Bill Matthews

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members present vote yes on this motion.

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

[Tobacco Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members present vote yes on this motion.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment and question.

It is obvious what people in those situations must do. With weekly incomes of these amounts, they cannot send their children to school fed. If they cannot find a job and the EI rates are $25 or $31 a week, then it is a sad reflection and a sad thing to have to say there is only one recourse. That is for them to go down to see the welfare officer at the social assistance office.

As I said in my opening remarks, for some of us who are fortunate, and that is almost all of us that sit in this chamber, we cannot identify with what $40, $50, $70 or $80 more a week really means to the people this provision helps. There is only once recourse for those people, which is to go and see the welfare officer.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for some reason the parliamentary secretary wants to burn me. He wants to call it Burn—St. George's.

On a serious note I did say that it was a positive initiative. They have been positive adjustment programs. We only hope the government in its wisdom continues with one form or the other.

Let me say to the parliamentary secretary, it basically means that if someone has 14 weeks of $300 earnings and six weeks or seven weeks of less than $150 earnings, then the bundling of small weeks which applies in Atlantic Canada keeps the average weekly earnings up. Consequently the EI rate keeps up and they get a higher benefit. Without the bundling of weeks adjustment program, the average weekly income would drop. Consequently they would get lower EI. That is the positive. Those are the specifics.

I can tell the parliamentary secretary that in Burin—St. George's thousands and thousands of people have found the bundling of small weeks to be very positive. It is beneficial to them and their families.

The current surplus in the EI fund is there in part because the government reduced the EI benefits across the board. The government cannot use the argument that the money is not there to continue with the adjustment programs. There is a surplus in the EI account. It is a surplus that has been contributed to—

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for putting the motion forward today for debate in the House. It is a matter that is of great concern to many of us who represent areas of high unemployment.

There was great public debate throughout the country when the government reformed the EI regulations. There are still many people who do not fully understand the impact of the changes to the EI Act and the EI regulations.

Ten days ago I met with five union leaders from my riding who were very concerned about changes to the EI regulations and about the employment insurance small weeks adjustment program. I am very pleased to see that the Minister of Human Resources Development is listening. I look forward to the minister's involvement in the debate later today.

Many of us in the House of Commons cannot identify with what $40, $50 or $80 a week means to many low income families. It means that they are able to send their children to school fed, to buy some books and clothing, and to heat their homes. To some of us this amount of money does not seem like a lot, but to many people in high unemployment areas it is bread and butter on the table.

Adjustment programs and projects have been very positive. We should go out and about in our ridings to talk to people who through no fault of their own cannot get full time work, get called in for 20 or 25 hours a week and in many cases get paid the minimum wage. If it was not for the adjustment programs their EI rates would be severely cut.

I go on record as saying that adjustment programs have been very positive. I have written the minister and discussed the issue with him as late as Friday. Because we are running out of time quickly I am hoping the minister will bring in his evaluation of the two adjustment programs and make a decision that is positive for the thousands and thousands of workers throughout Canada who are relying or counting on the minister to make the right decision, to continue with the adjustment projects and to make them permanent.

We should not have to come back here in 18 or 24 months and face another deadline because another temporary measure will be running out. As a result of adjustment programs and the minister's evaluation we need some permanency in those programs. Workers should not have to go another 12, 18 or 24 months and be faced with the same deadline, not knowing if the bundling of small weeks or the elimination of small weeks, whichever the minister chooses, will be upon them again.

I appeal to the minister to move quickly, to make a positive decision and to make the decision permanent. It is very important.

I know Atlantic Canada best. Ridings such as Burin—St. George's have been devastated because of a downturn in the groundfish industry as a result of the collapse of cod stocks. People who have worked 12 months of the year for most of their lives are striving today to get enough weeks of work to qualify for EI. It has an effect on me, having grown up and worked with those people, to see what they are going through today.

Then people in corner stores and retail outlets are clawed back and get only 15 or 20 hours a week because the primary industry. the fishery, is pretty much gone. They rely very heavily on an adjustment program. If they happen to get 12 full weeks of work and make $250 the employer can only pull them into work for six or seven weeks more and they make less than $150 a week. It is very important that the weekly earnings average not be decreased, and that is what those projects do. They are very positive for those people. They keep their weekly earnings average up and consequently keep their EI benefits rate up.

In my meeting with union people about 10 days ago there were people sitting around the table who worked in fish plants and in stores. They know the impact of this program. They told me that without adjustment projects, without the bundling of small weeks, their EI benefits would be so significantly reduced they would not be able to maintain their households. That is what it means. That is the implication.

My colleague introduced his motion very well. He explained the criteria of the projects very well. I go on record as supporting the motion. I appeal to the minister. In a discussion with him on Friday he told me that he was working hard on this program. I respect and appreciate that.

We have about three weeks left. I hope we will get the minister's evaluation very soon. I hope we will get a positive decision very soon so that the thousands of people out and about the country will take some comfort in knowing there will be some stability and permanency in the minister's decision.

Whether it is the bundling of small weeks or the elimination of small weeks as in Ontario and out west, both adjustment programs have been very positive. It comes down to which one the minister chooses. Will he choose the bundling of small weeks or will he choose the elimination of small weeks?

I hope the minister will participate in the debate later and we will get some sense of where he is coming from. I am looking forward to the participation of members on all sides of the House in the debate. Most of us represent people who are benefiting from adjustment programs. We all have some people in our ridings that have benefited from this adjustment program. I look forward to their speaking in support of the motion as I do. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “and amend the legislation” the word “forthwith”.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, October 26th, 1998]

Yes, they swim around the globe.

The other troublesome point is that fishermen for years warned the federal government of the impending disaster. On the west coast of Canada, British Columbia, fish harvesters are warning the federal government of the same problems. The government is ignoring what is happening in British Columbia and the problems are increasing and getting bigger.

I support the bill to include fish harvesters in conservation, in licensing and in fish stock assessments. How can anyone argue against it? How can anyone be against those who are directly involved in the harvesting of fish resources having more involvement? Have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans listen to them and take into account what they are telling it, then weigh that in the decision making process so that wiser decisions are made in the future than have been made in the past. God knows if there is one federal government department that has made unwise decisions over the years, it has been the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I support the bill. I commend my colleague for bringing it forward. I commend those who have stood in their place today to support this piece of legislation.

If we involve those people in a more meaningful fashion, it will mean that we will make better decisions. We will have greater fish resources for the future. We will not go through the crisis in Atlantic Canada and the west coast of Canada that we are going through today.

People are unemployed. Out-migration is staggering. The survival of rural Canada is seriously threatened today. When I go through my riding of Burin—St. George's it is difficult to find anyone left in those communities who is under 45 years of age. What future is there for people? This has been forced upon people because there is no employment.

The Government of Canada mismanaged our fish resources. It has to take responsibility. All we are asking is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government involve the people who harvest those fish resources. Include their assessments in decision making and make wiser decisions for the fish resources so that people who depend on those resources will be better off in the future.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate today in debate on Bill C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member who just concluded. How can anyone stand in his or her place and be against involving fishers or fishermen in stock assessment, fish conservation, the setting of fish quotas and fishing licences? How can anyone be against that consultation and involvement process?

As well I listened with interest to the hon. member for Miramichi when he talked about a fish bill of rights. I could not help but wonder, as the member made that suggestion, if he had consulted with the fish and what response he got back. I wonder if the fish are positive to his view that there should be a fish bill of rights.

I say that in a light manner because what we are talking about in Bill C-302 is involving those people directly in the harvesting of fish, in stock assessments, in licensing and in the setting of quotas and so on. As my my hon. colleague who spoke before me said, for years in Atlantic Canada people involved in the fishing industry, the harvesters, warned the federal governments of the day that we were heading for a crisis in our groundfish stock, particularly our cod stocks. Year after year the federal government ignored those people, and we all know the consequences now.

Hundreds of our rural communities are on the verge of extinction. There is no employment in those communities because there is no fish to harvest and consequently no fish to process.

I commend my colleague for bringing forward this fishers bill of rights. It is a step in the right direction.

I want to speak for a moment about the public right to fish. My hon. colleague who spoke just before me mentioned what we call the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. He talked about five fish a day and so many people in a boat.

In Newfoundland and Labrador for all of our lives we have been allowed to go out and catch a fish for supper. That has all changed in the last four or five years. We cannot get in our boats and go out and fish any more. We have to wait for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to inform us if he is going to allow us to catch a fish and then he sets the date. Over the last couple of years he has given us one weekend to fish. He basically has given us three days to fish for our food fishery.

Nova Scotia, P.E.I, New Brunswick and parts of Quebec get a 68-day food fishery. We get three days. It is something we were allowed to do all of our lives, and now we can only fish if the minister allows us to fish and for a maximum of three days. That is very difficult for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to accept. We are catching the same fish that the people in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec are catching. They are the same fish stocks. They swim back and forth. These are the fish that Nova Scotians catch, and we catch and so on. Somehow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his parliamentary secretary, who I see shaking his head in disapproval, do not understand that fish swim.

Why should we not be allowed to fish for 68 days for a food fishery. If the parliamentary secretary can fish for 68 days in Prince Edward Island, why can we not do it? It is the same fish. What he is allowing people in Nova Scotia to fish for 68 days is the same fish stock we can fish for three days.

If only some of them over there knew a little bit about fish, what a relief it would be.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party for her comments, as well as all of those who participated.

As one member of this House of Commons I wonder really what is going on in the minds of Canadians when they reflect upon this APEC situation. How can they understand that the Prime Minister and the solicitor general will not provide legal counsel for those students?

How can anyone have faith with the whole process? How can anyone have faith in us as parliamentarians when we see a government take action such as it did against the former chairman of the fisheries and oceans committee and against the member for Vancouver Quadra who basically spoke the opinions of Canadians?

Polling shows that what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said is really the wishes of Canadians and the wishes of the students, that legal counsel be provided.

I ask the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party how she thinks Canadians view this situation. How can they have faith in the legal system of this country? How can they have faith in the operations of this very parliament when the Prime Minister and the solicitor general have denied a basic right to those students?

[Committees Of The House, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the west coast has problems that are different and unique.

The problems on the west coast are the direct result of the policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What it has done on the west coast, more so than it has done on the east coast, is it goes under the guise of consultations. It goes about having these consultative hearings but it does not listen to a word that is said. Consequently the minister has had a great charade out there of consultations, but he has not listened to the people.

Those in top management in DFO continue in spite of those consultations in their old ways. Consequently we see the west coast fishery coming apart the same as has happened on the east coast. The same management personnel that have made decisions for the last 10 or 15 years are still there making the same decisions.

If the government is going to go about it right, make some changes in top management and when consulting with the people, listen to the people. Take their message seriously and make some changes.

[Committees Of The House, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is Burin—St. George's. I am sure if the hon. member for St. John's East were here, being a Newfoundlander he would want to respond, but I will take the opportunity to answer the parliamentary secretary.

When I was talking about the changes to the co-ordinates for the first time since 1949 in moving a line in area 3M to be now called 3MA to allow foreigners to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks, for some reason in his speech the parliamentary secretary conveniently forgot to allude to that.

This is a very serious situation. We are now allowing foreigners to catch shrimp in the nursery area of the Grand Banks for the first time since 1949. As I said before, they have fished shrimp for five or six years. Then we go off to another NAFO meeting and the foreigners will say “Now we have been into that new 3MA zone for five years, we have historical fishing rights there so we want cod and flounder there”. I say to the parliamentary secretary that is what is going to happen. And the government will try to justify that by saying “But yes, we have 100% observer coverage. On every vessel we will have an observer, a foreign observer on a foreign vessel”.

There is no protection. All it does is make the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans feel good. He pounds his chest about 100% observer coverage, but they are foreign observers on foreign boats.