House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Interparliamentary Union, which represented Canada at the 109th conference and related meetings of the Interparliamentary Union, held in Geneva, Switzerland, from September 28 to October 3, 2003.

The subjects that were discussed were: the role of parliamentarians assisting multilateral organizations in ensuring peace and security, and building an international coalition for peace; global public goods and the contribution of new information and communications technologies to good governance; the improvement of parliamentary democracy; and the management of globalization.

As usual, I can report that our colleagues on all sides of the House were an incredibly effective working team.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Leeds—Grenville Ontario

Liberal

Joe Jordan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Leeds—Grenville Ontario

Liberal

Joe Jordan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

It being 3:44 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, March 8, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 382 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Réginald Bélair Liberal Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I missed the opportunity to vote in favour of this motion. I seek unanimous consent to have my vote recorded as being in favour.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member to vote in favour of the motion?

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

The Speaker

His vote will be recorded.

It being 3:58 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion.

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Tom Wappel Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to take part in this discussion at private members' hour. I want to remind the House that we are talking about the motion by the hon. member for St. John's West:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and of the Flemish Cap.

The reason I am rising today to discuss this matter is my involvement in the fisheries and oceans committee of the House. This particular matter has been of great interest to the fisheries and oceans committee for over two years.

On June 5, 2002, the fisheries and oceans committee tabled a report entitled “Foreign Overfishing: Its Impacts and Solutions, Conservation on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap”, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Malpeque.

The report was the result of some significant work that the committee did. I was on that committee. We travelled to Newfoundland and Labrador to listen to the people of that province talk about the difficulties they had with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and what it was or was not doing.

It is a lengthy report in the sense that it details a lot of the problems, but what I want to bring to the attention of the House is that the committee unanimously recommended certain things. This is important, because at that time there were five parties that had members on the committee and this was a unanimous report of the committee.

What did it recommend? The committee recommended custodial management. On page 18, the report states:

Under a custodial management regime, Canada would assume sole responsibility for the management and conservation of the areas of our continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit: the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. However, foreign fishing interests would not be removed; instead, historic allocation and access would be respected.

...Under such a regime, Canada would conduct the science, set the [total allowable catches] and implement and administer a conservation-based management system that would include monitoring and enforcement.

...The Committee believes that imposing a custodial management regime is a necessary and reasonable response to the failure of NAFO to rectify its current problems and to bring its members under control.

Recommendations were made accordingly. Almost immediately, the then minister of fisheries and oceans rejected out of hand the recommendations of the committee. This was unfortunate, because it did not indicate that there had been any serious study of the recommendations of the committee and of why that committee unanimously came to the conclusions it did.

Eventually the member for Malpeque was promoted to solicitor general and a new committee was constituted. I became the chair of the committee. The committee revisited this issue after it received the formal response of the government, which the committee felt was totally and utterly inadequate. We re-examined the issue and, again unanimously, five parties came to the same conclusions that we had come to earlier.

We tabled that report in March 2003. We were even more specific in what we wanted to say. We gave even further deadlines that we thought were appropriate. I am not going to go into all of the rationale. I just want to say that there was nothing in the government's response that impressed any of the members of the committee. That is why the committee a second time unanimously indicated that it wished the government to implement custodial management.

The second recommendation was:

That the Government of Canada inform NAFO and its contracting parties that Canada will proceed with the implementation of custodial management on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap, and will withdraw from NAFO no later than December 31, 2004, in accordance with Article XXIV of the NAFO Convention.

On unanimous report two, again rejected by the government, the government gave the standard bureaucratic response of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and basically of the Department of Foreign Affairs that we could not do this because of international law.

The fact of the matter is, if we examine international law, it is not developed by the meek. It is developed by the bold. It is not developed by the reticent. It is developed by the confident. In this case, we either watch the Grand Banks die, we watch the fishery die, we watch Newfoundland and Labrador die or we do something.

The hon. member who moved the motion, in his earlier remarks, made the comment that he thought the Government of Canada did not have the guts to do it. Of course the problem is that this is not a one particular government problem because this has been an ongoing position of the Government of Canada.

Indeed, if we look at the comments of the person who probably will be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, in an interview with the Moncton Times and Transcript of February 20, he stated:

Federal responsibility for fisheries should focus on ensuring fairness in our international agreements. I will endeavour to substantially reform the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization so that Canada's fish stocks will be better protected, and I would reserve the right to take unilateral action to protect them if these international arrangements fail.

That sounds pretty much like the policy today. However, it is time for some testicular fortitude by the Government of Canada. We have to assert our recognition that the stocks are in serious danger, and the problem with NAFO is that it does not have an effective enforcement mechanism.

We can catch the people. We can have the observers. They can report that fish taken were too small or too many fish were taken or the wrong species were taken, but ultimately those fishermen are then sent back to their own country and it is the laws of that country which do or more particular do not enforce the breaches of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization's quotas that have been set. There is a very ineffective enforcement mechanism in NAFO.

When the fisheries committee travelled to Europe to talk to NAFO nations, this was clearly acknowledged by everybody we talked to in Norway, Brussels and Iceland. Wherever we went, it was clear that NAFO had very few teeth. There is no way that NAFO is doing the job to protect the fishery. I think it is fair to say that the Government of Canada realizes this.

I note that on March 5, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Defence announced collaboration on marine security initiatives. What they said among other things was, and I quote from the news release:

--they plan to enhance the fisheries patrol presence on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Specifically, [the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Nation Defence] announced that their departments are working aggressively on a strategy that would ensure a continual fisheries patrol presence on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks in the near future.

It is about time. One of the reasons in all likelihood that the ministers have come to this decision, which is a good one, is because of the pressure put on them by the fisheries and oceans committee of the House of Commons, recognizing this problem, travelling around the world, bringing this problem to the attention of fishing nations and explaining to them just how serious an economic impact the lack of fisheries is to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to praise the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and National Defence for coming up with this initiative. What this initiative shows us is if they feel it is necessary to have a patrol presence on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, clearly NAFO is not working. If NAFO were working, we would not need to have patrol vessels out there and a grand announcement by the two ministers that we would do this. There is something seriously wrong with NAFO, and that is there is not an enforcement mechanism.

The only way we can ensure that we save the fish there, not only for us but for future generations, is to implement custodial management. All the talk in the world, all the diplomatic niceties in the world will not do the trick. If NAFO cannot do it, we will have to act unilaterally, not in our own interest but in the interests of all fishing nations. All historic fishing nations will have their rights protected.

We constantly hear the Department of Foreign Affairs saying that we cannot do this or we cannot do that. At one time we had a three mile international limit. The reason we had it was because the cannonball fired three miles. If the technology had existed back then for a 200 nautical mile cannon, then we would have a 200 nautical mile limit right now.

I support the motion. I would urge that we do it in accordance with the dates set in the most recent unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for St. John's West for bringing forth this motion. I would like to read the motion once again so that it is clear for those who may be listening. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and of the Flemish Cap.

For those who perhaps do not know, those areas are outside of our 200 mile limit that we currently patrol, maintain and look after in terms of our fishery resource. These areas happen to be very rich in fishing capability. The areas are fished by fleets from all over the world.

I will go into a little history. When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, it brought with it a remarkable resource. This resource has been badly managed. That resource in the northwest Atlantic was one of the richest natural resources in the world. It once sustained fishing fleets from not only North America, but Europe, Spain, Portugal, Russia and other countries.

From 1989 to present, the spawning biomass of the northern cod stock has declined precipitously to 1% of its former level. A lot of other groundfish stocks are meeting a similar fate. This is of great concern, not only to Newfoundland and Labradorians and others on the east coast, but to all of Canada. This was a very valuable resource.

The collapse of these groundfish stocks has been attributed to a number of issues, including environmental concerns, overfishing by all fleets, poor reporting, poor scientific advice and a number of other things. However, Canada has done its part in trying to control, limit and manage these stocks to the best of its ability.

The problem is that outside of the 200 mile limit the straddling stocks, the stocks that go back and forth across the line because fish know no boundaries, cannot be controlled adequately. The NAFO arrangement that is supposed to manage it has very sadly and badly failed the test.

I will get to the nub of the matter, the demand for custodial management a little later on, but one thing we have to look at is the ecosystem management because it is really the crux of the matter.

There are a number of issues that could help us deal with that, as well as custodial management, but one is ecosystem management. We have to look at the other species that live in our oceans besides fish. There are seals, whales, mammals, et cetera. We have become a predator in terms of utilizing this resource. We have to look at managing the whole ecosystem, rather than just a specific species.

We have tried to manage the fish. We have done a very poor job of it overall. We have to look at some other ways of dealing with things.

I was fortunate enough to be with the fisheries committee group that travelled to the east coast some two years ago. We saw and heard firsthand how difficult things were and how the decline in the fish stocks had affected communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have communities that are on the edge and not surviving as communities. It is very sad to see these situations happening. For hundreds of years these communities survived on this very valuable resource, but today they cannot survive, and something must change.

The North Atlantic Fishing Organization is supposed to control these fisheries. There are a number of inherent problems with that situation. I will explain why it does not work.

The reason it is not working is because enforcement is left to the member nations. In other words, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. Rules can be violated. Without proper supervision and proper enforcement, the rules will not make a difference. It does not control the situation.

This is the whole problem with NAFO. It is an unmanageable and out of control situation where some nations, not all, flagrantly violate the privilege of fishing off our coast, even though it is outside of our 200 mile limit. That is a huge concern, and it is not being dealt with properly.

Some impacts of the overfishing off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador have been stated by Richard Cashin, chairman of a task force on income and adjustment in the Atlantic fishery. He says:

We are dealing here with a famine of biblical scale—a great destruction. The social and economic consequences of this great destruction are a challenge to be met and a burden to be borne by the nation, not just those who are its victims.

Those words are very true. They were written in 1993, and they are even more relevant today.

It is really difficult to comprehend the scale of devastation, not only in Atlantic Canada and Quebec but especially in the rural outposts in areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, from the loss of the northern cod stocks and virtually every other groundfish stock. It is something of which we have to get a grasp.

What we are doing is not working. When things do not work, we have to fix them. It is time for leadership from this government, as the previous speaker, my colleague across the floor, said. I sit on the fisheries committee with him. He is now the chairman and is doing a very good job. He was with us when we travelled to the east coast. He saw for himself the issues and the problems.

If we were to create a custodial management situation, we would not be saying that other countries could not fish there. What we would be saying is that we could control it in a much more responsible and sustainable manner.

What Canada would do is conduct the science, set the total annual catches, and implement and administer a conservation based management system that would include monitoring and enforcement. This would certainly cost us money, but in the overall scheme of things, the recovery of the fishery and resource would more than offset any costs in the short term.

It should be made clear to other NAFO parties that Canada would regard such an action as a last resort in the event of failure of NAFO. This is from the committee report. Frankly, I think NAFO is failing and has failed. It really is time to get this under control, and try to deal with it in a more equitable manner.

When the committee tabled its report back in June 2002, unfortunately the minister chose to disregard it in its entirety. That was very short-sighted. We have a new minister today. With all due respect to the previous minister, I firmly strongly urge the new minister to take this issue into very serious consideration. The committee recommended the custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap. It is absolutely critical that this be dealt with in a firm manner. The patrols that were announced recently expanded the controls, and that is useful.

Given the budgetary constraints, DFO is always under difficulty when it comes to budgetary matters and cutbacks. We cannot adequately deal with this issue by just adding a few more patrols. We patrol now and it is inadequate. Even with the inadequacy of our patrolling, I understand that over the last 10 years some 300 violations were documented and recorded. Out of those 300 violations, we have very little knowledge of any penalties that were enforced.

When I was in Iceland last year with the fisheries committee, a fishing vessel called the Olga was caught fishing moratoria cod and was brought into port, I believe, in St. John's. It was released and disappeared. We do not know what penalties, if any, were ever brought to bear on the vessel, its crew and master. This happens time after time.

The bottom line at the end of the day is that Canada has to take control of these areas. I strongly urge the government to look at this, take a very firm hand in the matter and deal with it. I think the support is there.

It is an important matter for all Canadians, not just those on the east coast. It is a matter with which all Canadians should be concerned. It is a matter of our sovereignty. I will be supporting this.

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent to revert to tabling reports from committees in order for me to table the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-21.

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-21, an act to amend the customs tariff. It was agreed on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, to report it without amendment.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank the House for its cooperation.

The member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am truly quite pleased to speak to this debate and to remind the House with great pleasure that the Bloc Quebecois will have no trouble supporting this motion.

For the benefit of those who will read this beautiful prose one day, I would like to read Motion M-136 in order to provide the full text:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and of the Flemish Cap.

When my colleague from Matapédia—Matane spoke on October 23, 2003, he pointed out to the House that the translation of custodial management in French made no sense. A request was made to correct the motion, but to no avail.

I would like to help the House write the text of the motion properly in French. It is rather irritating to have to stop our language from being massacred and to see that there is a lack of political will to do what we ask about something as insignificant as accurate language.

The first report tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is entitled, “Foreign Overfishing—Its Impacts and Solutions: Conservation on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap”.

Report 2, tabled in March 2003, is called “Custodial Management Outside Canada's 200-Mile Limit”.

This has never had anything to do with the term used in the translation of this motion, “gestion de garde”. This is a nonsensical expression and I hope that this time we will get what we want and the text will be written as it should be, since the matter is of some importance.

Thank you for the opportunity to make that aside, and now I will move on to the speech itself.

What is important perhaps is to provide those listening with a little more information. People do know something about them. But the Grand Banks of Newfoundland always sounds a bit odd. I remember when we were kids, we made all sorts of jokes about the name. But we never really knew what we were talking about. I think it is important to explain what is meant by the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

There have always been limits. When I was young, we were used to hearing that our territorial limits were three miles from the coast. After that, it went to 12 miles and then 200. So everything up to 200 miles off our coasts is considered Canadian territory.

In two areas off the coast of Newfoundland, the continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit; two peaks jut out, outside that zone. These two peaks are referred to as the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks because they are part of that historic fishing ground known as the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. That is an extremely important fact.

Then, the other important part is the Flemish Cap. The Flemish Cap is a sort of underwater island, reaching beyond the 200-mile limit, but it is both within and beyond Canada's continental shelf.

Thus, there are three areas in which Canada says it cannot intervene and we have nations from all around the world there, blatantly abusing the resources that swim in Canadian waters.

I remember when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans having discussed this issue before the report was complete. I was astonished at the kind of nostrums they were offering us, such as saying that our authority did not extend beyond the 200-mile limit.

Later, the organization called NAFO was created with the aim of overseeing all this.

Nevertheless, Canada gets cold feet when it comes time to shoulder its responsibilities, as we see in many sectors. With respect to agricultural subsidies, for example, Canada was the first and only country to cut them. It is not complicated; farmers were receiving $5 billion in subsidies and then, supposedly because of the WTO, everything had to be cut. That was not what happened in the United States or in Europe. It looks as if the government used the treaties that were supposed to enable us to manage as a pretext to do nothing further.

My colleague who spoke previously pointed out that when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 it brought with it an absolutely extraordinary resource. In one of the speeches given last October when this motion was debated the first time, I read that the revenue Newfoundland could be making from the fishery, had it been properly managed, would today be around $3 billion.

There once were many fish around Newfoundland—an enormous quantity of fish. We know that fish travel and that what is found off Newfoundland ends up coming into the Gulf. It had a positive effect along the coast of the Maritimes and right into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

When people realized that there were no fish left, no cod or flounder left, in Newfoundland and that moratoriums had to be imposed, it was quite obvious that there were no cod left in the Gulf of St. Lawrence either. The fish left Newfoundland for the gulf.

Mismanagement leads to disastrous consequences. A few years ago, the government injected $3 billion into the budget to reorient regional economies. It is all fine and well to help fishermen learn a new trade, but what about the boats they own, the training they do not necessarily have, and the lack of motivation in young people?

I live by the sea. I would not like to have to move into the heart of a concrete jungle. I would probably suffocate, because I have always lived by the sea and breathed the salt air.

When a government lets a region destroy itself, the future of Canada is in serious trouble. The government is supposed to bring about change. It would be an enormous change if the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans took the time to read the two unanimous reports. The Bloc Quebecois and all the other parties unanimously approved the recommendations in these reports. I invite the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to read them and then do what is best for Canada.

FisheriesPrivate Members' Business

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the members of the committee, especially my colleague from St. John's West who put forward this motion in the House of Commons.

This is a motion of unimaginable importance. It is intended to extend the 200-mile limit in order to include the Flemish Cap and the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. That is the jargon used by all the fishermen and people in the fishing industry, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is nothing new. This is not something that started in 1995. When I was the union representative in 1988, they were already talking about protecting the 200-mile limit. At the time, they were already saying that a mistake had been made. The international community is not monitoring the 200-mile limit where there is a possibility of saving our fish stocks.

This did not just affect Newfoundland and Labrador, but also Nova Scotia, Quebec and New Brunswick. As the member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis said, fish swim, they move around and go into the gulf. It is not for nothing that the stock is so diminished today.

That is why the motion put forward by the member for St. John's West is important. He is asking the government to protect these waters.

How could the international community be against conservation and for the well-being of all the communities? This is the government's responsibility. It is sad to see that the parliamentary committees have made so many recommendations that the government has never supported.

I remember that when George Baker was Chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, all the political parties had made recommendations on the fisheries. Then, sadly, George Baker did not even come to the House the day the vote was held because he did not have the support of his government, the Liberal government, to protect the fish stocks.

That hurt some of the communities.

It hurt people. It hurt the fishermen, but it hurt the communities too. It hurt communities because people had to leave their houses in Newfoundland and Labrador and move somewhere else to find a job. An unbelievable number of people lost their jobs in the fishing industry.

Newfoundlanders have lived off the fishing industry for a long time. Newfoundland was welcomed when it to joined Canada. Was Newfoundland asked to join because Canada wanted it to be a part of the country, or was it asked because Canada wanted its fish stock? Now that Canada has Newfoundland's fish stock it does not seem to care anymore. That is the sad part.

Our country could do something collectively to change the rules to protect our fish stock. It could be done. Something is wrong when the parliamentary committee meets time after time and comes back with the same recommendations.

In 1988, when I was a representative of the union, we had a problem in the fishery. We talked about the 200 mile limit at that time. We talked about the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the 200 mile limit. We talked about protecting the fish stock. That did not start in 1995. It did not start in 1999. Surely it did not start in 2004.

We made requests at that time. We appealed to the Conservative government at that time. If we were to look at the record, we would see that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador appealed to the federal government asking for help to save the fishing industry. That has still not been done.

It is unfortunate considering all the work done by the parliamentary committee, which traveled along the entire Atlantic coast to meet the workers in this industry and all the other stakeholders. This Parliament authorized the committee to travel throughout Atlantic Canada to meet and talk to all the stakeholders. The committee was supposed to return to Parliament with recommendations for the federal government. The federal government remains silent on this issue. I withdraw that; it is not that it is silent, but it is not clearly supporting these motions in the House of Commons. It is voting against the motions and bills that could help fishermen and plant workers. Plant workers have also been affected by this situation.

Fishing is not easy. It is not easy to live in a community dependent on fishing. I have said this over and over again. Throughout Canada, people are happy when they order a nice piece of cod, lobster or flounder. They enjoy this sort of seafood from our regions, from Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, as well as British Columbia.

We must be able to help and agree to recommendations made by people who work so hard to come to the House and share them with us.

What the government has decided to do instead, particularly the government in power since December, is to announce to the community that 600 employees at Fisheries and Oceans will be laid off. That is unacceptable.

At a time when the fishery is in trouble, when fish stocks are at their lowest, when those stocks need to be protected and helped to return to normal levels, that is when more people are needed to help fix things. At the same time, we need more scientists who can work with the fishermen.

Instead, the government is saying that when a group is having trouble, there will be cuts. That is what will be done. They will not receive the assistance they need. It is a disgrace for the government to make such decisions. I am certain that the communities dependent on fishing disagree with this decision.

We should instead be able to get together and consider the committees' recommendations. The current government with a new Prime Minister of Canada at the helm, has said it will be more open and provide more opportunities to committees to work together to make our Parliament more democratic. When the committee arrives with recommendations, the government party is the first to vote against them. Yet, no division was detected at this committee.

When George Baker was chair of the committee, he did not come to the House to vote. Another member of the committee—that had voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation—came to the House and voted against his own recommendation. He did so because he had been told how to vote by the government.

With respect to the motion put forward by the member for St. John's West, I am anxious to see, in the Prime Minister's new era, whether the latter will tell his members to vote in favour of the motion in order to build up stocks that are needed on the Grand Banks, to protect them and bring them back up to their initial level, and not to allow everything to end up in international waters where we will lose and continue to lose this industry that is so important for the communities in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Quebec.

The NDP will be voting in favour of the motion put forward by the member for St. John's West. Let us hope the government will do so too.