Loyola Hearn

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to how often concerns about the Fraser have come up, I have been here five years. Every year since I have been here, and for my four years on the committee, there has always been a problem, last year of course highlighted by the fact that it was a disaster. Every year stakeholders are expressing concerns.

The positive things that have happened around the west coast salmon fishery resulted basically from the part played by the different stakeholders through their organizations. They have done a great job, but of course they are not the ones to call the shots. They can set the scenario. They can make the recommendations. It is up to the government to carry out the recommendations.

It is the same thing on the east coast. The government has done a tremendously poor job of managing the stock, a lot of that because it has no real scientific basis. The science is readily available because the people involved in the fishery know exactly what is going on. It is a matter of collection, coordination and involvement. The department has done a tremendously poor job of that.

In relation to the loss to the B.C. economy, I think it would be much greater than $80 million. There are three main aspects we have to look at: the recreational fishery, the commercial fishery and of course the aboriginal food and ceremonial fishery. All of these are extremely important to the different sectors. All of them benefit greatly and all of them add tremendously to the economy. It is hard to get a handle on one.

To give the members an example, this year alone, one of the major concerns is what the department has been or was planning. Departmental people were telling me as late as yesterday that they have not made a final decision, but it looked as if the department was going to limit the sockeye fishery on the Fraser to try to preserve the colonies of sockeye. There are only a handful of them left. In order to prevent the complete decimation of that stock, they are limiting the fishery. With the small numbers, limiting the fishery has very little effect on the rebuilding of the colonies, but it has a tremendous effect on the fishery; in fact we are told it is perhaps as great as $60 million to the commercial fishery alone. That is just one phase of the total problem.

I would say that the effect on the province of British Columbia is astronomical, but if we let things go on the way they are and there is no science, no management and no enforcement, then a few years down the road the salmon fishermen in all sectors in British Columbia will be like the cod fishermen in Newfoundland. They will be asking the government if it will allow them to go out for one day to catch one fish just to set her back on the water and that is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented to the House on Tuesday, March 22, be concurred in.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver Island North for seconding the motion.

We raise this issue at this time because of the start of the salmon fishery in British Columbia and the concerns that all those involved, all stakeholders, have in this industry.

Yesterday we were presented with responses to two major reports on the failure of the sockeye fishery on the Fraser River last year. One of these reports was tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It is a comprehensive, pointed report that deals with the crux of last year's situation.

The recommendations made by the standing committee were responded to, and let me give the minister and his department credit, much more quickly than in ordinary situations. The committee emphasized to the minister the need for a quick response, so that action could be taken this year to prevent what happened last year where we saw the near decimation of the sockeye fishery on the Fraser River.

The second report was done by Justice Williams which was tabled shortly after the report presented by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and the minister has also responded to that report.

One of the reasons the department was able to respond relatively quickly to both reports is that both were very similar. When we have thorough investigations, then we are going to get the same kind of evidence. There is only one way to respond to such evidence, and that is with clarity and truth. The two reports presented to government were very similar. They basically made the same recommendations and outlined the same problems.

In the past we heard that complaints were hearsay and we could not react to hearsay. We could not react to innuendo and we could not react to accusations or local jealousies. That has now been dispensed with and we are concentrating on the facts.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans visited the area and had extensive hearings earlier this year. The Williams committee of course has been having hearings as well, throughout the late fall and into spring. Every stakeholder involved had the opportunity to come forward to express their various concerns about what happened last year and to emphasize to the department that action had to be taken to ensure that such a disaster would never happen again.

In one case last year on one of the runs, a provision had been made by the department, through its counting efforts and its monitoring, to actually start off with about 90,000 salmon reaching the headwaters for spawning purposes. Last spring and early summer, the temperatures were relatively high in the Fraser. This raised concerns because the higher the temperature the greater the stress on the salmon, particularly if there are other stresses up the river, such as gillnets, drift nets, overfishing, or whatever.

An allowance was made that there would be some losses due to mortality because of the water temperatures. The number of breeders was raised to 129,000. We had a significant increase in the number. When the count was finally made, of the 129,000 salmon expected to reach the headwaters it was discovered that only 9,000 salmon reached the headwaters for breeding purposes.

This means that four years from now, when the salmon return to the river, that run in particular will be to the point where it will be unable to be fished. If t it happens again this year and over the next couple of years, we could see the complete destruction of the salmon fishery on the mighty Fraser River.

People would think this is unheard of, but I remind them that 30 years ago one could go anywhere off the coast of Newfoundland and catch cod using any method whatsoever. Cod was in abundance. People never thought they would see the day when they would be unable to catch one fish for a meal of fresh cod, which they were used to having, certainly during the summer and fall. The same thing can happen to salmon on the west coast if we are not careful.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented a pointed report to the minister. The Williams commission did the same thing. Both reports were very similar. If we listened to the evidence presented by stakeholders involved and if we used the collective experience around both the tables of the standing committee and the Williams committee, the recommendations would have to be similar because the people involved have a concern about the future of the stocks.

The minister's response, even though there are positive components, does not give many of us a hope that much work will be done to preserve the stocks. It has an awful lot of what I refer to as government wording, such as “we have to study”, “we have to monitor” or ”testing will determine”. All these things are wonderful, but the monitoring, testing and experimentation have been done. It is over with. The evidence is hard and fast that we have a major problem with the salmon fishery on the west coast. Fingers were pointed at certain aspects of the harvesting and it is up to the minister to respond.

When we met with the various stakeholders, it was made quite clear that the department's monitoring of the stock was inadequate. The enforcement certainly was inadequate.

The minister this year says that the government will to zero in on enforcement. That seemed to be the biggest problem, as highlighted by both committee reports. He has not said the government will increase the number of fisheries officers on the river. He has said it will give them overtime, let them work a bit longer.

Fisheries officers are very dedicated individuals. They do not just sit around when there is work to be done. They do not necessarily work their eight hour days, punch the clock and go home. Many of these people work a lot of overtime anyway. Many of them work a lot of overtime for which they never get recognition or pay. Therefore, to ask them to work overtime will not give us the type of surveillance that is necessary on the river. It was recommended by the standing committee that the number of fisheries officers be greatly increased, that it be brought up to the number of officers who originally patrolled the great Fraser. The minister refused.

The other consolation he has offered is if we need other fisheries officers above and beyond what we have now, they will be taken from other parts of the province and moved into the Fraser. Unfortunately for the minister, and fortunately for the people involved in the fishery, salmon do not stop and wait until the fisheries officers come back before they head off to the various rivers. They do not stop and wait to go up certain rivers because the fisheries officers have gone up the Fraser.

The salmon runs approximate each other in most rivers. At the time when the fisheries officers on the Fraser are busy, they are busy everywhere else. To think that we can move fisheries officers around during peak season is a pipe dream. If we try to solve a problem in one area, we create a bigger one somewhere else.

It was a disappointment to us when the minister refused to add to the fisheries officers on the Fraser. He did say, however, that we would have more overflights with helicopter and fixed wing aircraft. Having said that, he admitted that a lot of the overfishing, for want of a better word, took place in the canyons.

Flying through canyons is not a pleasant chore for anybody. The minister also mentioned, maybe without thinking, that a lot of the overfishing and the illegal fishing went on at night time. Can hon. members imagine what it would be like to fly a fixed wing aircraft through the canyons off the Fraser at night time? I do not know if the department will call for proposals for kamikaze pilots, but that is what we would need. It is impossible to patrol the Fraser by air at night time, certainly in the areas of the canyons.

This does not make any sense whatsoever. It is a big area so overflights in the day time would be of some help. I am not trying to belittle the amount of assistance being provided. I am just saying it is completely inadequate.

The main concern I have is that in response to all recommendations, at no time does the minister show or give us any encouragement whatsoever that there will be stronger enforcement. The one word that predominated at all meetings with all witnesses last year during our hearings and at the meetings held by Justice Williams was “enforcement”.

We have had fishery officers, people who fish on the river, all types of people state that they have been witness to blatant, illegal overfishing. In many cases nothing whatsoever is done. Either there is a lone fisheries officer or a couple of fisheries officers and the people involved greatly outnumber them. It is the fear factor. Other times, they do not want to cause a stir because it would cause poor relations, maybe with native bands.

It should not matter who is doing the overfishing. If somebody is illegally fishing, whether it be a recreational fisherman, or a trawler, or somebody with set nets, or somebody illegally using drift nets, or an aboriginal or a tourist, it should not matter. If people are deliberately destroying a stock, they should be punished for it. That has not happened. If we let people break the law, they just take it for granted that it is their God given right to do so and they continue to do it.

This is where I see the response completely and utterly fails. I will just read a couple of general elements of the response.

It says that additional resources will be provided in 2005, and we thank the minister and the department. However, additional resources mean nothing if they cannot be properly used and if there is no result to their effect.

Here is what the department will do. It will allow for more patrols, better surveillance and increased operational activities, including more helicopter and overflights. I am quite sure nobody has ever been charged yet from an overflight. All they can do is spot the activity and try to relay it to people on the ground. It depends on when, where, how far away and how many fisheries officers they have, and that is a difficult chore.

All these words are great but there is not one thing about taking action against those whom they catch breaking the law, using illegal gear or blatantly fishing illegally or overfishing.

It says that the department will increase catch monitoring and provide for better tracking of the catch. That needs to be done because there are questions as to how good the actual count was at Mission last year and whether the department had a good handle on the numbers. We know a lot of fish disappeared going up the river, but it is almost impossible to tell how many. People do not know how many went through the bridge in the first place.

It says that it will “evaluate”, another beautiful word, the feasibility for improved assessment of Fraser River sockeye abundance at Mission, using two technologies. This is wonderful, consoling stuff. We do not want evaluations. We do not need any more feasibility studies. We have all the information we would ever want. What we need is concrete action.

Another one says that the department will improve estimates and timeliness of environmental and fishing impacts. What we need to do is improve the conditions that are created by the impact of overfishing.

This is a beaut and a real dilly. It says that it will provide for specific research such as a drift net study to evaluate the implications of fishing methods and fishing plan preparation. In other words, it is not saying that drift nets should not be used, as everybody wants, except mainly those who illegally use them. It does not say that there are certain times or places where set nets should not be used. Nobody knows how much loss occurs from dropout from these nets which sometimes are left untended for days.

The department is not taking action against illegal drift netting or banning drift netting. It says that it must do more research to see the effects. Talk to the fishermen. It does not matter which type. They will tell us that there are negative effects. They will tell us that there is illegal drift netting taking place. How can the salmon get up a river if there are wall to wall nets? Salmon are great at jumping. I have seen them jump through waterfalls, but it is very difficult to keep jumping. Trying to go up the Fraser River is just like doing the hurdles at the Olympics. That is not how we will get salmon to survive. Also, water temperatures, stress and everything else are factors which negatively impact the salmon stocks on the Fraser.

What should we do? The minister is concentrating on trying to work his way around the real issues. Saying that he knows what is causing the decline of salmon on the Fraser and saying that he is going to take action and anybody who is involved in impeding the progress of salmon illegally will pay a price, would give us some consolation in that area.

However, just stopping people from fishing is not enough. Salmon, like cod, is a renewable resource. Once we understand what is causing the destruction, we must also be prepared to build the biomass. We must look at improving the habitat. We must concentrate on factors that will help grow the stock. Maybe some day will come when the amount of salmon we are taking now we can take legally because collectively we all work together to build the stock.

This is a serious situation. It does not seem that this year will be any better than last year. If we do not wake up, there will not be a tomorrow to worry about.

[The Budget, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, including the Atlantic accord provisions, has now gone through all stages in the House and on to the Senate, where we are guaranteed, at least by Conservative senators, that it will receive speedy passage.

Let me ask the minister this. When can the province of Newfoundland and Labrador expect to get its cheque and will we be paid the $40 million in interest we have lost since the signing of the agreement in February?

[Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, June 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here this afternoon to speak to this significant piece of legislation.

Let me first say, and this might be a precedent, that I am speaking really on behalf of the member for St. John's East and myself. We were thinking about making a joint speech, but I do not think we would be allowed to read it. I speak much more quickly than he does, so that might not have worked out either, but everything I say, I know I am saying for him as well.

I know the House generally and certainly the people from Labrador are very proud of the work that my colleague from Calgary Centre-North has done on this file. I had the privilege early last fall to introduce the member to Mr. Anderson from the Labrador Inuit Association. Since that time he has been heavily involved in the file and helped to push it along. He apologizes that this legislation is not being delivered by a Conservative government, but I say to him that without the input of Minister Rideout and Premier Williams and the Conservative government in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would not have reached here so fast, so there is some consolation in that.

Let me also congratulate the member for Labrador on his first speech in the House. I am sure that he will make many over the years but none will be as memorable and I would suggest to him, none as important as the one he has made today on this very significant occasion.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the late Lawrence O'Brien. All of us who knew Lawrence and called him a friend would appreciate how important this day would be for him if he were here, but I know he is looking down on us from a much higher seat than any of us will hold for awhile, at least I hope. Let me also thank the member for Nunavut for her participation. We know how proud she is today at this great event.

Many of the people who really made it happen of course are in the gallery. President William Anderson has done such a wonderful job, not just recently on this agreement but for years. I have known him for many years and this has been an issue close to his heart. The MHA for the area, Mr. Wally Andersen, is here as is the minister who was introduced earlier, Mr. Rideout from the Newfoundland government. He has worked so closely with everyone to ensure this happened.

That is how we get things done. We see a challenge, we get together, and we face it collectively. We look at the strengths, the weaknesses, and what it takes from each of us to make it happen and then put it all together. It is a great day.

Those who are not familiar with the area and who have not been to the north coast of Labrador are missing something. In a former life, as a minister of education, I visited every, if not almost every, community along the coast. I visited all the schools, met with the people and took some time to hunt and fish.

We talk about history. I have heard members from Alberta, with all due respect to my colleagues, talk about the history of their province. We do not know the history of this country until we have visited Labrador. We do not know scenery unless we have seen the Torngats. We do not know fishing unless we have fished in Labrador.

We see people who are the kindest and most dedicated people in the world. People who have, not just for years but for centuries, eked out a living from the land and have seen others perhaps take more advantage of their resources than they did themselves. All that is going to change because of the work of some of the people we mentioned.

Today is a whole new day in the life of Labrador. I am reminded of the poem The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. Robert Frost, of course, was one of the greatest poets who wrote poems that really expressed local situations. The Road Not Taken probably describes today what is happening to the Inuit people along the coast of Labrador.

Years ago they had the choice of continuing to do what had gone on for centuries. They had the choice to let others dictate their future to them or, when they came to the fork in the road, they had a choice to perhaps set off in a new direction, to take the road not taken, and to lead to an area where they themselves would control their own future and destiny. That is not always the easiest choice.

I am sure the new member for Labrador, who in his own right has fought many battles for his people, knows it is not easy. It is very easy for people to sit back and let somebody else do everything for them. It is a lot harder to stand and fight for what a person knows is right, to fight for what belongs to that person, and to fight for what that person knows he or she should control. This is what Mr. Anderson and his people have done.

In just a few moments, after we hear from two or three other speakers, the legislation will go through the House. What the Inuit people have wanted for a long time will be delivered to them. I want to tell them that they took the road not taken, but certainly, as the poem ends up, it has made all the difference.

I know it will make a lot of difference to the people of Labrador and the Inuit along the coast because their destiny is now in their own hands. History will show that we could not have turned the control of this destiny over to a better people. I wish them all the best and certainly appreciate being a little part of this whole exercise.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I notice we are rapidly running out of time. I am thinking about the people who have tuned into us all night, having missed a very good baseball game with Halliday pitching and missing Duffy's countdown. Perhaps we could have Duffy do a countdown on useless regulations that governments try to introduce.

I hesitated to get up because I thought some of the Liberal members would stand to defend their minister and what he was trying to do in this scenario, particularly when we have such knowledgeable fisherpersons like the members for Whitby—Oshawa and Saint Boniface. The chair of the finance committee might want some comic relief by participating in this debate in order to come down from the evening he had earlier. That is not the case so we will have to finish up with a few remarks.

The member for Winnipeg Centre said earlier that what the minister was trying to do was put conditions on licences with no statutory authority to do so. That is exactly what the minister is trying to do. The government was trying to pull a fast one and got caught.

This is not the situation that occurred last week when we suddenly had to rush a two clause bill out to the members with absolutely no background or explanatory notes. It was only upon a hurried request from members asking what it was all about that a briefing was given. Then we were told that it was absolutely nothing, that it was to correct a problem in the Ontario regulations to ensure that everything flowed properly.

On investigation, we found that was a long ways from the truth. This is only a two clause bill, but the ramifications of this will echo from coast to coast to coast. It gives the minister, as the member for Winnipeg Centre said, carte blanche to impose upon people involved in the fishery fines up to half a million dollars and jail time up to two years less a day, which he does not have the authority to do at present.

One of the things that has happened, in this cloud of confusion the government tried to create and the hoax it tried to pull on its counterparts in Ontario, is the minister seems to have vanished from the scene and left this to float, hoping it will go away. It has been around for a long time. It was not introduced last week when all the flurry happened. The bill has been on the go for 18 years. It was 1987 when this regulation first got the notice of people in Parliament.

On at least two occasions since then, bills have been introduced to try to correct this measure. One did not get beyond first reading and the other died when Parliament died. First, the government must not think it was very important or the majority of the members in the House did not think it was important to make this correction.

Right out of the blue, at the last minute because of pressure put on by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, the minister tries to make blanket changes without giving the facts involved. That is what I think upset most people in the House. If this had gone through unnoticed, every person involved in the fishery in would be in a much more tedious position than he or she finds himself or herself in at present.

Regulations always have to be reviewed, updated and changed, but they have to be done properly. The rule of law can never be overlooked in this honoured hall of operations, but this is what is being done here. The rule of law has been pushed aside and the minister, for his own sake, is trying to ram through a bill which certainly will be more detrimental than any effect of not doing it.

We wonder sometimes why the minister is not as concerned about other regulations. Why is the minister not concerned about overfishing regulations? We hear all kinds of platitudes. We do not see any action.

Why is he not concerned about the rules and regulations that surround quotas? That is a major one. As we speak here in the House about a regulation which should never have been brought to this place, back in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland tomorrow, and today for those watching back home, a debate will continue on the future of Harbour Breton, tied in with the future, perhaps, of Fishery Products International.

It is a very serious debate, a debate that has gone on for two full days, a debate in which the government will play a very important role, because the result will be determined on a large scale by what the government is going to do to assist people in Harbour Breton who have been put out of work by the closure of their fish plant.

The fish plant closed simply because the company that operated it, Fishery Products International, says it does not have product enough to operate all its plants so some have to go. Harbour Breton was the first on the chopping block.

The big question is, what do we have in the ocean in relation to quotas that could be made available to companies or to areas, whatever the case might be? Let us just say we mean quotas which could be caught by people involved in the fishery to be brought ashore and processed by people involved in the processing end. The answer to that is simply that we do not know because there have been such great cuts in science that we have no idea, really, of what is available.

The set-up of the department, the regulations under which the department operates, basically gives large companies carte blanche to do what they want with a resource that we are told clearly by the minister, by government, is a resource belonging to the people. I have asked the question directly to the minister. Others have also. Who owns the fish in the ocean? The answer always given is, “The people of Canada own the fish. It is managed on their behalf by the minister and the Department of Fisheries”.

I have been here five years. I have seen four different ministers of fisheries and I can say it does not give me any great consolation to know that these people are the custodians of our resource, because we have seen it completely and utterly mismanaged. We have seen it abused. We have seen it destroyed by foreigners and by our own people. We have seen it used for everything except what it is supposed to be used for, that is, the benefit of the people.

We are a country rich in resources, whether it be our fishery, minerals, water power, forestry, farming or tourism. We can go on and on. It is a country that is extremely rich. When we look at the small population of our country and the abundant resources, and when we realize that the economy basically is developed upon the development of these resources, why are all of us not very rich?

Why is every person who wants to work in the country not working? Because the “custodians” or the managers of our resources have not done a very good job in managing them. If only we knew what is available in the ocean and what is capable of being harvested.

If we knew when to harvest that resource and under what conditions the resource could be harvested, just imagine how much product could be brought into the various processing facilities around the country. Just imagine if we could eliminate the waste, catching the undersized, and the abuse in the fishery, the people of places like Harbour Breton would not be wondering about the future of their fish plant because they would not have time to worry. They would do what they did some years ago. They would be working round the clock.

The plant in Harbour Breton, by the way, just a few years ago was processing 30 million pounds of fish a year. At that time the value was roughly $20 million. That was one small fish processing plant in one small rural community. We can imagine the contribution to the area, to the province and eventually to the country.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member. I agree with him when he says that the fisheries critic has a great interest in the fishery and has done a lot of work. In fact, he sits with us on the fisheries committee. On many issues he along with others on that committee work closely together for the good of those involved in the fisheries in the country.

We are dealing with the subamendment, although we have got away from that. However, according to the government, the main motion is only a minuscule one, a two-liner that will solve all the problems. We have found it will create a tremendous number of problems in the country.

When we talk about rules and regulations, from the member's experience and involvement in his own region, how many rules and regulations does he see in the fishery that negatively affect the people trying to make a living in that industry?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for bringing forth a resolution such as this for debate. It is an issue that should be debated in the House. There are many older people, who have contributed to this country for years, being displaced from their jobs not only because of globalization. There are other factors as well.

We have, because of pressures today from China in particular, seen even in the fishing industry companies not being able to compete in the marketplace. This means a displacement of workers in textiles, the fishery and paper mills in our own province because of globalization to a point but also because of other factors. There are major industries closing down and displacing many older workers.

Young people are usually not a problem. They can be retrained. They can pack up and go somewhere else. However, people at a certain age who have invested everything where they live, who knew they had a job at home years ago did not worry too much about education, and who are now 55 to 60 years of age and have absolutely nowhere to go, have been neglected. I think that is terrible.

In light of displaced workers there is one little catch which a lot of people had problems with in a similar program some years ago. It just went on age alone. There was a minimum of so many working years and a certain age. We had people who had worked perhaps 35 years in a factory, but because they had started very young they were not 55 or 60 years of age, or whatever the cutoff was, and got nothing. Whereas other people who worked for 3 or 4 years got benefits until they received their old age pension. I do not think that is fair. I would like the member's opinion on that.

[Delegated Legislation, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I can agree with the minister on is his remarks in relation to the tremendous job done by the pages on O Canada. It was a rendition of O Canada, the likes of which we certainly have not heard in this place. I do not want to run down the singing abilities of my colleagues but today's version certainly was the best I have ever heard. I congratulate the pages. That would be my final point of agreement with the minister.

When we debated Bill C-52 a few days ago I thought the minister had received such a trouncing on it from all parties, not just from the Bloc and ourselves, but also from the NDP. What happened of course is that they pulled it right off the legislative agenda. I do not know why we are even debating the motion today.

However, having said that, instead of my wandering way of dealing with this, I will read some stuff into the record that might educate the minister as to exactly what is happening here.

The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, the minister says, expressed a real concern, but it also gave a fair amount of comfort to the fact that the concerns raised by the minister from Ontario and brought forth here by the minister, although I am not sure who went to whom first, were certainly not valid. The committee stated:

In closing, the Committee wishes to briefly address the statement by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources that:

Terms and conditions [of licences] are currently the only mechanisms by which Ontario can establish allowable quota, areas where fishing can occur, designates who can take fish under a licence, reporting for commercial fishing licences.

To the extent this comment suggests that disallowance of section 36(2) would impair the ability to impose terms and conditions of licences, it does not reflect a clear understanding of the nature of section 36(2). Disallowance of that section may change the manner of enforcing compliance with terms and conditions of licences, but would certainly not affect in any way the ability to impose such terms and conditions.

In the same letter, the Minister goes so far as to suggest that the disallowance of section 36(2) would “threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources”.

And this is the point upon which the minister hinges his argument. The committee goes on to state:

Whether or not section 36(2) remains in the Regulations, the authority to issue licences and to impose terms and conditions on the licence would remain unimpaired, as would the ability to enforce observance of those terms and conditions. The imposition of a fine or a jail term for breach of a licence condition, as opposed to suspending or cancelling the same licence, has nothing to do with the sustainability of the fishery resource.

While your Committee understands that the federal and provincial Ministers favour the enforcement of terms and conditions of licences through fines and imprisonment rather than licence suspensions or cancellations, the Committee would be remiss in its statutory responsibility if it allowed this policy preference to override the principle that the Executive may not create offences punishable by criminal sanctions without clear authority granted by Parliament. It is the responsibility of the Executive to ask the Houses for that authority.

Parliament has a duty to examine regulations to determine that they do not exceed the authority delegated under the law.

Since 1987, 18 years of dealing with this very issue, the joint committee has drawn attention to the improper character of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fisheries regulations. In March 2000, the joint committee reported in part:

Section 36(2) of the Regulations provides that:

36.(2) No holder of a commercial fishing licence shall violate any of the terms or conditions of the licence.

This provision was created with a view to making a contravention of a term or condition of a licence an offence under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.

Section 78 of the act provides as follows:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, every person who contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of

(a) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both; or

(b) an indictable offence and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.

A term or condition of a licence is not a provision of the act or the regulations, and a violation of such a term or condition does not constitute a contravention of the act or regulations within its meaning. The enactment of a general prohibition against contravention of a term or condition of a licence as part of the Ontario fishery regulations, 1989 is designed to attract the application of section 78 of the act.

While the person contravening the licence term or condition is not liable to the penalties set out in the Fisheries Act, following the enactment of subsection 36(2) of the regulations, that person would be liable for a breach of subsection 36(2) of the regulations. Subsection 36(2) then is intended merely to bridge the gap between a contravention of a term or condition of licence and the penalties provided for in the statute. In effect, this regulatory provision is intended to do indirectly what could not be done directly, namely to impose a criminal liability for the breach of a term or condition of a licence.

There is not a commercial fisherman in the country who, if he understood what was happening here, would agree with the minister in imposing such a rule.

We can go on with technicalities but as my time is running out I will just make a few other points. This issue has been with us for 18 years, not since 3 days ago when the minister tabled a bill without giving anyone any information about it and hoped to ram it through the House because it was supposed to be a minuscule bill. We see how minuscule it with the outcry that we have seen across the country.

However since no corrective action has been taken by the Department of Fisheries in the past 18 years, the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has presented a report that regulations should be repealed. The government says that Bill C-52 would fix the problem. We disagree. Bill C-52 is a power grab by the department to give itself sweeping authority to create imprisonable offences within licences and to remove those licences from the scrutiny of regulations committee.

Licences are not examined by the cabinet and are not passed by Parliament and yet people could be imprisoned for violating a licence.

The government has known for 18 years it was acting without authority. The Liberal government now asks Parliament to ignore its failures and to allow the regulations to stand. It asks Parliament to say that Canadians should be fined up to half a million dollars and imprisoned for two years less a day, without the authority of law, only on the basis of a violation of a licence.

Bill C-52 has not passed the House, may never pass and we probably will not see it again, and yet the Liberal government wants to continue with its illegal regime because it has introduced the bill.

The rule of law and the rights of Canadians to be subject to laws passed by Parliament are at stake. That is the big question. The rule of law is what we are trying to contravene. The Liberal government knows that the regulation is illicit. It knows it has not passed enabling legislation and it knows it has had over a decade to fix the problem.

Parliament should report the rule of law, protect the rights of Canadians and tell the department and government that they have run out of time. The regulations should be repealed. It dishonours the Crown. The rule of law should trump government inaction.

[Fisheries Act, June 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, having to sit through this all day, I know you are now very familiar with some of the fishery problems throughout the country and, heaven knows, we might have our first female minister of fisheries very soon. I think I could say that would probably be an improvement.

My colleague, who is quite familiar with some of the fishing problems in his province, knows full well that there are some extremely serious issues facing the country. We have spent all afternoon dealing with a two clause bill. People might ask why we would spend so much time. It is simply because that little two clause bill would have a major effect on every fisherperson in this country. Every species that is fished and the people who fish them would be affected if the legislation came into place, which is why we had to bring this out.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that there are other major issues that are never debated in this House. It is amazing. It is only when we have questions, although we never get clear answers from the minister. At times it is frustrating to know that we have problems on the west coast with the salmon fishery and numerous fisheries. We have problems on the east coast and all kinds of problems in between. Yet, except for the standing committee, a tremendous standing committee where a lot of these issues are discussed, seldom do we hear the fishery issue being debated in the House. The only time we see the minister give anybody the opportunity is when some seemingly minuscule bill comes in that they try to ram through. As my colleague from Delta--Richmond East said earlier, this is something that we are aware of, and the Bloc and the NDP have caught on to the fact that this is extremely important legislation.

I just wonder if the member, in the 30 seconds he has left, would tell us whether or not we should be debating other important issues concerning the fisheries.

[Fisheries Act, June 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I hope the minister and his officials were listening when the member just spoke because they would have received a much clearer understanding of the bill than we have seen from them today.

The bill itself is just a two clause bill, very short clauses in fact. The government would like us to believe that it is a minuscule bill with no problems and a slight change in regulations. We should rubber stamp it and send it on.

Let me ask my colleague, is it not a fact that the changes in these clauses not only affect the people of Ontario but people involved in the fishery right across the country? This is a major change which could have a very negative effect on everyone involved in every fishery in this country. That is my reading and from high authorities I am told that this is correct. That is not at all what we are hearing from the other side.

I would like the member's opinion on that. What effects will the changes in these regulations have on fishermen, for instance, in his area, a long way away from Ontario?