Loyola Hearn

[Iraq, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. If Canada were serious about contributing to the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, it would already have put in place a team to coordinate those efforts. That is what Canada did in the early 1980s when we helped the world deal with the famine in Ethiopia. Back then the team was established under the leadership of the Hon. David MacDonald to coordinate Canada's efforts across departments.

Why has the government not taken a similar step today? Why has no one person been put in charge of coordinating our preparations?

[Iraq, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister insists that Canada will play a role in the reconstruction of Iraq but will not say to whom he is talking or what he is telling them. Yesterday he told reporters that he might favour a federal model for Iraq and that Canada might offer advice on that issue.

Perhaps the acting prime minister will be more specific. Is Canada pushing for Iraq to become a federation? If so, to whom specifically are we making the case and with whom specifically are we working to establish the fundamentals of the new regime?

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments. The hon. gentleman from the Liberal party is well respected for his thorough knowledge and research on issues that affect the country and, as illustrated tonight, a good grasp of issues affecting the fishery.

I do not agree with everything he said. I could probably argue with some of his observations on how the fishery changed over the years, how the funding changed the fishery and whatever. There are elements of truth in everything but there are arguments that can be made on some of the points. However these are insignificant at the present time.

A number of factors have brought us to where we are. Some of them we know, some of them we do not. I was impressed when he raised the issue of the munitions dumps off our coast. Are they having an effect, we do not know. However we know they are out there and they has been kept under wraps for a number of years. It is only now we are starting to understand that they could be having an effect.

One thing we do know is, whether it be inshore, offshore, foreigners or locals, it does not matter, over the years the fishery was completely, utterly and poorly managed and everybody contributed to the decline. Having said that, we are at a crisis situation right now. The member has visited the province on a number of occasions and I thank him for his kind comments about our great province and the people. He is so right, as others who have visited our province will attest.

However, at the present time, one of the issues that has to be addressed is foreign overfishing. I tend to agree with him. Even though I would like to say, “Let's go out there and take over control”, we know that is easier said than done. It is pretty easy to be political and say that the government should do it.

He used the word “unilaterally”. I us the word “management” of the resources. Perhaps management of the resources in that area could be done in conjunction with other people who are participants in the harvesting of that resource, who share in that resource through legitimate quotas. Many of them, because of no proper management and no enforcement regime, do whatever they want to do. There are a lot of conscientious countries involved, such as ourselves, in harvesting that resource and sticking to the rules, regulations, quotas, et cetera.

Could we, through the leadership of our government and our minister of fisheries, bring onside others who recognize the fact that there has to be a management regime and an enforcement regime, regardless perhaps in the beginning under whose auspices it is created? Maybe it could be through NAFO.

If the resource is managed and we have the proper enforcement surveillance, our problem is solved. It would be nice and we as the adjacent state should be the custodial management. We also are the main contributor to NAFO and we also are the main beneficiary, on paper at least, of the resource.

With the proper leadership, it will not have to be a unilateral decision. it could be a strong collective decision to set up the proper mechanism desired. Does the member think something like that could be possible or practical?

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned during his debate the future of the fishery. A well-known Newfoundland philosopher once said that the future of the fishery is a thing of the past. I am afraid we are nearing that point.

In my own speech I mentioned that the hon. member represents what once was one of the greatest fishing districts in the country. I would like him, not for our sake but for the sake of the thousands of people who are sitting down to supper enthralled by what they see on CPAC--at least I hope they are watching and listening--to tell us in the brief time he has about the effect of the decline of the fishery on his own area, because in all parts of the province the greatest devastation was probably caused to his own district.

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will reverse roles and ask the hon. member a question.

The big problem we have in dealing with international negotiations is not with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That is the problem with governments and bureaucracies. We all have a certain role to play and we must live within that role. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cannot take a lead role internationally because he has to kowtow to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We have had submissions to our committee from the department. I do not know whether other members ever felt like getting up in a meeting and catching somebody, and just throwing them through the window. That is the way committee members felt, especially those representing our province, when we heard people telling us we could interfere with these other countries because we might disrupt some trading relations. We make sure that people in France can sell their wine, and we do not want to disturb that, while people who live around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador go without because foreigners are destroying our resource.

I ask the member, in light of his involvement, and he has been around federally a lot longer than I have, has he found the same thing, that one department that might be willing to do something has been stymied by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, the hon. member for Burin—St. George's who just spoke represents what used to be the greatest deep sea or offshore fishing district in the country. There were major plants that worked not for a few weeks a year, as a lot of people think happens in the fishery, but year round. There were boats arriving day after day providing work for thousands of people. He saw it all disappear, as I did in my area.

I have discussed this issue with other countries, specifically Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and even Russia. In Russia's case, it is trying to find out more about management and scientific knowledge in order to find out where more fish will be so its fishermen could catch more. The other countries, specifically Norway and Iceland, have real concerns about what is happening to our stocks.

I am sure that with the proper approach countries like that will be leaders with us in pushing toward the proper management and enforcement of our laws and rules.

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Alliance. He is a typical example of a member in whose district we went last year as part of the committee and assisted him in some of his issues.

Perhaps a year ago he knew little about Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly nothing about the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. He now understands the resource. We have heard him clearly debate and talk about a Canadian resource that needs to be preserved for the people of Canada. That is what this is about. It might be ours today, but it may be someone else's tomorrow.

It is about the fish stocks in the Great Lakes and the concerns about invasive species. It is about the hake fishery on the west coast and the salmon in the Fraser. They are renewable resources that we are losing because of cutbacks, lack of leadership, lack of science, and lack of caring at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is not too late to stop. While we have two fish left there is a chance if we believe the old story of the ark. All the animals went in pairs. They say worms went in apples.

We can rebuild the resource and we see other Canadians starting to understand. We are all in this together. A rich Newfoundland and Labrador is a contributor, not one that is perceived as having its hands out. Some day we will have a good debate on what we are contributing so people will really understand, but it is to everyone's benefit to create wealth in different parts of the country. We dig out our minerals and they are gone, we pump our oil out and it is gone, but the fishery can be renewed over and over and enhanced. What a tremendous food resource for the world.

That is why we are pushing it. The member mentioned the seal herds. When we had a biomass 100 times greater than we have now, we had fewer than a billion seals. Now we have 1% of that total amount and we have perhaps a 700% or 800% increase in the seal herds. I know there are nature lovers out there and everything else, but surely everyone must respect the fact that there must be a balance in nature. There is an imbalance right now. These things must be controlled.

Leadership can be done simply. It takes a bit of leadership and intestinal fortitude and we are there.

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his interjection. It was about a little over a year ago that I first introduced this resolution to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, asking it to deal with the overfishing issue. At the time, originally I just gave notice and talked to a number of our members who began to understand something about what it involved. However as they began to understand it, they began to support it.

Last March the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans came to Newfoundland and Labrador. We had meetings in St. John's and we had presentations from every agency involved in the fishery. We also had presentations from the mayors of a couple of communities, Trepassey and Burgeo, that had been affected by the downturn. They told stories of the people who lived in their towns heading off to the mainland looking for work.

My hon. colleague from Grand Bank represents the area of Burin--St. George's. His area was affected the same way. Our young people are heading off somewhere else to look for work. Fish plants have closed down. People have been left with no resource, no work and no income. We have lost 10% of our population in 10 years.

The members heard these stories and realized that we were talking about a major renewable resource that brought millions and millions of dollars into the province and consequently into the country, and we were doing nothing about preserving it. We have had solid support from every person on this side of the House and a lot of people on the other side. What we have not had is leadership from the very people who can really do something about it. I guess we have to keep pushing the issue until they also learn and appreciate, as the rest of us have done.

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented on Tuesday, March 25, be concurred in.

There is a reason we ask that the report be concurred in. It was a unanimous report presented to the House by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Actually it was a second round of such a report.

The first one that was presented six or eight months ago was rejected by the minister within minutes of presentation. However, afterward I think the minister wished he had not said some of the things that he had said at the time and has discussed the contents of that report quite openly with the members of the committee and others.

However there is one crucial element in the report with which the minister and the government, apparently, have now agreed and that is dealing with the management of the transboundary stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and in the area we call the Flemish Cap.

I can list a number of reasons for it being necessary to bring this second report to the House. First, it was recently tabled. It is perhaps one of the first times that a committee felt it necessary to come back to the House with a second report on the same topic, mainly in response to the minister's reaction to the original one.

The committee, which is made up of representatives from all parts of the country, from the far east to the far west and all points in between, unanimously thought that it was time for Canada to take control of its resources.

In the meantime, we have a crisis in the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada, particularly as it pertains to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but not exclusively. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island to a degree, and certainly Quebec are all affected by the downturn in the groundfishery, the lack of scientific knowledge in relation to such a fishery and the complete lack of government action in addressing the concerns. One of the main concerns is the overfishing.

The minister, within hours or days but certainly within a week or so, will be making announcements on the government's plan to address the declining stocks and the state of the fishery in Atlantic Canada.

Before that happens I think it is only right and proper that we re-emphasize to the House generally the importance of dealing with such a major issue in a responsible and positive way, and not just reaction. We have to be proactive and look ahead to the future of the fishery if there is going to be such a thing. If we follow past examples and past practices, there will not be a future for the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada.

Some of what I am saying could be true if I were speaking about the fisheries on the west coast. Many of the reasons our stocks are down are similar to the reasons the stocks are down on the west coast of Canada and in other parts.

The minister will be making an announcement based on whatever scientific information he has. The minister and others will admit that they do not have a lot of information, mainly because our scientific base within the department has been cut to the bone. At a time when scientific advice and research are so badly needed, we do not have the resources nor the personnel to do that all inclusive research.

Having said that, I certainly want to pay tribute to the few scientists who, through the horrendous burdens placed on their shoulders, continue to do their best to present logical information upon which the minister will base his decisions. However, because that scientific information is so limited, the minister must look elsewhere for some guidance.

The all party committee from Newfoundland and Labrador again presented a unanimous report. If there is one province in this country that plays politics it is Newfoundland and Labrador, and never the twain shall meet. That has been the past practice in our province.

The Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP all came together, all seven members of Parliament, irrespective of their political stripes, the full membership of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador, the senators, again representing both parties here in Ottawa, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the New Democratic Party, unanimously submitted a report making suggestions as to how to deal with this crisis.

The minister met with the committee and accepted the report. To his credit, he said that he would look carefully at it and use whatever recommendations he could, hopefully all of them, to address this serious situation which we find ourselves facing in Atlantic Canada.

As we talk about this and as time drags by, the small amount of cod fish that is left in Atlantic Canada is disappearing bit by bit. If we compare today's biomass to that of 15 or 20 years ago, we are at about 1% of the total biomass.

Those of us who have studied history know that John Cabot was one of the first Europeans to come here. I will not say that he discovered Newfoundland, but it was the start of the settlement of the new world. John Cabot came here in 1497, five years after Christopher Columbus. He went back to his homeland with stories that the fish were so plentiful that baskets could be put into the sea and fish would be caught.

In my own day I have seen fish that plentiful at times. I could look into the ocean and see fish swimming all over the place. When we were catching fish in cod traps, quite often the minute we dropped the traps we could start dipping because the traps would be full. Caplin were coming ashore with fish basically chasing them. If we stood on the shore nowhere near the fishing grounds, we could see the cod fish swimming around. That is how plentiful they were.

Those fish have disappeared and there are several reasons: climatic change to some degree, but nobody believes that any more; an increase in the seal herds from under one million to seven or eight million chasing fish, not only cod fish but salmon and other species, all over the place; the imbalance of nature; the lack of scientific research; and heavy overfishing outside our 200 mile limit on our continental shelf, which Canada should be protecting.

People have said that Canada cannot on its own go out and declare custodial management. Why not? Little Iceland did. Other countries threatened Iceland's fish but it sent out its gun boats, fired a shot or two and Britain and all the other countries disappeared. They understood how important the fishery was to Iceland and they eventually worked in co-operation.

The stocks that are abundant on our continental shelf are shared by many nations. Seventeen of those nations belong to an organization called NAFO, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Many of those countries have had allocations and fishing rights on the continental shelf for centuries, as long as we ourselves have had them.

Nobody is saying we will not recognize their historical rights nor will we take away quotas they get. We have been saying that with our best scientific knowledge, unless we use and adhere to the quotas set by NAFO, these stocks will disappear. They are just as concerned as we are. Why does somebody not decide to manage the stocks? Right now if NAFO sets quotas, the countries involved say that they do not agree and they set their own. It cannot work that way. There has to be a proper management regime which has to be enforced. That is the problem with NAFO.

Does Canada have to move in, take over and run it all itself? That would certainly be what we have been asking for and would be ideal. However if we had some leadership, our minister would approach the NAFO countries. Many of them are concerned and would support us because they have the same concerns in their own regions and also want to protect the stocks in our areas. They share in the harvest legitimately. Some adhere to the quotas. Others do not. However we have not seen that leadership.

We should tell NAFO, while we are waiting for it to perhaps appreciate this, that as the adjacent state we can be the best managers on the grounds that we will look after the rights of all NAFO countries the same as our own. They would be protected, quotas would be adhered to and enforced and we would deal with offending nations. What happens now if a nation offends, overfishes or catches species under moratorium? They are rapped on the knuckles, warned and sent home to their own country for retribution. Many of these boats are flying flags of convenience. Nobody even knows who owns them. Nothing happens and they come back here again the next day. That cannot work.

Leadership at the NAFO meetings could start the ball rolling. At least there should be a stronger management regime with an enforcement mechanism set up within NAFO until such time as some country, Canada being the ideal country to do so, can properly manage and enforce management regulations in the area. It is not rocket science. It is simply a word called leadership, and we have not seen it.

In two days time the House will take a two week recess. By the time we get back, the minister undoubtedly will have made his announcements. He will probably make them during the recess so he will not have to face questions in the House. On top of the all party report, there is the second report by the committee which tries to emphasize the fact that it is so important to deal with this issue.

This is not an issue that just affects a handful of fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue affecting all Canadians. It is a Canadian renewable resource, and we do not have a lot left. I was going to say oil is not a renewable resource, but over several generations or centuries it is. Minerals are not renewable for several millions of years. However the fishery is a renewable resource. Properly protected, we can not only preserve what we have at present, we can enhance it for the benefit, not only of a few fishermen but for all Canadians. The spinoff from a resource is tremendous and the amount of work and money that moves through the country because of that resource would astound people.

There is a book called Newfoundland at the Crossroads written by a great friend of mine, John Edward FitzGerald, a former page in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland. He is one of Newfoundland's greatest historians. He talks about Canada's bid to suck Newfoundland into Confederation. Why did Canada want us? It wanted us because of the our great resources.

Many people across the country today who do not know Newfoundland and Labrador would laugh at that and ask, “what resources does your province have”? We have half a million people and we have more raw resources than any province in Canada. We should all be driving Cadillacs and spending our winters down south but as it is, we do not benefit from our own resources, and the fishery is one of them. It has been badly mismanaged since we came into Confederation.

However, even though there is only 1% of the biomass left, the biomass can be revived with proper measures. Just a few days ago we all read stories about thousands of dead cod fish coming ashore in Smith Sound, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. They were huge cod fish, just like the old ones we used to hear stories about, which we have not seen in a long time. Why would dead cod fish be washed ashore? The scientists say that perhaps it is because they came in contact with super cold water.

There is no doubt about it. The shallow water in Newfoundland and Labrador at this time of the year, because of the ice surrounding the province, is super cold. However fish are sensitive to changes in water temperature. That is why they migrate. If that is what killed them, and that analysis is probably legitimate, they did not swim in there intentionally. They were driven there by the thousands of seals that were chasing them. It is almost like watching sheep dogs rounding up sheep out in the pasture. The seals work, co-operate and herd fish into little nooks and crannies and then they can go in, scoop out the underbellies and kill the fish.

We have a number of major issues and the seal herd is certainly one. The other is the overfishing. Both these can be handled but again the word leadership has to come to play. Our minister should go to NAFO, stand up and say that we as Canadians want to protect this resource, not for us alone but for all NAFO members because they have a share in it. Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland openly have discussed the same concerns as we have ourselves.

Some of them, and maybe all of them, would be silently onside in protecting that resource if there were a fair and proper mechanism. Nobody has openly discussed that prospect. We have a few fish and each year there are fewer and fewer. The only thing they do is decide how much we will get and how much they will get. The greedy ones say that they will take more. Then they go out and do whatever they want to do, load and go with whatever species they can get at.

It would not happen anywhere else in the world. It probably would not happen anywhere else in Canada. However it is happening off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are sick and tired of it. It is about time we saw some leadership. If the government does not provide it, then we have no other opportunity except that the people themselves will start doing whatever has to be done to ensure we preserve our resource. That is number one.

We would involve those who are part of the fishery. We would not tell them to forget it. We not tell them that we would close the fishery and that they could go to Alberta to work in the meat packing plant. I like Alberta. They are great friends of ours, but our fishermen would rather fish than work in the meat packing plant. I am sure those who work in the meat industry or the oil industry in Alberta do not necessarily want to come and fish off Newfoundland and Labrador. However when their oil dries up, if we look after our fishery, they might be able to do just that.

We have a chance to do something about this. It is called leadership. There is a standing committee, and I give all the credit in the world to my colleagues, like my colleague from Grand Bank. We have members from the Alliance Party, the NDP, the Bloc and other members of the Liberal Party, all of whom sit on the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans. They have a variety of backgrounds, from farmers to Ontario lawyers, as our chair is, all who have come to understand what it means to preserve our resources.

Let me stress again, we are down to 1% of our biomass of a few years ago. We have a chance. If we lose that, there is no hope. We have a small window and the only chance is to address all the factors: the seal herds, overfishing, bycatch, gear types, and I could go on and on.

Those involved in the fishery are willing to play their parts. All we need is the leadership, and that is why we are asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and government generally, please, before it is too late, let us go to work.

[Points of Order, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in question period the Prime Minister informed the House, and I quote from page 5247 of the House of Commons Debates :

We are the government that proposed and passed legislation to authorize four reports a year [from the Auditor General]. Nobody can say that we do not want the Auditor General to do her work. We proved that we were more open than any other government when we gave the authority for four reports a year.

That statement was made in response to a question from the member for South Shore.

In fact, there were at least 17 requests over the last years, beginning in June 1980, to allow the Auditor General to report more frequently. The bill that authorized the Auditor General to deliver her annual report, plus up to three additional special reports in any year, was Bill C-207. It was a private member's bill introduced on February 1, 1994, by the member of Parliament for Ottawa--Vanier. It was not proposed by the government, as the Prime Minister claimed. It was proposed by the member for Ottawa--Vanier. It was not the government which gave the authority for four reports a year; it was Parliament which did so.

Not content with the few accomplishments of his government, the Prime Minister now finds it necessary to lay claim to one of the rare measures--