightly said tonight, the seals have grown eight-fold. A person does not have to be a scientist to figure that one out and it does not take $6 million. Many people in Newfoundland would give the minister the answer on that one for a lot less than $6 million.

The other point I want to raise concerns the backgrounder because it circulated across Canada for people to read about why we closed the fishery. The minister talks about why the cod stocks have not recovered. He talks about changes in the environment. He talks about fish growth and survival. He talks about reproduction and he talks about Newfoundlanders not being good stewards in the past.

The minister does not talk about the effect of seals. He does not talk at all and never once mentioned foreign overfishing. Again he said that it might not affect the gulf. Perhaps it does not. It certainly affects 2J3KL.

The department must get its act together. The recommendations made by the all party committee, and made publicly and privately by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to him and by others across the country who are aware of this whole situation, show the minister clearly how the fishery can be kept open, and how people can be kept involved. There are other resources that can be reallocated. There are species that we have not had a chance to develop because we did not have the money.

If the government is willing to pay people to move rocks, why not pay them to do some scientific research and do some work on underutilized species or new species. Who will do the scientific research on seals? Who will ensure that we have seal exclusion zones? The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador can do it.

Let me say to the minister who will probably speak soon that perhaps a lesson has been learned. Perhaps it can be seen from the reaction of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador against Canada. I say to my friends at home that it is not the Canadians who are doing this. It is a government. It is a minister of fisheries. Let us focus our attention on him.

If everybody else is wrong then there is something wrong with the system. My Johnny is the only one in step, but in this case the minister is out of step so perhaps he will listen, use the advice given him, and perhaps we can find the way to ensure we start rebuilding our resource. Yes, we have to be responsible, but surely we can do it collectively by keeping people involved instead of taking them out and letting everybody else destroy a resource.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I wish to remind my colleagues to address their comments to the Chair and not directly to the minister, or to any other member for that matter.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. Minister of State responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

I wish congratulate the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for asking that we have this debate and discussion. I think it is very important that we do so. It is also a pleasure to follow the member for St. John's West. We do not always agree. We have had many intelligent debates, both inside and outside the House.

[An hon. member]

That's hard to believe.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

They will continue. We are getting editorial comment from the backbench.

I have one thing I would like to correct. The member indicated that I did not consult and that I did not have discussions with the people most affected. He should know that I had discussions with the ministers of fisheries of all provinces concerned on many occasions on this matter, that I discussed this with the minister of fisheries from his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador which is the most affected on December 2; February 19, 20, 21; March 11, 17; and April 28, and on a number of occasions with the FFAW and FANL of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, there has been a full discussion.

I knew that my decision to close all fish activity for northern cod in the gulf stocks of the northern and southern Gulf of St. Lawrence would spark a range of opinions both for and against. But I was convinced, and remained convinced, that it was the right thing to do.

In making this difficult decision I took into full consideration the impacts that such a move would have. I come from a coastal community myself and I know the important economic benefits that spring from a strong fishery. I fully appreciate the importance these cod stocks hold for many communities in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland, Labrador and Quebec. However, scientific data paints a grim picture of the future of these stocks if fishing continues.

For all three stocks, abundance and the number of spawning adults is low and declining. To compound the difficulty, high mortality and low production of juveniles is slowing growth of the adult population. All three of these stocks are below the levels where the harm is serious.

This trend will be very hard to reverse, even with the closure I have announced. Past experience has taught us how dangerous it is to ignore this advice.

The moratorium of the 1990s is a harsh and unpleasant reminder of the price one has to pay for ignoring scientific data, succumbing to the temptation of taking a short term view and not putting conservation first.

I know that the hon. members from both sides of this House remember the impact of this moratorium on the lives of those affected. I do too.

As the minister responsible, I will not allow this to happen again. Last week, as difficult as it was, in the interest of conservation and the future of our coastal communities, I announced the closure of recreational and commercial fishing on cod.

To the communities affected, I am sure everyone in the House tonight extends their sincere sympathies and the best hopes for the future, but I am confident that Canadians understand that this difficult decision stems from my unshakeable commitment to my most fundamental responsibility as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: to conserve our fish for the future.

Closing the fishery is a necessary first step on the long road to rebuilding these stocks, but, by itself, closing the fishery will not bring the cod back. It is one part of a comprehensive rebuilding package that I announced last week.

I would like to point out that many of the ideas stem from recommendations made to me by a number of dedicated groups: the Newfoundland and Labrador Federal and Provincial All-Party Committee, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, le Groupe de travail sur le poisson de fond du Québec, and the Eminent Panel on Seals.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to each group for their hard work and determination to find the best ways to rebuild this important stock in the future.

One of the most important issues that has been raised with respect to the recovery of these stocks is the impact that seals have on the population. Earlier this year I announced a new, flexible, multi-year management plan for seals which increased the total allowable catch on harp seals and provided economic benefits to Canadian sealers.

In addition to these management measures, I announced that we will be implementing a two year $6 million program to advance our understanding of the complex interaction between seals and cod stocks. This investment will help us learn more about the relationship between predators and prey, and how to manage this relationship. It will also help us to create seal exclusion zones in selected areas of Atlantic Canada. These areas will be selected to test seal explosion and control methods. DFO will work with provincial governments and the fishing industry to identify the boundaries of the areas as soon as possible.

A number of groups also recommended to me that in areas where the commercial fishery is closed the recreational fishery should also be closed. I agree, and for this reason decided that there would be no direct recreational fishery on cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or to the east of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition, special conservation measures are required in the Hawke Channel and the Bonavista Corridor to protect spawning and juvenile concentrations of cod and their habitat.

The area currently closed to trawling in the Hawke Channel will be expanded, and a new closed area will be created in the Bonavista Corridor. We will consult with the industry to decide the specifics of how this will be implemented.

The link between capelin and cod is not clear. However, I think it is clear that cod depend on capelin for food. For this reason, I am announcing a 40% reduction in the total allowable catch of capelin.

And finally, we are committed to maintaining a sentinel fishery in these areas. This will ensure that fishermen will continue to be actively involved in collecting essential information on the cod stocks on which they and their communities rely.

Taken together these actions will help us to monitor these cod stocks and facilitate their rebuilding. They will help us to ensure a brighter future, both for the cod stocks and the communities that rely on them.

Conservation is an investment in the future. I am confident that Canadians understand the importance of learning from past lessons and putting conservation in the future of our proud fishing communities first. As minister, my responsibility on this issue is to conserve Canada's fisheries and ensure that future generations are able to benefit from them. For the sake of the fish and for the sake of the coastal communities that rely on them, taking the steps I have outlined today is the right thing to do.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that this is an extremely difficult issue with which everyone is involved.

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

Did you hear what he said to me? He told me to f-off.

[An hon. member]

I did not.

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

Yes you did.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have a discussion behind the curtains that probably should be left behind the curtains.

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

This is inside the curtains.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I feel it is important for everyone to express their points of view, which is really why we are here tonight.

I congratulate the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for calling for this debate in the House of Commons tonight on what is a most important issue.

It goes without saying that none of us here tonight, nowhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, nowhere in Atlantic Canada, nowhere in Canada does anyone want to close any fishery, but of course the decision has been made and conservation is paramount.

My responsibility working with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is to ensure that there is a long term economic plan, a plan in place to support not only communities but individuals, and to make sure that plan responds to their needs. I intend to make sure that plan is enacted and enacted well. I am absolutely and steadfastly committed to that. I guarantee that it will be done.

One of the things we can do and we can do very well in Newfoundland and Labrador is invest in aquaculture. Economic activity in aquaculture has expanded greatly in my home province. For example, in 1992 the total value of aquaculture production in the province was just over $1 million. In recent years that production has expanded to over $20 million in value. That production occurs in rural coastal Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also have huge opportunities throughout the entire region but if tonight I concentrate somewhat on Newfoundland and Labrador it is because that is where some of the major impacts are occurring. However I know that we can take the technology, the research and the developments, expand that which has occurred in other areas of the country and make sure that it fits very well throughout the entire Atlantic region.

It can be done. Those who say that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not strong and vibrant do not truly understand what rural Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. It is incredibly strong. We need to make it stronger and we will do that by some strategic investments in its future.

One of the reasons we invested $25 billion in the immediate term, $30 million in Atlantic Canada and $14 million in Quebec for a total of $44 million in immediate income support and replacement, is because there is a definite need and it needed to be done. It is the right thing to do.

I did not take any particular satisfaction in having to do that . I for one would love to have people fishing cod but it is not possible at this time. Therefore we stepped in with immediate assistance. We will be able to provide some assistance on projects that are needed and that have been asked for on several occasions.

For example, we can develop things like marinas but, most important, we can invest in rural communities in their true strengths, such as aquaculture, a suggestion that was brought to the floor of the House of Commons tonight and one which I took very seriously. Maybe there is an opportunity to invest in science activities by fishermen. I think that was a very credible and responsible suggestion made tonight by a member opposite and I intend to take him up on that challenge. It is a very good one.

One of the things I have learned in this business, in the House and in the art of representing people, is that if we separate from each other, if we simply draw partisan lines and seize political opportunity for the sake of seizing political opportunity, we are not serving the people we represent. That was one of the reasons I welcomed the debate tonight. I wanted to seize opportunities and ideas and put them into action.

However we also have to understand that we will not always agree. However we should absolutely guarantee that we will always try. When we come forward with ideas and plans, we must always respect the fact that there will be divergences of opinions but that at the end of the day there are people out there who need our assistance and who are depending upon us as we depend upon them. They deserve our utmost attention to their needs.

While this is a very difficult time for each and every one of us, I am here tonight to say to the people of Atlantic Canada, to Quebec and to my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador that I will not drop the ball and I will not be distracted. I know there are important jobs to do and that is why I am absolutely steadfast in making sure they are done. We will continue on.

It has been remarked here tonight that there was no specific, rigid criteria for the long term plan. It is because I will go forward. I will consult with stakeholders and make sure their ideas and their input are heard. Then we will quickly invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We will take that long term economic vision and we will invest in areas that are strategic elements and of strategic importance for those communities. In the process we will assist individuals, those who are most impacted by the closure of the cod.

With that, I will go forward. The reason we need to work together is that there is a lot of work to do. However I take some comfort in the fact that while others have tried occasionally to seize political advantage, I am surrounded by members on both sides of the House who have realized that the job we have before us is larger than any one of us. We cannot promote division. We must promote solidarity. While we have differing opinions it is very clear that we have one objective and that is the support of people.

We will go forward here tonight and in the future to make sure our coastal communities in eastern Canada are stronger and better, even under difficult circumstances. It is very easy to represent people in great times and in good times but the test and challenge of leadership comes with our representation in difficult times. We are all, as members of Parliament, up to that challenge.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate tonight on a very difficult issue. It brings me back fondly to my times on the fisheries committee when I was first elected as a member of Parliament in 1997.

The minister stood in the House yesterday and said to one member that we should not blame the seals. He said that fixed gear users blame the mobile gear users. He said that we all blame the foreign overfishing. The minister would have us indulge in a time honoured political trick: the blame game.

All this blame can get pretty complicated. Let me simplify it for the minister.

There is one place where blame can be attributed and that is to the government, and I will explain why. However, specifically the government is responsible and it must be held accountable.

As I sat here listening to the minister I heard him say that conservation was his guiding principle. Let me ask him why in November 2002 he lifted a 10 year moratorium on dragging cod stocks on the edge of the gulf off Cape Breton? It is an area the fishermen know very well as 4VN. Why did he allow the dragging of the ocean floor? One has to question the sincerity of his speech.

Let us go into a few specific issues for which I think we should be holding him accountable. Let us talk about the foreign fisheries. It is this government that curries favour with foreign fleets instead of expelling them from our territorial waters.

As the fisheries critic in 1998, I was part of an all party committee that recommended the immediate withdrawal of all turbot quotas assigned to foreign nations. It was the first recommendation in the report. The minister of fisheries at the time, now the Minister of the Environment, dismissed the recommendation on the grounds that it might make waves with our European neighbours.

Instead, the government extended the policy that allowed foreign fleets to continue fishing turbot inside our territorial waters so long as they were processed in Canadian plants. This was like robbing Peter to pay Paul. It simply is not sustainable in the long term.

Let us go on to another issue that is very troubling to me, the seals. It was this government in 1999 that stated there simply was not enough hard science to justify the culling of a seal herd that was hurting the recovery of cod stocks. I heard the minister today talk about spending $6 million on a study to see if seals eat cod.

I do not know where the minister has been but one just has to travel out to Atlantic Canada, as I have done with many of my colleagues. The former member for Gander—Grand Falls, who is now in the other chamber, took me around and showed me where the seals would bite the belly of the cod and leave the rest on the ocean floor. They were feet deep in places in the underwater video.

Fishermen have known for years that seals are a threat to cod stocks. Six to eight million seals on the east coast eat a combined six to eight million tonnes of fish per year. At its height, the largest commercial fishery in Canada's history, including all species, was only 1.7 million tonnes in 1987. Imagine that, seals eat four times the amount of the largest fishery we have ever had.

Years later the government finally acknowledged the seal issue, but seal exclusion zones? I have yet to see the details. Even the minister speaking tonight said that we had to work with the provinces to set up the area of the seal exclusion zone.

In short, will he allow a cull? Is that what he is going to do to reduce the seal herd population dramatically, down to possibly two or three million seals from its current population of eight million? What about the agencies that will stand and claim that we are killing baby seals? Nothing will be further from the truth. The bottom line is that the seal population is wildly out of control and something needs to be done. The cod stocks will never recover unless something is done.

I talked about the $6 million to do a study. I think the time for studies is over. It is time to address the problem. If we did not have enough hard science back in 1998 why are we still going in circles five years later? This question has to be answered.

Today in question period I asked the minister how he planned to enforce the seal exclusion zones. As I said, it does not take a scientist to know that seals are good swimmers. It does not take a scientist to figure out that seals eat cod. The government needs to give us the details about the seal exclusion zones.

Is it going to allow a cull? That is wise if we can get the herd down to a manageable size. History shows that it is wildly out of control now. I do not want to see it happen but I think it is the only solution when there is a herd population of eight million and when it is clear that a sustainable level is somewhere in the range of two million or three million. Those are the numbers put out by all kinds of different scientific experts.

Let me go on to the TAGS 1 and TAGS II, the Atlantic groundfish strategy 1 and II. TAGS 1 was started under the Mulroney government, I believe, and TAGS 2 under this administration. It is also this government that has botched and mismanaged successive bailout packages affected by the collapse of the cod.

The Atlantic groundfish strategy was a five year, $1.9 billion program aimed at reducing the number of dependent fishermen from 30,000 to 7,000. I may have been mistaken. It looks as though the Atlantic groundfish strategy may have come in 1994 which would bring it under this government not under the former Mulroney government. I thought it was 1992.

This government allocated $300 million to a licensed buyback but later moved $200 million out of the buyback into income support. In 1997 the Auditor General observed the following regarding the TAGS program:

After spending over $3 billion of new and reallocated funds to support the industry, including $1.9 billion under The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, the problems in the groundfish fishery remain.

The point I am trying to make is we spent $3 billion on the Atlantic groundfish strategy. I have yet to find one fishermen who can tell me that he is better off the day the program ended than the day it started. It was a complete and utter failure. I am not suggesting that we should not be investing money but paying fishermen to sit at home and wait for the fish stocks to come back simply will not work.

Could we have put it into other species? Could we have looked at other areas? Could we have invested it so that there was sustainable employment for these families? This was clearly a failure. Again one simply has to speak to the fishermen. If after five years when they were worse off the last day of the program than they were the first day, it clearly was an utter failure.

The government has never tried to allow an environment in Atlantic Canada that would generate self-sufficiency for struggling fishing communities. I met many people when I travelled with the fishery committee in 1997. I had an opportunity to speak to a lot of people not only in Newfoundland but throughout the Maritimes, Atlantic Canada and into Labrador. These are hard-working people who want to be out on the water and who want to provide for their families. A lot of them said that the day they started paying income tax again would be a day they would celebrate because they were earning a living. They would be above the threshold where they would have to pay income tax. These are good people but the management of the fishery has failed them for years and years.

Let me conclude. Who is to blame for the collapse of the east coast cod fishery? There is a whole host of reasons but I think the government has to take the larger share of the blame. That is because it did not act. We saw politics being played, elections being called and that was simply not acceptable. I do not believe it based its decisions on good, sound science.

I am not an expert but listening to the people in the scientific community and reading their reports without question has demonstrated that the size of the seal herd is at least double to what can be sustained for the cod fishery. Nothing has ever been done because it is not politically correct. I admit it is a huge environmental challenge.

When I was in London, I went past an electronic billboard depicting a baby seal with someone putting a hand-pick into its forehead. As the blood was dripping down its little white baby coat, the Canadian flag was flying. This is a huge fundraising campaign for some of these environmental groups. The killing of baby seals has been outlawed for years in this country but it is such an emotional issue that it raises millions of dollars for these organizations.

It is time to put science first. We have to recognize the needs of fishermen. The answer is to close the fishery entirely and hide behind a series of half measures? We are told that the minister's own advisory council on fisheries did not recommend a complete closure. I question who is pulling the strings and who is calling the shots.

In closing, I would like to speak of profound sympathy for the cod fishermen of Atlantic Canada. They are a true part of Canada's history and could be a vibrant part of our future. I know they are not looking for sympathy or pity. They are looking for a government that will make sound decisions. They have never asked for more than to practise their trade. I believe that despite this, successive governments have failed them over the past 20 years. It is time to take the politics out of the fishery.

I have listened to the member for Delta--South Richmond in the House. There is a man with conviction who passionately believes he is doing the right thing when he fights these fisheries files. He will go to the wall. He takes on his own colleagues because he believes he is doing the right thing with conviction. We need that type of commitment and dedication on this file. We will work with the government. There is a part of me that wants to get back on the fisheries committee and work with members from all the parties to move forward with this file.

I will close to allow time for other members to speak. Just before there is a band named the Great Big Sea that comes from Newfoundland with a song entitled The Fisherman's Lament . Of course there are a few words I will have to leave out because, while not being inappropriate, they are definitely unparliamentary. This song was released in May 1997, which was just a month before I was first elected to this Chamber. The sentiments in this song are as true today as they were six years ago. I want to know when the government will finally listen. A few of my colleagues may be able to sing this but I sure cannot. I will say the verses here and I will have to edit a few words out. It reads:

My father is gone now, and the fish are gone too,Abused and mismanaged, oh what can we do?I'm too old to change, but what of my sons,How will they know that we weren't the ones?DFO regulations permitted the rapeOf our beautiful ocean, from headland to capeThey brought in big trollers, they tore up our twinePoliticians don't care for what's yours or what's mine!You brave Newfoundlanders, now listen to meShove the package to...go back to the seaIf we don't stand our ground, we will fade awayAnd the bones of our fathers will turn into clayAnd I spent my whole life, out there on the seaSome government...now takes it from meIt's not just the fish, they've taken my prideI feel so ashamed that I just want to die.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception deserves to be congratulated for putting forward this motion. In his concluding remarks, he made the observation that all we have to do is to manage the fish right. I think that is what this is all about. The question is this. How do we find the way of managing the fish right? I suppose that is what this debate is all about.

I would like to devote a few minutes to a few different items, the first one being the Icelandic cod fish.

Why is the Icelandic cod fishery is doing well? Why is it that, according to Icelandic statistics, the catch for the year 2002 is expected to amount to 215,000 tonnes and the catch for the current year is expected to be 212,000 tonnes? This is a remarkable achievement.

Yet Iceland is, as we know, in the middle of the Atlantic. It is surrounded by international waters. It has problems therefore of the exclusive economic zone. It has everything against it in the management of its resources because of its geographic location. The question we could ask ourselves is, why is the Icelandic cod fishery doing so well and why are we now reduced to the situation as announced by the minister?

I can appreciate that the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception and the member for Burin—St. George's are opposed to the fishery. That is a natural political reaction. However it is obvious that the minister has no alternative to reduce the catch to 3,500 tonnes, as it has been suggested by the member for Burin—St. George's. It is just a short term solution but it does not go to the root of the question, namely, how do we rebuild the stock because this is what we all want to achieve.

It is therefore necessary to put the question as to why is the Icelandic cod fishery doing reasonably well and maintaining its level.

Keep in mind that throughout the 1970s the cod fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, according to Statistics Canada, generated a catch in the range of some 600,000 tonnes per year, with a prevalence of foreign fleets. In the 1980s the catch declined and went down to 250,000 tonnes per year and the prevalent fleets became Canadian in the 1980s.

Iceland finds itself now slightly below the yearly catch that we had throughout the 1980s, until the moratorium of 1992.

Unfortunately this debate does not allow for questions but I would like to know the answer from the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. Why can we not manage the fisheries the same way the Icelandic community does? There must be an answer. The member has been around here since 1997 but in his speech tonight he did not provide one answer to that question. He gave us a tirade, he went after every minister under the sun, he congratulated the Newfoundland population but he did not come forward with any specific recommendation. He did not even--

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

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

There is no point of order, Madam Speaker. This is debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

If the member will allow the Chair to explain to the hon. members, there are no points of orders, there are no dilatory interventions or anything else during this part of the debate. I would appreciate if the hon. member, and I will not name him, allows the same courtesy to the hon. member for Davenport that was shown to him during his speech. Thank you.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is relevant to raise the issue of the Icelandic cod fishery and to ask ourselves these questions. If other jurisdictions manage their cod fishery on a sustainable basis as the Icelandic community seems to be able to do it, then it is legitimate to ask ourselves why can we not achieve the same. I do not know the answer but I think that in the course of my presentation I may come across some partial answers at least.

This leads me to my second point which has to do with the predictions.This debate takes place in an understandable political milieu, in an understandable political atmosphere, but the predictions that have been made have been with us for decades actually. The history of human exploitation of the fishery over the decades and over the centuries is not a very happy one.

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

Seals, Charles, seals. Tell us about seals.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, may I remind my colleagues as to what happened for instance to the exploitation of the herring in the North Sea or to the exploitation of the Peruvian anchoveta which has completely disappeared. Human exploitation tends to be overdone over time to the point of eliminating some species from the face of the Earth.

It is important to recall what was reported in the Canadian media a year and a half ago on the occasion of a convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science which was held in Boston in February 2002. Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia said that over the past 50 years the catch of popular species such as cod, haddock, flounder, tuna and hake has halved although the fishing fleet has tripled. There is evidently a problem being identified by Dr. Pauly, namely that the fishing fleets are increasing the potential considerably.

Having made the observation that we need fish to make fish, he noted that the only way to save the east coast fishery was to introduce a number of sweeping measures including a substantial reduction of fishing fleets, the abolition of subsidies to industrial fisheries and the establishment of a network of large no take marine reserves.

Reg Watson, another UBC researcher, was quoted as saying that the collapse of the North Atlantic fishery is having a ripple effect around the world. He noted that the large fish now found in markets in Canada and the United States come from West Africa and Southeast Asia and they will soon be facing problems similar to those of the east coast. Dr. Watson is quoted as saying that we are paying other fishers in other oceans to grind down their marine ecosystems for our consumption. This is a serious concern for global food security. This is another important observation.

An intervention by a Dr. Peter Tyedmers of Dalhousie University in Halifax also must be of interest to my colleague across the aisle. He said that an economic analysis conducted as part of a project revealed that almost $2.5 billion U.S. in taxpayers' money is spent each year subsidizing north Atlantic fishing fleets. Of that, Canada spends something like $520 million.

Dr. Rosenberg, the dean of fisheries science at the University of New Hampshire said that the study he conducted demonstrated “a fishery by fishery approach does not work and that such government policies have probably exacerbated the crisis”. The solution does not seem to be at least according to this scientist a fishery by fishery approach. He went on to say “You can't fix this problem one fishery at a time because--

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

We are debating the fishery, not statistics.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could have some order on the backbenches over there.