Debates of April 29th, 2003

Cod Fishery

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I thank the hon. member for bringing that to the attention of the Chair. It is true that the Chair has a lot of difficulty hearing the speeches when there are other discussions going on. Voices do carry all the way to the Chair and the microphones. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member for Davenport.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, Dr. Rosenberg went on to say:

You can't fix this problem one fishery at a time, because the boats just move around; the effort simply shifts to somewhere else and makes the problems worse.

At the same convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Charles Birkeland, a fisheries researcher at the University of Hawaii was quoted as saying:

For most of human history, fish and other marine species had naturally protected areas; places too remote, too deep or too dangerous to fish, but technology is ensuring there are no havens.

We are pushing fisheries off the edge of viability, and species to the edge of extinction.

In my estimate these are very revealing and important observations. They indicate to us that the scientific community has been giving signals to the political sector at many levels and in many instances. The debate today is part of a continuum that started decades ago.

My third point has to do briefly with an item that has already been touched upon by many who have spoken here tonight. There have been major federal initiatives in the fishing industry in the past decade. In 1990 there was the Atlantic fisheries adjustment program, AFAP. In 1992 there was the northern cod adjustment and recovery program, NCARP. Shortly after there was the Atlantic groundfish adjustment program, AGAP. After that there was another program which has been mentioned here tonight; the TAGS program was introduced in May 1994 and was a five year comprehensive program. In June 1998 there was the fishery restructuring and adjustment measures for the Atlantic groundfish industry, also known as the Canadian fisheries adjustment and restructuring plan, amounting to $730 million.

I agree with my colleagues who spoke earlier about the outcome of these particular investments. There seems to be a short term capacity to make plans but not a long term capacity to develop a coherent system of policies whereby the problem is tackled for the long term in a manner that would give desirable results.

I am not so sure whether my comment is fair because it is natural that governments want to be re-elected. The term at the most is five years. Governments by nature politically tend to make decisions from one term to the next. This may explain why we have this series of programs every three or four years. It is probably why we are having this debate today. We have been told there will be an election this year in the province of Newfoundland. Political pressures come and go and do not contribute much to a coherent discussion of the problem at hand. Everyone agrees that the fisheries does not lend itself to short term solutions. There is no doubt about that.

My fourth point is, this being a typical, classical issue of sustainable development, one has to examine it in terms of the long term and in terms of a capital, being the fishery, that can be exploited only to the extent at which it can produce interest. The harvest is the interest. When more fish are caught than the capacity of the resource to produce, namely more than the interest, then the capital is attacked, the resource is eroded and gradually it is whittled away.

This is what is evidently happening with an increasing global population which is now supposed to go from six billion to nine billion in the next four years. Obviously the pressure on this resource becomes stronger and stronger. The technology of the fleet is skyrocketing. The capacity of governments to regulate the catch is not there yet evidently. We have not ratified the law of the sea which will be my next point.

There is a convergence of negative factors which makes the management of this issue particularly difficult. This brings me to my fifth point which is the ecological approach to fisheries management.

A very thoughtful study was produced by the Conservation Council of New Brunswick a couple of years ago. It is authored by Janice Harvey and David Coon. They examined fisheries management and proposed an approach that would be a departure from the present one, which is a fisheries management that relies on numbers for targeted species and can often lead to a wrong conclusion and wrong recommendations.

I will quote briefly the main guideline for this particular approach as put forward by resource economist James Wilson together with biologist Lloyd Dickie. They describe an ecological management approach to fisheries.

[An] ecological management approach puts emphasis on the relationship between management rules and the parameters that control the level of production of the system. In “assessments” of fisheries, the parameters of a system are generally those factors that are considered as constants. They are the basic fertility of the system, the competitors, predators and prey resources in the fish community, and the physical environment in which it operates. If the parameters change, the whole dynamic system has to be reinterpreted.

There is a lot of truth in that observation. It is not something that can be examined in this context in this chamber tonight. However, it is an observation that we should take seriously, together with that of wildlife biologists Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider who said the following about natural resource management:

Management is positive if it serves to protect biodiversity from harm or helps restore an ecosystem previously damaged. It is neutral if it essentially mimics or substitutes for natural disturbance-recovery processes (a theoretical possibility, though not yet convincingly demonstrated anywhere). But management is negative if it contributes directly or indirectly to biotic impoverishment. A proper philosophy for management.

What we are facing here obviously is a biotic impoverishment in very compressed and condensed terms. It seems to me that the crisis in the fishery which has been with us for some time, requires a new approach. It might be possible that the ecological approach proposed by the New Brunswick Conservation Council is one that should be given attention.

Let me make a brief pitch for Canada's ratification of the law of the sea. If we were to ratify the law of the sea, article 61(2) of the convention would help us considerably in being active in the protection of our resources in the exclusive international economic zone out there which has been the object of some heated debate here tonight as well.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a subject of such great importance to the region I represent, the subject of fisheries.

There is a great sense of urgency to this debate on the fishery situation, for many fishermen on the North Shore. For many families in my riding, especially those living between Kegaska and Blanc-Sablon on the Lower North Shore, it is a matter of absolute necessity, a question of survival. The family income comes only from fishing. A real solution must be found.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has just announced its management plan for next season: a complete moratorium on cod and cuts of up to 100% in crab fishing in certain areas. Does the federal government realize, as it makes its announcements, that all these fishermen have no other income? Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans aware that behind the banks of fish, he is managing the economy of an entire region, and many of its residents and taxpayers? Although I understand the situation and the crisis, I am asking myself some very serious questions.

For the department, the need for rapid and effective intervention, especially the latter, is very clear, otherwise this debate would not be taking place. Even the fisheries minister's own constituents are so disturbed, dissatisfied and worried about the situation, about the offers they are receiving, that they are threatening to fish despite the bans. Would they be wrong, looking at the resource, since the fish stocks are in danger of extinction? With their livelihood at stake, who could blame them?

Two things are clear. The moratorium on cod, while it is necessary, is also unacceptable. The need to save the species is unanimously approved, but that does not in any way attenuate the socio-economic effects and impacts. What is even more unacceptable is the government's inertia in this issue, which was just as obvious last fall as it is now. Last fishing season's catches on the Atlantic coast were sufficient to predict the present crisis.

But the minister did nothing. In other words, he let the fire smoulder on, and when it finally burst into flame, he yelled,“Fire”. But it was too late. Now it is a fire that has to be put out. And there are definitely not enough firefighters.

The difference is that last fall there was still time to prepare for the current fishing season. There would have been enough time to put in place concrete measures not only to protect the fish but also for people to survive. The government's lack of vision is appalling and its humanism is dubious. It must face up to it today.

I am not and I do not pretend to be a scientist, but I know that one seal eats a lot of cod, and this has been a known fact for years. Does the fisheries and oceans minister want us to believe that studying the impact of seals on groundfish would be useful? It would cost $6 million. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council is saying that seals are the main reason cod stocks are dwindling.

It would be $6 million down the drain. The idea of seal exclusion zones is excellent, as long as it is not another excuse to undertake endless studies and is done in a rational and efficient manner.

The cod moratorium is costing 400 hundred jobs on the Lower North Shore alone. One could easily believe fishermen could go turn to other species, but for that you need alternate resources. Eighty-five per cent of income on the Lower North Shore comes from fishing. Between 85 and 90% comes from snow crab. I should say “came” since there is no more snow crab.

Everybody is aware of what happened to the crab fisheries in zone 13. Zone 16 is excluded. Lower North Shore fishermen have taken a double hit. There is no more cod and no more crab. Simply put, they have nothing left, no way of making a living.

How is it that Newfoundland crab fishermen are enjoying the status quo when their neighbours across the way, in zone 13, have nothing? Fishermen in Newfoundland are not short of money as for weeks now they have been hunting seals on the ice pack. People on the North Shore are well ahead as far as their yearly income is concerned thanks to the seal hunt, and they will make it. Newfoundland hunters were afforded this opportunity through access to harp seal allocations.

Those on the Lower North Shore are still waiting for the ice to melt so they can put their boats in the water. Once again, the minister has shown bad faith. Several months ago, the minister was asked to make a decision. How can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to answer our request for quotas for the exclusive use of the Lower North Shore, given all the evidence? Of the 350,000 on the Lower North Shore, only 1,200 remained this morning. These people risked their lives to go out on the floes.

It is not that they do not want to work and earn a living. The Lower North Shore needs an exclusive seal hunting quota so these people can earn a living.

The minister must order this today. And, above all, we must avoid what happened with the cod, where we waited. These people must be given exclusive quotas because the general quotas have almost been reached. It is about being just and fair. A political decision must be made and, like the member for Manicouagan, I urge the Liberal government to make it.

When I say that these people have nothing, I mean nothing. There are 15 small fishing villages doomed to extinction if rapid and effective intervention is not immediately forthcoming. We are talking about 15 Murdochvilles asking for help to survive. While the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands still have other sectors, like forestry, industry and tourism, to compensate somewhat for this situation and provide work, the Lower North Shore has only the fishery.

I am not saying that fishers in other affected regions should not get help, far from it. I am simply saying that the Lower North Shore is totally dependent on one industry, has no highway connecting it to the rest of Quebec and is dependent on itself. Almost its entire economy is based on fishing. I do not know if people can understand how dramatic this situation is.

Since last week, the region has been in a state of shock. The cod is gone. There was always crab, but with Friday's announcement, the region and the entire population is on life support. The region is being killed as a result. It is totally unthinkable and unacceptable for a government to ask so much from one region.

The government measures to protect the fishery resource are having a really devastating effect. It is destroying the region, draining the whole area and causing distress for whole families, some of whom are left with nothing. This crisis caused by the government's inaction is totally inhumane. Once again, it is a tough blow. If we want people to remain in the Lower North Shore region, other industries will have to be developed.

We agree that the measures that were announced to deal with this crisis are necessary. However, the $50 million assistance plan the government announced with great fanfare last week falls far short. We clearly do not need a band-aid solution here, but rather a complete recovery.

The assistance plan is clearly not enough. First, we need immediate action. Some fishing communities will pull through, although with some difficulty. But not in the Lower North Shore region. We need very specific measures. Six weeks of mini-projects will be pointless, except to start planning the exodus toward the urban centres where unemployment and employment subsidies are the only things awaiting these workers.

Concrete measures are needed. I was there on April 1 when a well-thought-out and realistic recovery plan was submitted to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by a delegation of experts from the Lower North Shore region. Besides dealing with what is currently threatening the fisheries and promoting real economic development, this 14 point plan, which is totally feasible, would have medium- and long-term benefits.

This plan proposes, among other things, to tap into emerging species such as the sea urchin, the rock crab, the winkle, as well as those for which there is not a large market, such as herring and mackerel. This is a program of the Atlantic wolffish industry for which, I repeat, there must be an exclusive quota, which would allow a business, with a few weeks' notice, to immediately set up and start to operate. The plan also proposes a program to create a regional development fund and an aquaculture program: training, development and exploitation.

Also included are measures to diversify workers' qualifications to recycle them into these new areas, as well as early retirement programs, licence buyouts and so on. This plan is really interesting and, most of all, it is practical. It is also high time that the government engaged in a genuine cooperative process with the Quebec government to complete Highway 138 between Vieux-Fort and Saint-Augustin. Besides creating real jobs, such an initiative would revitalize the region.

It would give hope that something is finally happening. Funds must be released for this highway. This is a real solution to the fisheries crisis, because, most of all, we are here to try to help people. The minister talks about improving the viability of local economies; this is a real good way to do so.

The Lower North Shore recovery plan could certainly be used as a model because it is time the government looked to the future and stopped forcing workers in one of its most important industries to simply try to survive from one week to the next. Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are the economic engine of Canadian fisheries. Exports reached $3.4 billion in 2002, compared to $3.1 billion in 2001 and $3 billion in 2000. Exports from that region account for 74% of total Canadian exports.

The time for rescuing the industry is over, even though such a rescue is necessary. Canada is lagging behind in terms of developing the fisheries. Why has our aquacultural potential not been developed yet? The bays in the Lower North Shore region are more beautiful and better suited for aquaculture than the ones in Norway, and this is why we must diversify and develop that potential immediately. The minister must consider integrated management solutions and innovate rapidly.

The North Shore aquaculture research centre has been asked to conduct a feasibility study for a cod aquafarm. Why not go ahead with this project now? It would be a golden opportunity for the federal government to finally take action.

In conclusion, we are saying that it is the minister's responsibility to take measures, and we expect answers to our questions. We want viable solutions, not band-aid solutions. Fishers in my riding have done their job. Political parties here have spoken out and they have done their job. Now the government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must do theirs.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a great degree of despair from my riding and from the fishers whom I met today. I did something today that nobody else in the House did. I went into my riding on a charter paid for by the taxpayers of the country and met firsthand with the people who are affected by the closure of cod and 40% closure of crab in my riding. I am the most affected MP in all of Canada. Nobody is more affected than I and the people who I serve in the riding of Labrador.

I went into Port Hope Simpson last evening. I met with the crab fishers and despair was the order of the day. I ask all Canadian friends watching tonight to join with me in showing respect, honour, dignity and maybe something a little better than that, support for the cause and plight of these people.

The people who I met last evening in Port Hope Simpson never got to be in the mess they are now because of their own doing. It was because of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, starting in 1997 through to this very moment.

Let me explain a few points. In 1997 the Government of Canada brought in an inshore northern shrimp policy to the tune of 110,000 metric tonnes. We have 17 big boats that fish offshore. We have 400 more boats at 65 feet or less that fish and 60% of the shrimp is caught off the shores of Labrador within 60 to 100 miles.

Let me say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to his deputy, his ADM and all those officials in the PMO, the PCO and the P of whatever O, and I do not care what O it is, if they were put into a situation like those little crab that lie on the bottom off Labrador and if they had drag boats rolling over them day after day, I do not think they would have had the breath of day to make the kind of decisions that were made this past week. That is a very fundamental point, and I am not saying it lightly. I am saying it with full heart. My heart is beating very quickly and not because I respect the decision that was taken by the government. It is beating because I have passion for the people who I represent.

I am telling Canadians, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, if they are watching, that the people of Labrador deserve better. I am telling the Deputy Prime Minister, caucus, cabinet, members of the opposition and all Canadians that those people deserve better. We have the resources. Canada has mismanaged our resources time and again.

I am absolutely infuriated with what has happened along the shores of Labrador. We have enough shrimp, if a fair share was given to us, to look after every man, woman and child. Instead the Government of Canada would prefer to give more to its great corporate friends. While they have more condos in Florida and more money, my workers and fishers, supporters and constituents are literally dying on the vine. It is just not good enough.

I would like the minister and his department to get a handle on that. When he comes down with the shrimp plan in the next couple of days he should do the right and honourable thing and recognize the adjacency of Labrador, just like the Government of Canada was forced to recognize the adjacency of Nunavut when Nunavut took it to court, won its case and the government had to sit down in the DFO and negotiate a better deal on shrimp for it.

The same sort of thing is required here. We are adjacent and we are aboriginal. We have Inu, Inuit, Metis, settlers and whoever and they are all good hard-working people. Canadians, please consider these people because they have not been given the right consideration to this point in time.

I promised them last evening that I would bring their plight to the House this evening. I have been on the go. I went to bed at one o'clock, got up at five this morning and went into meetings on cod. I travelled all day and made it here tonight. It has been a long 24 to 48 hours for me.

I care and I would like for others to care. I would like the Globe and Mail and the various other editorials of this country to write the right stuff instead of the garbage they are putting forward on the plight of the cod in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is one thing to play games about species at risk or have the minister make a joke of it like he did yesterday when he said: “Well I'm going to ask the seals to leave”. That is not a joke for the cod fishers who I met with this morning in L’Anse au Loup at the Labrador fishermen's union. It was no joke. It was a dead serious issue. People were crying. People were begging me. People were saying: “Lawrence what can you do to assist? Our way of life is gone. We don't want to go to Toronto. We don't want to go to Edmonton. We have our homes. We're 50 years of age. What are we going to do? We're not trained for anything else? You are humiliating us with make-work projects. We don't want to build walkways or parkways. That's not what we're used to. We're used to fishing. We're used to working in plants. Give us some dignity”.

I am asking Canadians to support me in giving some dignity to the people who I represent. Also, my colleagues throughout the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada need to be respected and I do not feel we have been respected. I do not feel I have gotten the respect. I am absolutely dismayed and those fishers have asked me to bring this back and say “please consider”.

I believe very strongly in the FRCC, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council of Canada. It is an independent body that is made up of corporate, fishers, unions, scientists and the right people. They do the right kind of public consultations. When they came in with 3,500 tonnes I bit my teeth, but 3,500 for me was better than nothing. Now we have a rock in the pond.

The minister has missed the boat, his science people have missed the boat and his officials have missed it. They did not take into consideration the all party committee. They did not take into consideration the plight of the members of Parliament. They did not take into consideration the FRCC. They did not take anything into consideration and they did it without any consultation, and bang it goes, goodbye, never to be seen again. The government will give us 18 months of make-work and “get away from us”.

That is not good enough. If that is what the Government of Canada stands for, I am very unhappy to say that I am a member of this government. I want to be in this for the long haul and I want to be a member of the government for the long haul. I want to help the government that I am part of and I want to be a full participant and full member of Parliament here but members of Parliament will have to rally behind us. If they are listening at all, if they care at all, they should rally behind us, support us and send a different message or help support our message to the minister so he might end up hearing the actual facts. In my view there is enough fish for our fishery.

I want that to be respected. I know it will not change, or I do not feel it will, but I would like to see the science put into perspective. I would like to see some independent scientists review the science of DFO to ensure that it is proper science. If it is not going to be open this year, which I know it is not, I would like to see proper signs, proper reviews, proper constructive representation and so on and maybe we could get a fishery for next year. I am putting my hope in something beyond this year.

Right now we are preparing for make-work. Make-work is not what we want. If we are going to do anything, let us do some buy out programs again. Let us get back to dignity. Let us do some retirements. Let us do something for those who may be younger and have some hope and passion for getting back on the sea some day. They do not want handouts but we are forcing them into it.

It is the Government of Canada's decision, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that has put the people of our province and the people of the north shore of Quebec and the southern gulf in this situation. I really feel things can be better.

I was there last evening. My folks in Port Hope Simpson are very gentle, quiet people and in many ways very passive people. The sadness displayed was unreal. They took a 30% cut in crab five years ago. They took a 40% cut in crab right now. That is 70% in the last five years. They took a cut in crab in 1995.

When we ask DFO why 2J north and 3K south are not bad but 2J in the centre is bad and when I, my fishers and all the people along the Labrador coast say that it is bad because there is too much activity from the auto trawls of 400 or 500 boats going 365 days a year, DFO says it is inconclusive. In my view, if we are inconclusive on something, if something is a grey area and Canada thinks it is so great on conservation, why not err on the side of conservation and put no trawl zones in place. All we are asking for are no trawl zones where crab is due. Is that not simple? I think it is simple language, simple words, a simple answer and a simple response, but no.

We asked for a caplin closure. Some people played around with that, split weirs and finally came down with a 40% cut. We asked for seals to be taken out. They are going to study seals to the tune of $6 million. It is not study that we want. We want a reduction in seals. We want those seals taken out. I do not care how they are taken out. Every bloody one of them can be killed. I will go in there myself with a rifle and help shoot them. It is not a problem. I would assist. I am a hunter and have no problem doing that because I am doing something far different than what other parliamentarians are doing.

As far as I am concerned, the House of Commons is scared to deal with seals, not only on this side but on both sides. In my view the reason why it is scared to deal with seals is because the international fund for animal welfare may polarize 5% or 10% of a riding or maybe in close swing ridings will change the vote. We are all a little huddled and cuddled back and frightened of it.

I would ask the entire House of Commons to be very considerate of this. I know members may be a little worried in their own little corners. I am not worried because in my riding I do not think anyone believes in having seven million or eight million seals. We have to bring that down.

Believe or not but the other day I was at DFO, and I really have to bring this point out. I was having a discussion about seals with a senior official. He asked me if I had ever stopped to think that it might be mackerel eating the new spawn from the cod which was causing the problem. I said that I never thought about it and that it was a new one to me. I never heard mackerel being brought into the equation before. Now DFO is trying to bring in anything it can to save the seals because it does not want to deal with that issue. However the seals have to be dealt with.

For us to revive the cod in the north Atlantic, we have to get the seals back to the levels they were in the 1970s. I share the views of my colleague next to me and many of my colleagues around me. We all have similar views. We have to put it into a management plan that brings the numbers down so we can allow the equilibrium of the North Atlantic to be balanced and get some things rolling again, such as caplin.

I can promise that when the increase is finished on shrimp, 140 million tonnes by the way, which is a little fish that the cod eat too, we will end up in 10 years or so with that basket empty, as well as cod, caplin, herring and all kinds of fish. It is a case of mismanagement. It has nothing to do with which party is in power. It started 50, or 60, or 70 or 80 years ago and continues. In my view it has nothing to do with stripes of power. It is the total mismanagement of DFO that has caused these problems.

That being said, what are we going to do about it? Let us get real. Stop throwing money around and start taking action. We can throw the money around and take action too if that is what everyone wants. I do not mind. With $6 million people can do whatever they like. However we need action on predation. We need action on rebuilding stocks. We need action on the little fish that cod and other fish eat, like caplin and so on. Some action was taken but it was not enough. In my view the response of DFO to the all party committee report was a very minor response.

That all party report meant a lot to me. Senators, members of Parliament including the official opposition and the NDP, the two committees in the House, the senate committee on fisheries and the commons committee on fisheries and the premier worked collectively with good science.

In my view, we were assisted by a great scientist, a man who is well known in his field, Dr. George Rose from Memorial University. If George is listening, I want to tell him that he is, in my view, the best. I would build a team around him anytime for independent science.

We had the right political mix, the right union mix and the right industry mix. The FRCC came in very close to the right mix. The question for which I and the people I represent beg an answer is how could anybody come in with a decision and not support it. That is the question that is begging inside all those people in St. John's and Corner Brook who are in the office of the minister responsible for ACOA tonight. They can have my office forever because it is not my office, it is their office. If my constituents are listening, they can take over my constituency office and keep it for eternity because it is their office not mine.

I support my constituents first and foremost. I am a people person. I represent my riding. I will take second place to nobody when it comes to the people who I represent in my riding. I do it with a great deal of passion and hard work.

I am absolutely furious and devastated at what I have witnessed over the last 24 hours in bringing forward the plight here to DFO, the PMO and everybody else. To hear the kind of insults that were slurred at me tonight by the Minister of Fisheries is unreal. I just asked the Minister of Fisheries tonight that if he were from Labrador would he have made that decision. I do not want to repeat in public what he said back to me.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time tonight with the member for Skeena.

We congratulate the member for Labrador. We know that for him this is not just another issue, this is a heartfelt issue. We also congratulate the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for bringing this very important issue to the House tonight on behalf of his constituents in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is not just an issue for Newfoundlanders. This is an issue that affects all Canadians. Newfoundlanders are our neighbours, although a little removed from where I live on Vancouver Island, but this is an issue on which we need to stand together. Canadians need to recognize that we are all Canadians and that even though we do not face the same realities every day, we can identify with life issues, the day to day, bread and butter issues of our neighbours, and that we need to stretch ourselves to do so.

The issue today is about the cod closure. A few days ago the minister announced the closure of three cod stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the northeast of Newfoundland. He talked about bringing in conservation measures, about creating seal exclusion zones and no trawling zones, and about closing the recreational fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the northeast of Newfoundland and Labrador for the next three years.

He has talked about community based economic development assistance of some $44 million over two years. He has talked about a $6 million investment in scientific research to evaluate and assess the impact of seals.

That is what the debate is about tonight. We heard a very impassioned plea from the member opposite on behalf of his constituents. I do not know how it can be said better than that. A lot of data has been presented tonight and most of the issues have been addressed but we want to bring a perspective to this debate from the other side of Canada because fisheries decisions do affect communities. They affect the communities that depend on natural resources. These decisions that are taken affect the stocks on the west coast as they do on the east coast.

I am pleased to say that up until recently I served with my colleagues on the fisheries committee for about two years. I appreciated the support we received from the committee on a very important fisheries issue in my riding involving the hake fishery. I appreciate that the committee took the trouble to come out to hear the issues on the west coast. The minister made a right decision on that fishery and we appreciated that. The fishery was managed on shore as it ought to be. There are still issues with that fishery but we appreciate that decision and the support of our colleagues.

However, in the same way, we on the west coast want to identify with the people of Newfoundland in their issues. This is a decision that involves all Canadians. It is a Canadian resource. It involves the custodial management of the Grand Banks which is part of our continental shelf. It is part of the shore on the continent on which we live and it is one of the most prolific fishing grounds that the world has ever known. Of course the closure is not directly out on the Grand Banks part, it is more inshore, but the issues overlap on the two areas.

In introducing this I want to allude to a couple of fisheries issues on the west coast because they are management issues. In fisheries management sometimes we make good decisions and sometimes, unfortunately, we make bad decisions, but whatever the decisions are, they influence people's livelihoods and it is the bad ones that are the most costly.

We have had our experience with bad fisheries decisions on the west coast and I will allude to one that is very current: the recent disaster in the fishery on the Fraser River. The minister just recently acknowledged the rather disastrous management issues on the Fraser River sockeye run. It is one of the largest runs in history. Some 15 million sockeye salmon swim up the Fraser River but only 3 million are allowed to be taken because of conservation concerns.

Some 12 million fish were allowed to swim by. It was about a $200 million loss to the commercial fishing fleet which has suffered greatly over the last number of years. The minister and his officials have now recognized that it was a mistake but the cost to the local fishermen and the cost in watching this huge resource swim past and not being allowed to catch them was a decision that really hurt the community and the people who were most affected by the fishery.

Another issue on which I want to touch base relates to aquaculture. The people on the west coast, as well as on the east coast, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador and in New Brunswick, have big concerns relating to aquaculture. In my particular riding it is a huge issue right now. The concerns are science related. I am very pleased that the DFO is putting money into more science for aquaculture issues in relation to the interaction between wild stocks and aquaculture.

We have made bad decisions and good decisions. The provincial government had a moratorium on aquaculture sites because of the concerns of the day. However for many years new sites were not allowed and, frankly, that was a bad decision because it compounded some of the problems when the aquaculture sites were not allowed to relocate to less sensitive areas.

Right now there is a big issue with proposed siting all along the Alberni Inlet, which is a high traffic area for commercial and recreational fishing and in sight of a huge population. It is not a good location for siting. Maybe the forest industry could learn something about clearcutting right to the edge of the highway.

It was not a good decision and we are on the record as being opposed to that decision. We can have aquaculture in a lot of places but not in a high traffic area in the middle of a commercial fishery with a huge wild salmon run.

I want to go back to the issue of the day which has affected our friends from Newfoundland and the people on the east coast. Other members have addressed the fact that groundfish stocks were at an all time low in 1992 due to mismanagement and overfishing, but other issues are germane to this discussion today.

Historically, the people went to Newfoundland for one reason: the abundance of the fishing resource in one of the most prolific bodies of water on the face of the earth. It fell to us as Canadians and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to manage those resources but, sadly, we failed at being good managers of the resource.

In looking at this over the last number of years we can see why the stocks, in spite of the closure in 1992, failed to return. These have been alluded to but we need to go over them quickly.

If we do not get serious about rebuilding the cod stocks the communities will literally disappear. We do not need more Newfoundland communities in Edmonton, in Fort McMurray or in other places where Newfoundlanders find work. Frankly, we feel that on the west coast as well because, sadly, many of our young people, because of the downturns in forestry and fisheries, have ended up living in a province where they would prefer not to live but where they had to relocate. We want Newfoundlanders to have a chance to benefit from the resources in their area.

There are two main reasons why we failed to see the stocks recover. The obvious one, which we heard mentioned tonight, is the seal population. If we are to make a decision as Canadians, we need to make a courageous decision.

We have heard it said tonight that it is estimated that some 7.5 million to 8 million seals are in that area now, an area where a sustainable herd would be about 2.5 million seals. Each of these seals eat about a tonne of fish per year. That is a lot of tonnes of fish being eaten by seals. As has been said in debate before, seals do not eat the whole fish. They just take a bite out of the belly, eat the choice parts and the rest is left to rot on the sea bottom. It is a tragic waste.

I can well imagine how farmers would feel if wolves were jumping over fences and tearing the guts out of the sheep and lambs in the fields. What is the parliamentary word for this? If the wolves were eviscerating the sheep and leaving them bleeding and dying in the pastures I think there would be a call from Canadians to take action and cull the wolf packs that were taking out so many sheep.

As Canadians we need to do the right thing. We need to encourage the minister. He has increased the cull on seals to 350,000 a year over three years but it is not enough. We need to be realistic. We need to deal with the predation issue.

We also need to deal with the overfishing issue, the foreign overfishing off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. The stocks do not stop at the 200 mile limit. They follow the continental shelf out to where the food supply is plentiful. With foreign overfishing beyond our 200 mile limit, the stocks go to where there is abundant food and they get siphoned off. It is like going down the drain. Foreign fishers keep taking our stocks.

That is one of the huge issues that must be addressed. The fisheries committee made an excellent report, recommending custodial management. Canada must do the right thing. It is our continental shelf. We must do the right thing by taking custodial management, managing the stocks, and giving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a chance to prosper and profit from the resources. They can come back if we manage them properly.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, even though I am a west coast member of Parliament the concerns tonight are basically east coast. I will address those, but they are similar to a lot of concerns we have on the west coast.

The debate tonight makes it clear there is a huge problem with the management of fisheries right across Canada. I hear more about federal fisheries operations in my riding. With all due respect to some of the good people who work for DFO, we have huge problems with the management of DFO. These management problems are not new. Fisheries has been in crisis management for many years, if not decades. We are paying the price now and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are definitely paying the price.

The Liberal decision to close the cod fishery ignores the advice of its own advisors and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council called complete closure an unrealistic option that in no way would guarantee stock rebuilding. The Liberals have disregarded that advice and stalled on these issues for years. They do not take the advice of people and groups hired to give them good advice.

We have heard a lot about seals tonight and I will talk about them a bit more later on, but I do not think it is any secret that seals eat fish. My colleagues across the floor are obviously concerned and very aware of those issues. We have a similar problem on the west coast. It is something we will have to deal with soon or we will be in a similar situation on the west coast with our salmon as the east coast is with their cod.

It is utter mismanagement that is creating these problems. Some of the solutions and some of the statements that have come out of the fisheries ministry are absolutely unbelievable.

There was a headline in the Ottawa Citizen today that stated, “Critics see something fishy about 'seal exclusion zones'”. I see something fishy about it too. I will quote a little from the article:

In a desperate effort to save dwindling fish stocks, Federal Fisheries Minister Robert Thibault vowed yesterday to set up “seal exclusion zones” to protect important cod spawning areas...

That is a pretty good concept if we can do it. But how in God's name can we do it? Seals do not stop at a fence or gate; they do not read signs. It is totally unrealistic. We are in serious trouble if that is the best we can do with the huge multi-billion dollar budget that federal fisheries has.

The Chronicle Herald stated, “Fishermen in Newfoundland burn flag, vow to defy cod ban”. This really defines how serious this problem is in the hearts and souls of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and certainly these problems will spread to the west coast. One member of the Fish Food and Allied Workers Union said:

If the federal government thinks this is an issue that's going to die down after a couple of days, they've got another thing coming.

I am afraid he is probably right. The fisheries department responded to some of the protests by closing 10 offices along the west coast of Newfoundland and in Labrador. How is that dealing with the problem? That is not facing up to the problem. That is just running away from the problem.

I will present a little bit of history on the seal issue. I have with me a seal report that was tabled in the House of Commons in 1999. It contains a number of recommendations that went to the government of the day, a different minister but the same Liberal government, and I will quote a little from it:

The FRCC has also raised an alarm about the effect of seal predation on cod stocks. In a November 1998 report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans it stated:

We are disappointed that the effects of seal consumption could not be quantified as part of the 1998 SSRs [stock status reports] for Atlantic cod stocks. DFO analysis suggests that:

grey seals are consuming between 5,400-22,000t annually of Eastern Scotian Shelf cod (on a total biomass estimated to be as low as 32,000t);

In other words, they are eating most of it, or they were then. The report continues:

harp seals may be consuming as much as 140,000t annually of northern cod;

seals in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence may have consumed as much as 68,000t of cod in 1996;

And it goes on and on. What was the response? The government set up an eminent panel on seal management, which was probably not a bad idea, but again it did not listen to the panel's recommendations.

Again, estimates of the amounts of some commercial fish species, particularly northern cod, redfish, Greenland halibut and American plaice consumed by seals and many NAFO divisions are large in comparison to current fisheries catches. Seals also consume large quantities of capelin, which is an important prey for many of these commercial species. It just goes on and on. Seals are a huge problem and we are not dealing with it. This was reported in 2001, two years after the report went to government.

Funding for seal science in general should be increased. We are talking about $6 million for studying it some more. As a member across the way said a little while ago, we do not need another study. We need action because seals are a huge problem.

The fisheries committee, which I am pleased to be a member of, spent a great amount of time last year studying the overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. The committee made a substantial, all party unanimous report that was tabled and given to the fisheries minister. It was basically rejected out of hand.

The report gave the minister some good information on how to deal with managing the stocks a bit better, the problems with NAFO, the problems with seals and the cod stock reduction. It was totally rejected. What is the point?

I have the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on “Custodial Management Outside Canada's 200-Mile Limit” that was tabled in March of this year. The report talks about custodial management, the problems with NAFO, and the overfishing by foreign fleets. These are situations that have been going on and on for many years. It is time that the minister of the day, the ministry, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with all their staff and huge budgets, dealt with these issues.

The department has all kinds of people here in Ottawa in the fisheries offices. I do not know what they do. I do not think there are very many salmon, or cod for that matter, in the Ottawa River and if there are it would be a surprise to me. We are talking about cod here tonight.

The point I am trying to make and drive home is that we have a huge problem here. It is time to put aside political differences, whatever they may be. It is time to put aside any sort of rhetoric or concern that perhaps somebody might not like this or like that. For instance, if we talk more about the seal hunt, which I firmly believe we have to do, it is time to put all of that aside and do what is right. We must do what needs to be done.

That is why we are here as members of Parliament. We are here to make decisions and to do the right thing, not what might be politically correct or what might be the flavour of the day. We are here to try and correct this particular situation that will create a huge problem for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am very much afraid that as time goes by it will also affect people on the west coast. It has already to some large degree.

As my colleague from Nanaimo mentioned earlier, the fishery on the Fraser River was allowed to have a huge over-escapement. Over-escapement is as bad as under-escapement. It pollutes the spawning beds and creates problems for future years. Again, it is the mismanagement of the whole fishery issue. I must keep on saying mismanagement because that is what it is all about.

There must be further studies on seals and that is good. Let us get more information. However, let us move on some of the information that we already have. If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have sufficient scientific evidence on seal populations on both coasts, in fact all coasts including the Arctic coast, it has not been doing its job. This is part of fisheries management. Dealing with predators is part of a management regime for any species. If we have a predator problem then we should be dealing with it.

Human beings have become a predator of our fish stocks. It has evolved over centuries, thousands of years, and we have become more and more of a predator of our resource fish in the ocean. We have become the predator.

Therefore, the natural predator, which to a large degree is the seal, must be balanced out. We have totally ignored that issue. We have turned a blind eye and it is time to deal with it. Otherwise there will be no fish.

The bottom line is, what the minister has done in the last few days is too little, too late. The stocks are almost gone. The member for Labrador said it is just not good enough.

I strongly urge the minister to reconsider his decision on the complete closure of the stock, allow the people from Newfoundland and Labrador to at least have some input into how their fishery should be managed, listen to them, and start listening to all these recommendations that have been put forward to him over the years. It is time for some action.

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

Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased and moved to be able to speak this evening in this emergency debate on the cod moratorium in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which was ordered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans last week.

Moved, because I am also aware of the impact such a decision will have on the communities affected, both in Newfoundland and in Labrador. As far as Quebec is concerned, only my riding is affected by this decision. Given the economic situation prevailing in our area, as you know, a decision like this one will do still more harm to people who are already in very precarious situations economically.

I must say that the minister has nevertheless reached a very brave decision, one that was not easy. It was certainly no pleasure for the minister to take this step, since he was aware that any such decision would have a heavy impact on the affected communities.

It must be admitted, however, that in reaching such a decision the minister is respecting his first mandate: respect and protection of the resource. That is the mandate of a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Second, it is a visionary decision as well, as the minister needs to ensure, within a long term perspective, that the cod will be able to come back and future generations will be able to reap the benefits.

Perhaps we can debate the past, decisions made over the past ten years, but the situation is such that we are confronted with a fact: fish stocks, cod stocks in particular, are greatly endangered, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is why the minister feels obliged to reach such a decision, such a courageous decision.

Everyone agrees that the minister's decision, one that was not any easy one, was the best one to be make. Even former Conservative fIsheries and oceans minister John Crosbie, a Newfoundlander, and Brian Tobin, also a former fIsheries and oceans minister, have stated publicly that this was the best decision to make, that the minister has made a very courageous decision, the one on the right track, the one that had to be taken.

It is worth noting that former fisheries and oceans ministers who have known similar situations, for whom things have not have been easy, who might even have ignored scientific advice because of political lobbies and who might have lacked courage at the time, are now saying that the minister has made the right decision. I think that this has to be pointed out.

This does not prevent the affected communities from being hard hit. This is why we have put forward a compensation plan. A little earlier, I was listening to my colleagues, who were talking about it and saying that it might not be enough and that more money would be needed. Of course there is never enough money.

However, I think that this is a step in the right direction. We are talking about $44 million for Newfoundland and Quebec, that is $25 million for Newfoundland and about $15 million for Quebec. This is essentially a short term solution. It will allow us to develop very short term projects.

We all know that it will not solve all the problems, but the money will temporarily help people who have problems, people who need basic necessities for their families and for themselves. I think that it really proves that somebody has acted responsibly in that regard.

Second, and this is the important element, and that is what we have been saying, we will have to work on long term solutions, in cooperation with the industry, with the processing firms, with the fishermen and with the plant workers. We have to work in cooperation with them to promote economic diversification process, diversification of the industry, to make up for a difficult decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

It is therefore a short term measure aimed at helping those people to get a minimum income so that they can provide for their own needs, and also at working with the whole industry to develop transitional and diversification measures.

This is how we will be able to work with the industry. Some people have said, “Yes, but why have you not come up with specific programs? Why have you not indicated what direction you want to go in?” We have not done so because we do not want to unilaterally impose a program from Ottawa on people who are affected by the minister's decision.

What have we said? We have said that we will work together with these people. Both parties will try to come up with a solution for economic diversification, both in terms of production and in terms of different sectors of activity.

That is why we are not coming in with concrete measures. We want to do that with the people who are affected and who are knowledgeable in their field. That is what the government wants to do. In the short term, we will take action, but at the same time, we need to take a long term approach.

We will discuss developing the seal industry more. The minister made a courageous decision over the winter, to increase the seal hunt quotas in a multi-year plan over three years that will see almost one million seals being taken in the next few years.

In fact, one thing must be said. Even if we were to increase the seal quota to two, three of four million seals, we do not have a market at this point for these seals. As a result, we need to increase the size of the hunt, but at the same time, we need to work with the industry to develop new niche markets. Then, these new markets will justify increasing the size of the hunt so that it benefits communities, on the one hand, and helps the cod stocks recover on the other. After all, the seal is definitely a major predator of the cod stocks.

The easiest decision for the minister to make would have been to allow the cod fishery to continue, despite scientific advice. It would have caused further deterioration of the stocks, which would have taken even longer to recover. That was the challenge the minister was faced with.

It would have been easy to say, “I am making a short term decision, and in two, three of four years, there will likely be another Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he or she can deal with the problem”.

There might be some opposition to it, which is to be expected since its impact on communities is harsh. But it must be recognized that the minister made a decision which, I believe, is wise since future generations are at stake.

One of the problems is due to the fact that when the cod fishery was reopened in 1997 and 1998, we had quotas of up to 6,000 tonnes in the gulf. I believe--and I might be wrong, but this is my humble opinion--that this decision significantly delayed the recovery of stocks.

If we look at the quotas that could have been allotted this year, we are talking of 3,000 tonnes according to the FRCC report. When we look at the number of fishermen involved, 3,000 tonnes would have been a mere pittance for fishermen, in view of their numbers and the meagre quotas that would have been allotted. So, on the one hand, the desired economic level to make fishing viable for fishermen would not have been reached and, on the other hand, it would have further jeopardized cod stocks, in a big way.

This essentially is why the minister had to make this decision. He did not do it light heartedly, we admit that. My community in the Gaspé has been hit just as hard as communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is tough. Gaspe Cure--which simply put produces dried salt cod--operates only in Quebec and in my riding. We are talking about 400 jobs. God knows it is not easy in an area such as mine to lose probably 400 jobs as a result of the minister's decision. But he had no choice.

This is why the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and the Gaspé office have already met with the industry leaders of Gaspe Cure yesterday. This was to ensure that we would work with them, with this $14 million provided to Quebec, to find a way to help workers and industry leaders during these hard times, to find a way to negotiate and to work with these people to devise a diversification model for their production and our economy.

Of course, this does not meet all the needs. We cannot tell exactly everything that happened. This would cost a fortune. However, I believe that the government has honestly and objectively shown its goodwill, despite this difficult decision. It wants to help these people, who have quite rightly asked for assistance, which we must provide them with.

As the minister indicated earlier, of course, other decisions have been taken concerning this closure. As you know, the minister will also ban trawling in specific zones where cod used to spawn, that is cod reproduction zones. We know that the minister has also taken a decision relating to the caplin fishery reduction, knowing that cod eats a large quantity of this species.

As I have already said, the minister has also reached a decision on the seal hunt, namely to raise the seal hunting quota for the next three years. This is a clear indication of our willingness to achieve a set of interventions that will show we have learned from past mistakes.

Of course we could review past events and say, “The poor management dates back five, ten or twelve years”. That does not solve the problem, however. This is why we are here with concrete actions, ones we honestly believe will bring about improvements to the situation. We are definitively not in a position to say at this point how many years it will take to rebuild the stocks. It can take a very long time, unfortunately.

The problem is that we cannot give the fishers fish we do not have. That is the dynamic we are up against. I have heard fishers in my riding tell us, “This is how I earn my living; it is my tradition. It is something we do, generation after generation”. This is very praiseworthy and must be recognized as such.

It is one thing to recognize that, but it is another thing to be able to give them fish so they can fish. There are no fish, and this is why we have to make such difficult decisions. Even if the decision were reversed, there would still be no fish. Let us develop a plan to ensure that this resource is available later for these fishers—let us hope that it is as soon as possible—or, if that is not possible, for generations to come. That is the challenge that we are facing.

There is another factor that must be considered with regard to fishers. More and more, in other types of fisheries, such as crab and shrimp, because of the abundance of the resource and its price— the value of landings is considerably high in Canada because there is more activity in these fisheries—the department has been able, in previous years—and we hope that it will be the same in the future—, to redistribute part of this resource to fishers who are going through difficult times, especially groundfish fishers. This would give these fishers access to a minimum income. It would also make it easier to respect the fact that these people want to fish.

Miracles are not possible, but through the allocation of resources other than cod, which are the most lucrative and more abundant, these people could get, in some part, what they are asking. This would fulfill two requirements: ensure these fishers a minimum income for a decent living and, secondly, allow them to do what they want and dream of doing, which is fish.

Naturally, I listened to most of the comments and speeches this evening. On the whole, they were passionate. We represent our communities, and we know that this kind of decision is very hard on them. Such a decision was not taken lightly. However, it is essential to recognize very objectively that the minister had no choice. It is not true that we get up in the morning and say, “We want to make people suffer”. It is not true. That was not what happened.

In closing, I must say that we cannot give fish we do not have. That is the sad truth. However, the proposed action will ensure, in the intermediate and long term, a much more optimistic future. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the government is obligated to help these people during the transition. These people need an income. They are also proud people who want to make a decent living.

I cannot thank enough all the members of this House who took part in this debate. It was an extremely constructive debate. We all have the same goal here, which is to ensure the well-being of our constituents and the fishers, and I think that we will be able to achieve that goal.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in this emergency debate on the closure of the cod fishery. I am certainly not pleased with the closure of the cod fishery but I welcome the opportunity to express my view on something which will affect a great many people in Atlantic Canada, whether in Newfoundland, Quebec, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.

The fact remains that, be it in Newfoundland or Quebec, any worker who loses his job is one too many. It does not matter whether 300 workers are affected or a single one. That is what is happening with the moratorium on the cod fishery.

The government says it had no choice but to close the cod fishery, but I suggest that, had it taken its responsibilities, we might not be in the situation we are in today. If the government can be blamed for something today, it is for not taking its responsibilities, and not doing so over the course of several years.

The problem with this government is that it never had a long-term vision with respect to fisheries. It is always very short-sighted, even when it comes to deciding what to do this season or when to start fishing. I will give an example. The government has yet to make a decision about crab quotas for April, even if May is fast approaching. We are days away, yet the government has not made a decision on this fishery issue. It is the same thing every year. At DFO, decisions are made in a piecemeal fashion, and that is regrettable.

I think that is how we came to be in the situation we are in today. Sadly, there are people who will bear the brunt of this. Not only fishers, but also plant workers, communities and regions will be affected.

This evening, we heard the hon. member from Labrador lament that his government had not taken its responsibilities and say that he did not agree with the minister. I reach out to him to cross the floor, and to not only pay lip service.

I remember a former member from Newfoundland, George Baker—who is now in the other place, the upper house. Wwhen he was on the Standing Committee for Fisheries and Oceans, he did a tour all through the Atlantic region. He made recommendations and put his finger on the problem. He said that the problem was not only the local fishermen but also foreign fishermen who came to fish in our waters and who were scraping the ocean floor clean. I remember that George Baker was in a port in Newfoundland and said that the problem was that foreign ships were allowed to enter Newfoundland.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had presented a unanimous report to the House, with recommendations. I remember that George Baker did not even appear in the House because the Liberals in Parliament had voted against the recommendations. The hon. member for Miramichi, for example, voted against his own recommendations and then he became chair. He got a gift from the Prime Minister: he became chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans immediately after that. That is what the Liberal Party does with the fisheries problem.

In the meantime, fishermen, plant workers, communities, municipalities and regions are paying the price, whether in Newfoundland, Quebec, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. As I said, when one person loses a job, it is a disaster for everyone.

Concrete, long term measures are required, along with a long term plan, as I said last night in the House with respect to the SARS problem, the disease that is causing trouble in Toronto, what they call atypical pneumonia. Come to think of it, there is no long term program for Canadians.

It is the same thing that is happening here with fishing. After that, today, questions are being asked. People wonder what will happen. The blame is laid on the fact there are too many seals or that people have overfished, but the government should show leadership. After that, it comes to tell us that it is everyone's fault, it says the fishery is going to be closed. That is what it did this week. I do not think this is the solution. It is absolutely not the solution.

Experts who were supposed to be doing their work did not get the money they needed to further their research. Scientists say that they did not have the money they needed to carry on. You know something. The best scientists were the fishermen themselves and they were taken away from the sea. The best policemen and the best coast guards were the fishermen, and they were just taken away from the sea. Those who could have helped the fishing industry were just taken away from the sea.

We are told that the government programs will help the workers and the fishermen for the next two years. I do not want to be pessimistic, but this will not happen. In 1987-1988, programs like those had been developed to try to solve the crab problem, but it did not work.

The workers do not want a program that will require them to pick up rocks or bottles alongside the roadside. They want a program that will put them back to work. They want to be proud to get up in the morning to go to work. This is the kind of program they are looking for, a long term program. They do not want a program just to be able to say that they benefit from a government program. They want a program that gives them a long term job, something they can be proud of. This is what they want.

There have been all kinds of programs. They said for example, “Right now, you are making a living in the fisheries, but, with all due respect, we will set up a literacy program. Some did not know how to read and write.” This program was to last two years. When the program was over, they said, “Just go away, now, and do what you feel like. Leave and go some place else. Just go.” That is what happened in New Brunswick, and that is what they did in all the areas where we had fishery problems. “If you are not satisfied, go elsewhere, find some work in British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario”.

This is not what Newfoundlanders want. They have their pride. They want to stay in their home province and have more economic development in their region. That is what they want. People in Nova Scotia want to live and work in their province. They do not want to work in Ontario, Quebec or Alberta.

The problem with the Liberal government at this time is that it says to people, “If you are not satisfied, just go somewhere else”. This is not Canadian pride. What makes Canadians proud is when there is more economic development in their region so they can stay there, raise their family, educate their children, and grow personally in their community. That is what people want, but that is not what the government provides.

Recently, after the Marshall ruling, the government decided to buy back boats for crab fishers. It turned around and said, “Our responsibility is to buy the boats for the Indians. We will pay the captain $2.5 million. No problem. The captain will get this money. But you, the fishers, you will get nothing”.

Last week in Tracadie-Sheila, fishers back home occupied the DFO offices for two weeks and still no solution has been found. This problem has persisted for three years. This is a problem they created with nine fishers and could not resolve. Now, they think they can solve a problem affecting all of the fishers in the Atlantic. They cannot even solve a problem that affects nine fishers. They have laid them off and now they say they can solve the problem affecting all these other people.

I find this shameful. There is a lack of leadership in order to view the fishery over the long term. In the long term, I think that fishers would have preferred staying at sea with reduced quotas. They know there is less fish in the ocean. But they are not the ones who took all the fish. And, honestly, it was not the seals that ate all of the fish. There were fishers from other countries who were admitted to Canada and who overfished, who dragged the bottom and took everything. That is the problem.

What is going to happen is that fishers are going to sell their boats, they will all sell their “rigs”, as they call them back home. That is what will happen. Then, big companies and big corporations will run the fishery and will pay people minimum wage. That is what will happen. It will be a dark day when that happens. That is the direction in which this government is headed.

The government has stopped listening to real people. It has stopped listening to the experts, the fishers themselves. They are the ones who have done this all their lives, who followed in the steps of their fathers and their grandfathers. They are the ones who know the ways of the sea.

With all due respect, Madam Speaker, it is not some person behind a desk with a phone and a pen who has this experience. It is not a paper pusher. The person who really understands the situation is the person who has been to sea and who has lived off the fishery.

When you speak to the people back home, whether it be in New Brunswick or elsewhere in the Atlantic provinces, you realize that they have this experience. These are people who have made their living off the fishery all their lives. When I went to Newfoundland, I toured the region and I met with fishers. They had solutions to the problem.

The problem is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not listen to them. His officials hide behind his desk for months and then make last minute decisions, while the fishers are telling them, “Make your decisions, tell us what you want, so we can also tell you what ought to be done”.

This is shameful. Today, at 11:10 p.m. on April 29, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not even decided on the crab fishing plan. Or the plan for lobster. Every year it is the same thing. Fishers are fed up with this situation. They would like to have something for the long term. So let us look into a long term plan. Let us not wait until the last minute. Let us not wait until people are in the streets. Let us not wait for demonstrations. It is as if the government liked to see fishers fighting among themselves, liked to see families divided, liked to see brothers and sisters no longer speaking to each other. Liked to see sons and fathers no longer speaking. This is the problem in the fisheries.

I come from a mining background and have never seen this. I have never seen brother against brother. I can bear witness, this evening, to the number of fishing families that are divided. I hold the federal government responsible because of its position and the way it makes decisions. It makes them at the last minute, when people do not even know which way it is headed.

We talk to fishers who are obliged to make investments and do not even know what whey are going to invest in. They do not even know if they are going to be able to fish this month. They invest and they spend money. I know of fishers in my area who have put out money to buy equipment for the cod fishery, have prepared their boats, have been working from the month of January until last week, not knowing which direction the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was headed in.

However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knew exactly where it was going, even though it did not tell fishers. Meanwhile, fishers were spending all their money to prepare their boats. Today, they cannot even go out to sea. It is a shame. It is a shame to see that the government always acts this way. This behaviour did not start last year or three years ago. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has had a history of always waiting until the last minute.

Why not tell fishers what the plan will be for the next five years? Why wait until the last minute? It seems that the government does not understand that. I am sure that our colleague from the Magdalen Islands knows that what I am saying is true. I am sure that fishers from the Magdalen Islands, as well as those from the Gaspé peninsula, agree with me. How much money have they spent and now they cannot even fish?

I am sure that fishers from Newfoundland, as well as those from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, agree with me. They had to invest in their fishing gear and, at the very last minute, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans told them that they could not fish because that fishery was going to be closed, or that quotas were not large enough, and so on.

Fishers do not even know when the fishery will be reopened. There is no long-term planning. Everything is always done at the last minute.

But while these fishers are waiting for the other shoe to drop, so are plant workers and the community. The community is anxious to know what is going to happen. This is what we are going through in our area. And when I say that this is what we are going through, it is also what people are going through in Newfoundland. Things are no different there. It is what people are going through in Nova Scotia, in the Gaspe Peninsula and in the Magdalen Islands. The situation is the same in British Columbia. When the British Columbia fishers came to see us not too long ago to pass on a message, the situation was the same. Fisheries and Oceans was saying, “Officials are working on it and looking at what the experts are saying”.

As far as I am concerned, the experts are the fishers themselves. You can never have a better expert than the worker himself. I used to be a miner and I remember a superintendent at the mine where I was working. He had a lot of college and university experience and he said, “I was in university for seven years and you have been working for 20 years. If we add that up, we have 27 years of experience”. I thought he was very intelligent because he was putting the two together. He was putting education and experience together.

Sometimes, the best education is experience, the experience of those who have suffered, fished, worked and who know that this is how they will earn their living tomorrow morning, people from the community who also know that this is their bread and butter.

Why are there no community-based committees so that people can sit down and discuss this together? The NDP has often said that this is a community issue, that people must sit down and decide things together because they know that their future depends on it. Why can we not set up something like that?

I think that the best thing the federal government could have done would have been to sit down with people and give them some power, rather than centralizing people in big towers, here in Ottawa; it is impossible for it to see what is happening on the local level, be it in Newfoundland, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or British Columbia.

It is important to tell the federal government that the time has come to sit down with Canadians, with those who have the expertise and the knowledge to restore the fisheries to what they should be and bring back the fish stocks.

If the government is serious, it is time that it started telling governments of other countries to keep their little boats away from our shores so that we can protect our own fish.

Concerning seals, I am not saying that we must get rid of all of them. I do not agree with that. But we should have an action plan, we should find markets to be able to sell them. Anyone will tell you that to sell your cow or your fish, you must have a market and take the necessary action. It is the same thing with seals. We must work to find markets, actually sell them and take the necessary action.

At the same time, we must look at all facets of the problem, whether it is foreign overfishing or even overfishing by our own people. At one point, we were not being careful. In 1988, when I got involved in the fisheries issue, I remember that boats were coming in in July. This is not the time to come in with boats full of fish such as cod. Plant workers wanted to report that to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Instead, they were refusing to go to the plant, to do their job and to face their responsibilities.

This is why I say that the government must show some leadership and it must do so everywhere. We must press charges where they should be pressed. Charges should be pressed all across the board. We must look at all this now and say what we should do.

In conclusion, I personally think that the best way to proceed is to work with our communities, with our fishers, with the people in our region, with the experts and with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to find a long-term solution and to have programs; people must not be forced to pick up bottles in ditches to survive. We must create jobs to ensure that people are proud to live.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to be the last speaker. I have been on the road since 4 o'clock this morning to get back to Ottawa to speak on this very important issue.

Of course we are supposed to learn from our history lessons throughout life, but it seems that for some reason or other the federal government has not learned its lesson. In the early 1990s when we had the major collapse and the TAGS program was brought in for our fishermen, it appeared that the process should work. But it did not work and of course today we are back again with the same problem.

The minister of fisheries had an opportunity to basically make history where no other minister has had the opportunity, that is, the minister should have listened to the all party committee report that was formed by all political stripes in Newfoundland and Labrador, including senators. We gave him a plan. As politicians who are close to the people, who know about Newfoundland and Labrador, who know the industry, we felt that we gave him a plan that would have worked if he had listened and implemented it. However, he chose not to. Of course as a result he has to live with that. And we, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have to live with it, unless the people tell him differently and rise up, unless they tell the minister that what he has done is not good enough and that we need better representation than what the federal government is giving the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a right to determine our own future. That future has been taken away from the fisher people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We now are more dependent on the federal government than ever before. We have the best resources anywhere in Canada with the fishery and with the oil. However, for some reason or other, Upper Canada seems to want to keep us back and not let us have what we rightly deserve.

Of course the fisheries minister is at it again. The federal government is at it again. Now what are the fisher people going to do? The fisher people in Newfoundland and Labrador have been down before. They are used to fighting back the battles. They are going to continue the battles, because they will rise again and be successful like they were in the past. We are going to make sure that the minister, the federal government and whoever is here understand that and are accountable to the people.

The government talks about having to conserve the stocks. No one in their right mind would say, “Take it all out”. We know, and we were there to conserve the stocks. We are not stupid people. For some reason or other, the government must think that we are stupid people. No, we are intelligent people. We understand that this is our resource. We are not going to destroy our own resource. We are going to work together as a people to make sure we get the most out of our resource so that we can continue.

Fogo Island, an area I represent, put $38 million into the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador last year, I believe. I know it is not cod we are talking about with this issue of Fogo Island, but it was $38 million. I would say that for all the province it is $100 million or more that the fisher people of the province are putting into the economy of the whole country, because they are not spending just in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are spending everywhere in Canada.

We have taken away their livelihood. What are they going to do? I will tell members what they are going to do. I will tell members what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying. We have seen the burning of the flag, which I know we do not take too lightly, and we should not take that too lightly. People said only just this weekend that when people start burning their country's flag it shows that there is major unrest. With major unrest come problems for the country, and more than problems, because we have just seen what happened over in Iraq with the burning of the U.S. flag. The Iraqis did not want the U.S. there. If we want to use that analogy, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want to be a part of Canada because it is not taking care of the people it is supposed to be taking care of.

As a result, they burned the flag as a symbolic gesture to let Canada know and to let the Prime Minister and everyone in the country know that they are very unhappy and unsettled about the future for themselves and the province.

We can look back and talk about what has caused all this. We can look at a gentleman who was called Captain Canada. We were all so proud in Newfoundland and Labrador when he took on the overfishing. We were very proud. I do not think there was a Newfoundlander who did not say that it was the first time the federal government had the guts to do what it should have done. But where did it get us? Nowhere. It did not get us anywhere. It did not get us anywhere because it was done for political reasons, for all the wrong reasons.

[An hon. member]

Just for show.

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

It was just basically to let the people know and put him out in the forefront for his own political gain. People are not calling him Captain Canada anymore, but they should be calling him Captain Wimp, because lately he acknowledged it by writing an editorial going against his own people that he was the premier of. It is amazing. Where is this gentleman coming from? He has lost his way in life, I think. He should start researching and go back in time.

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

Shame on Tobin.

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

He should be ashamed of himself.

People in Newfoundland and Labrador are very concerned that the federal government is not listening.

We look at the seals. We are going to spend $6 million to understand what is going on with seals in relation to cod. Anyone in their right mind knows right up front what seals and the cod are doing, and if they do not they probably should get a bit of a history lesson about where it is going. Right now spending $6 million on research in that area alone is a total waste of the taxpayers' money. The federal government has no plan and, as a result of that, it does not know where it is going.

I can tell the House what the federal government should be doing. How are we going to reduce that whole seal population? We know how seals are born. I would have had a lot more respect for the federal fisheries minister if he had said on the day he announced the closure of the cod that he would give the offshore boats a quota to hunt the adult seals. That would be the way to start reducing the population.

We are going to have to start with the adult seals, but not just slaughter of the adult seals for the sake of it. What we need is a plan of how we would use that product for the betterment of the people in the country and the world. Of course the hon. member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception has said on numerous occasions that there is a way to do that and a way to use it. It is new technology. The meat is processed and used in a capsule form for people who need a supplement. It is a supplement that could be used for people all over the world, for children who are starving. We give all kinds of foreign aid to poor African nations. We send all kinds of money and food over there. This could be used as a supplement. We have the resource. All we need to do is use the money for technology and develop it so we could make a product to send overseas that would help people with regard to the powdered form, the protein.

However, we did not do that. I do not think we will ever do that because people do not want to do it for some reason or another. These are the things that we should be doing. We are sending all kinds of money over there, so why not send a supplement that could be in a powder form? The hon. member from Newfoundland and Labrador has talked about this several times. Memorial University in our province has the ability to do it, from what I understand.

But we do not want to do what is right. We either want to do things for political reasons, or because of foreign overfishing we do not want to tackle the true problem.

As a result of that, we are more concerned with neighbouring countries than with worrying about our own people in our own country. What we need to do is one of the other things that was forgotten, which was unfortunate. When the minister closed the fishery he never looked at early retirement packages, he never looked at extension of EI for plant workers at the present time, and he did not look at licence buyouts. There are so many more options, and if they had sat down and listened they would have done a better job.

Of course we are here now trying to get the minister to listen to some common sense. Hopefully he will take what has been said in the House tonight and put some of it back into an action plan. At least now we can say he has listened. When he gave his speech tonight I know that a lot of MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador were actually shocked to hear that it is a done deal, that he does not want to talk about it anymore, that it is a done deal. But the done deal is not done until the people themselves say it is done.

Right now I firmly believe that there is enough support in the House to make sure that the minister does listen. That is all we are asking him to do: to listen, to revisit it and to do what is right for the people. I know he is in a hard situation, but we have to do what is right for the people, and that is not closing down the fishery. He should have listened to the all party committee report because we are the ones who put our necks on the line. He could have done what was right because we gave him the idea. We gave him the right thing to do for our province, the province we live in, the province we represent, the people we see every day.

We have seven MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, and as far as I am concerned we have no political agenda like Captain Canada, Captain Wimp, had. We have seven MPs representing people in Canada, people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and our job is to make sure that our people get the best deal possible for themselves and the federal government gets the best deal that it can give. Right now the government does not have a total plan. It has a plan that is going to be there for 18 months. Where do we go after 18 months? I do not even know if the government knows.

Only recently a lady said to me, “Rex, I don't know what I am going to do”. I said, “I do not think the federal government knows either, so let's sit back and see what we can figure out, see what the total plan will be”. She started adding up the costs for her husband to get ready for fishing and she said, “With the cod gone, I do not know if we can afford to make our payments at the bank anymore”. The cod used to give them enough to make a living, not a large living but just a living to get them on the low scale for EI for the winter. As a result of this plan, she does not know where she is going.

Another gentlemen told me, “They have taken my life away”. I said, “They will only take your life away if you let them take it away from you. We need to stand firm. We need to stand strong and we need to send a message to the federal government that we are not taking it. We are going to fight”.

And if it means that we are going to have to block highways, as they have already done in Newfoundland and Labrador, if they have to come to Ottawa and make sure that the government gets the message, the government is going to have to listen, because the people are not going to take it anymore. As it is, they are hurting today. They are not going to take it sitting down anymore. They are going to fight back like they have never fought before.

I had a meeting in St. John's after I was elected. There is a plan. I firmly believe this and a lot of people I talked to firmly believe this too. This was not mentioned tonight. There is a plan. The federal government is like a snake in the grass; it is very slimy about it because it has a plan but it is not telling anyone about it. The plan is to get rid of non-core fishermen in the province because it was not done in 1991-92 right up to the year 2000.

The first closure was supposed to get rid of people in the fishery but it did not happen. As a result, the majority of the people who are going to be adversely affected from the closure of the cod are people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are classified as non-core. Non-core fishermen are basically fishermen who hold a groundfish licence, probably for lumpfish, lobster and cod. If we take cod away from them, they will not survive because that is the only fish item that managed to get them their EI.

The core fishermen are going to hurt as well but the core fishermen are not going to hurt as badly as the non-core. Of course the plant workers depend on the cod to come ashore from the core fishermen and the non-core are not going to have work. They are going to be adversely affected.

There is one group no one ever mentions and that is the businesses which depend on fishermen to sell their product, to spend their money and basically to depend on people to continue to spend money in their communities. Businesses are going to be adversely affected. Businesses in small communities are going to be forced to close because of it.

It has been said tonight that Joey Smallwood resettled people. If that is what the government is looking at, to make life so miserable in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that it will force people away from their normal style of living--

[An hon. member]

At least admit it.

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

--at least admit it and tell them that is what it wants.

If that is the problem, let us deal with it head on but do not go around behind the scenes doing these little things which turn into big things and still they do not know where they are going.

There has been a lot said here tonight. I know there will be a lot more said, but at the same time we have to remember one thing. Families are going to be hurt. This is the personal side. Businesses are going to be hurt. Communities are going to be hurt. I do not have the answers to help them out. I do not think a $25 million package is going to help them out as it should. It will help out in the short term but not in the long term.

I firmly believe if the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not revisit the decision, the minister should resign his post because he has not done justice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The six MPs, excluding the minister for ACOA because he is in cabinet, but he should follow the six Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and stand firm and say this is not good enough for our people. We want this looked at again to come up with a different plan.

What should be implemented is the all party committee plan. We believe that is the plan that is going to work. We spent time preparing it. It is time the federal government started to listen to the people who know what the people feel they deserve. We know the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If it does not work out, then it will be our fault. We will have failed. But right now the minister has failed.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I know that I am the last speaker in the debate. I tell clergy people all the time to say a prayer for Canada, but say a prayer for the fishermen and the minister. He is going to need every prayer we can give him because this is not over yet.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded and I therefore declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:37 p.m.)