Bill Matthews

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

I refuse to accept the observer reports in camera. If I saw them the first thing I would do is get in trouble because once I read them I would tell people what were in them. I would rather not see them, because if I see the observer reports I want to talk about them. I do not want to see them for my information. I want to tell Atlantic Canadians and all other Canadians what is in them.

They are the people who deserve to know. Satisfying my curiosity is not good enough. I represent 158 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. These people want to know what is in the observer reports. What is the point of my looking at the reports in camera and not being able to tell them about it without getting myself in trouble?

Why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not give us the reports so that we could look at them, say what we wanted about them and make public what is in them, is a matter of real debate.

It is the government's way of covering it up. It wants to cover it up and pretend that it is rosy. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans beats his chest about 100% observer coverage. So what? It is like having Jesse James looking after the bank. It is like paying Jesse James to be security at a bank. Jesse would argue that he did not steal any money. The foreigners tell us that they did not violate any of our NAFO regulations and we believe them.

There is a situation nine miles off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador where the French are still catching salmon. The commercial salmon fishery of St. Pierre and Miquelon has increased while our fishermen have been bought out. The French bought our fishing nets and set them nine miles offshore. The salmon fishing has increased. The French tell the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that they are not catching very many salmon, and the minister believes them. Yet the French do not have one salmon river that contributes to the resource. All they do is take out.

These are the kinds of situations that we get from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from the parliamentary secretary and from others over there who are big wigs in government. They try to bamboozle the public. They try to give a false impression but the people are seeing through it.

I finish by saying that I was very pleased to be a part of the east coast report, to have participated in the committee, to listen to Atlantic Canadians, and to express their desires and wishes to the government. However, I am sorry to say the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not take the report very seriously.

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

No, it will not. It will not take the parliamentary secretary very long to deal with it because he knows what I am saying is correct. He knows full well.

How could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be so delighted with 100% observer coverage on foreign vessels by foreigners who are paid by foreigners? We do not get to see the observer reports. They can tell us what they like.

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

The parliamentary secretary is as proud as the minister to talk about the 100% observer coverage. Observers come from the European Community. Observers are hired by the European Community. They are not Canadian observers. They are Spanish and Portuguese. In fact they are mostly British observers who are paid by the owners of the vessels they observe on. So what?

We have 100% observers but the price we have to pay is the giving away of shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks to have observer coverage for another two years when it will be reviewed again. We may not have 100% observer coverage after two years. The foreigners may reject it in two years. That is what I am told. I am not saying it is correct. I am told that in two years it is up for review. The parliamentary secretary will have an occasion to respond to my remarks. If I am wrong he can set the record straight.

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

The hon. member keeps shouting “misinformation”. The government is good at trying to turn the truth into misinformation. The hon. member cannot deny the obvious. The hon. member would not know, but since the NAFO meetings in Lisbon there has been a huge outcry about the shrimp situation on the nose of the Grand Banks. A lot of people have their you know what in the wringer over this situation. It is a very serious situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada. We suffer most when foreigners fish on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador; not central Canada or western Canada but Atlantic Canada.

Another recommendation in our report dealt with the early retirement post-TAGS program. The committee in its wisdom, after listening to those thousands and thousands of people affected, recommended that if the government came forward with an early retirement program it should develop a formula consisting of age plus attachment to the industry.

We recommended that. Everyone that came to our meetings recommended that. However, once again the minister of HRDC in particular did not accept the recommendation. I am sad to say that because thousands of people with 30, 32, 34 and 35 years of attachment to the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada have fallen through the cracks of the early retirement program.

I do not want to see anyone with anything taken away. We can look at someone 55 years of age with 10 years of attachment to the industry who will receive early retirement benefits. Then we can look at a person 54 years of age with 35 years of attachment to the industry who will not receive any early retirement benefits. There is an obvious unfairness and injustice.

Why the government did not accept that recommendation I will never understand. I have consistently said that there was not a need for the government to allocate any more than the $730 million it allocated to the program. There could have been a redirection inside the fund to take care of this problem.

I suggested very strongly to the minister of HRDC and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in written form and verbally that they should have redirected the $100 million allocated to ACOA for community regional development. They could have redirected some of that money to early retirement and taken care of those people with 30 to 35 years of attachment to the industry.

There is a very serious situation unfolding in Atlantic Canada today. I know about the riding of Burin—St. Georges which I represent. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always in large numbers gone away to look for work. They have always gone to Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta. It has been part of our life. However, in the rural communities of Burin—St. Georges and rural communities of other ridings that make up our province the out-migration is frightening. It is very difficult in most of our communities to find anyone under 45 years of age. Most of them are 50 years of age plus. Most of them are retired people or the few who hold government jobs.

That is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador and in a lot of communities in Atlantic Canada today. It is as a direct result of what has happened to our fishing industry, what has happened to our fish resource, our fish stocks.

Our report recommended a change in DFO policy and attitude so that as our stocks regenerate and rebuild there would at least be a future for Atlantic Canadians in the fishing industry. All we got in response from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was that he cast the report aside. He tried to downplay the report. He did not take the recommendations of the committee very seriously.

I am very disappointed by that because as all members of the House know the majority of members of the standing committee like all other committees are government members. There were nine of them. Nine of them participated in the writing of the report. Nine of them supported the recommendations of the report. Nine of sixteen government members wrote and supported the recommendations.

What did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do? He just threw it aside and said “hogwash, bunk”. The biggest problem in the fishing industry on the east and west coasts today is that the people in the industry do not have confidence in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because of that kind of attitude. At least the minister could have taken the report and very seriously reviewed and considered it. He could have at least responded to it in a meaningful way, which he refused to do.

The report from the committee generated a lot of attention in Atlantic Canada. There were 15 public meetings. Thousands of people appeared before the committee. They expected something to follow from the report and from the recommendations. All they got was more arrogance and more nose-thumbing from the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean, which is not acceptable.

We have some very serious problems in Atlantic Canada with the unemployed and the out-migration. There are some positive signs in some of our fishing zones, particularly in our southern zones, that our fish stocks are regenerating. In the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that I represent this year we had a commercial cod fishery with a total allowable catch which increased from 20,000 metric tons to 30,000 metric tons.

Fishermen I grew up with and worked with in the fishing industry when I was working my way through university tell me that there is more fish in the southern zones today than they have seen for the last 15 year. They have no reason to mislead me. I am one of them. I grew up with them. I am concerned about them. They tell me there are good signs of fish in the southern zones.

With the northeast coast northern cod stocks the signs are not so great, but within the last few weeks I was pleased to hear scientists say that there is at least some small sign of some regeneration in the northern cod stocks.

Our committee did not only hear about cod. We heard about red fish, turbot, lobster and scallops. You name it, we heard about it. The shellfish industry particularly is still a very solid industry. There are some very good earnings. Fishermen are doing very well. There is still a very good fishing industry in Atlantic Canada in other species.

I want to allude to the NAFO meetings and the observer coverage on foreign vessels.

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

We are dealing with fish, I say to the parliamentary secretary; something which he did not know a lot about a year ago. He knew a lot about spuds, but he did not know a lot about fish. He still knows more about potatoes than he knows about fish.

This is a very disturbing situation for a number of reasons. The foreigners will not be content in five, six or ten years just to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks because then they will claim historic attachment and they will want to catch cod and flounder and so on.

If we were to listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and top management at DFO, they would lead us to believe that Spain and Portugal are not overfishing, that they are not catching cod on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks.

I want to inform the House that right now, as I speak, Portugal and Spain have huge amounts of headed flatfish, American plaice, yellowtail flounder and gray sole for sale in frozen form in their warehouses. Where did they get this frozen flatfish? There is only one place they could have gotten it: from fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They got the flatfish as a bycatch for cod. How much cod did they take to have these huge amounts of flatfish, American plaice, yellowtail flounder and gray sole for sale? Yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his top management people will try to convince Atlantic Canadians particularly that they have Spain and Portugal under control. What malarkey.

It is just as bad out there today as it was 10 years ago. The Government of Canada has made it worse by now allowing the same people to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks.

The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. He shakes his head a lot these days. He shakes his head about the problems with the fishery and he shakes his head about some of the problems his own colleagues are experiencing. He shakes, shakes and shakes his head.

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

I say to the hon. member that I am not wrong again and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated that the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have supported this move. That is still debatable.

It is very widely debated in Newfoundland whether or not the government of Newfoundland agreed.

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

The hon. member would not know a fact about the fishery if he fell on it.

There is still foreign fishing going on and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a number of times, in appearing before the standing committee, has said that if there are Canadian interests which still want fish to be caught by foreigners he will make that fish available to them.

I want to go on record this morning as saying that I know of at least two Canadian enterprises which at present have submissions before DFO looking for fish that is now being caught by foreigners.

Since I am on the topic of foreign fishing I cannot bypass the opportunity to comment for a few moments on the recent NAFO meetings in Lisbon, Portugal.

In those Lisbon, Portugal meetings, for the first time since 1949, for the first time since Newfoundland joined Confederation, the co-ordinates of the fishing zones on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap have been altered.

It is the first time since 1949 that we see a change in area 3M which we always refer to as the nose of the Grand Banks. There has been a change which will allow foreigners to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks for the first time since 1949.

For members who do not know, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks are considered nursery areas. It is where juvenile fish grow. It has great feeding potential. Fish grow very well there. We try to protect the nose and the tail of the banks for that reason.

What has Canada done? Just a few short weeks ago in Lisbon it agreed to alter fishing zone 3M to allow foreigners to catch shrimp in the nursery area. It is the first time. It is now an area known as 3MA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much want to take part in this debate this morning to speak to the east coast fisheries report that was presented to parliament on March 23.

It was quite an undertaking for members of the committee to go about Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec to hold 15 public meetings in the presence of thousands of people from the fishing industry.

I recall very well the large numbers of people at places like Tors Cove, Burgeo and Îles-de-la-Madeleine who came for hours to pass on their views and their observations to the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The report the committee submitted to parliament reflects the feelings, the sentiments and the desires of people in those provinces, and the changes that should take place in DFO policy particularly. It was quite an undertaking, an undertaking that has not been undertaken by any other standing committee of parliament to my recollection.

The report received quite a bit of attention, as everyone knows. But the recommendations of the report were those desires, wishes and recommendations that came from the public hearings that were held in the various provinces we visited. We held 15 meetings and listened to thousands of people involved in the fishing industry. Fishermen, fish plant workers, trawlermen, retired trawlermen and people who had held top management positions with fish processing companies came before the committee to give their views.

One of the contentious issues was the state of our fish stocks, particularly our cod stocks, the effect of foreign overfishing and what foreign overfishing has done to the fish stocks over the years. Everyone recognizes that foreign overfishing has declined, but it has mainly declined because it is not financially viable for foreign countries to come so far from home to catch diminished amounts of cod and diminished amounts of flounder. The main reason they are not coming over to catch the fish is because it is not financially viable to do so.

I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head. He is probably shaking his head in disbelief. He is shaking his head in disbelief or he is shaking his head at the truth. I am not quite sure.

[Petitions, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present this petition on behalf of approximately 8,700 people from Atlantic Canada who are calling upon the federal government to make changes to its post-TAGS early retirement program to devise a formula consisting of age plus years of attachment to the fishing industry.

There are grave injustices and inequities in the present program. People who are 53 and 54 years of age with 35 and 36 years of attachment do not qualify for the government's early retirement program. Yet someone who is 55 years of age and with 8 to 10 years of attachment to the industry are eligible for benefits.

This petition asks government to reconsider the early retirement program and to devise a formula consisting of age plus years of attachment.

[Fisheries, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, individuals 53 and 54 years of age with 35 years of attachment to the Atlantic fishing industry do not qualify for the government post-TAGS early retirement program. People who are 55 with 10 years of attachment to the industry receive benefits.

Would the Minister of Human Resources Development devise a formula of age plus attachment to the industry and redirect funds from the $730 million post-TAGS fund to consider those people with 30, 32 and 35 years of attachment to the industry and give them—