Bill Matthews

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me on this very important date. I have listened with great interest to the views of all members this morning and this afternoon. I am pleased to say that this is a serious debate which is being taken very seriously by all members on all sides of the House.

I want to start by categorically stating that I support the desire of Newfoundland and Labrador to obtain 100% of revenues from its offshore resources. I want to go on the record at the outset as saying that I support the province of Newfoundland and Labrador receiving 100% from its offshore resources.

I remember very well the days of discussion and negotiation when it became apparent that there was a need for an Atlantic accord. Some of my colleagues on the other side were in provincial politics with me at the time. We remember it very well. It was emotional, it was heated and there was a lot of debate. Eventually the Atlantic accord was signed.

The principle of the Atlantic accord was that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would be the primary beneficiaries of their offshore resources. They would be the primary beneficiaries. That is the principle on which the Atlantic accord was negotiated, discussed and signed.

There are a couple of reasons. One is the location of our resources. They are offshore, under water. This morning someone referenced the cost of extraction which is true. The other very important point that has to be remembered is that the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have not been as well off economically, from a wealth point of view, as some other provinces in Canada. We have an enormous debt. In the past we have not benefited the way we should have benefited from our resources.

The Atlantic accord was supposed to correct that. That is what the debate is about today. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel very strongly that they are not the primary beneficiaries of their offshore resources. They feel strongly that the Government of Canada benefits from its offshore resources more than they do and they find that to be totally unacceptable.

Since this whole issue blew up a couple of weeks ago I have been preoccupied with trying to understand the problem. In order to solve any problem we have to understand what it is.

The Prime Minister is very committed and is very convinced that he has offered Premier Williams and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore resources. Premier Williams is just as committed and determined that the Prime Minister has not delivered the 100%. We have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding. I have been trying to understand where the problem lies.

There are a couple of issues that have created this problem. In Premier Williams' correspondence to the federal government, he consistently talked about a timeframe which would cover the petroleum production period. That really means that while oil flowed from the wells off our coast, this agreement would apply to it.

In the letter of the Minister of Finance back to finance minister Sullivan and the province a few Fridays ago, the federal finance minister referenced an eight year agreement. There is a big difference between eight years and the petroleum production period which is unknown. I guess we could project how long oil will flow from some wells; there is a certain amount of uncertainty, but the production span certainly would be more than eight years. That is a problem.

Another problem is when it comes to fiscal capacity. Newfoundland's fiscal capacity from own source resources is currently $4,900 per capita. When we add the equalization payments to that $4,900 it brings Newfoundland's fiscal capacity to $6,200. Of course, in his letter the Minister of Finance referenced the Ontario threshold which is between $6,600 and $6,700.

If we calculate the equalization payments that Newfoundland receives through its own source revenues, it does not give it a lot of room before the flow of revenue from the offshore revenues closes that gap. There will not be a significant amount of revenue flowing to the province before we reach the Ontario threshold. That is another fundamental problem that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has with this.

The province contends that the equalization payments, which bring that gap up to $6,200, should not be calculated and included in its fiscal capacity. It is contending that its fiscal capacity from own source revenues, which is $4,900, should stay there, let the revenues from oil flow in and reach the Ontario threshold. It is not going to take the province long at $50 or $55 U.S. a barrel, if we put the equalization payments in with it, before the Ontario threshold is reached.

That is a fundamental problem which has to be addressed if we are going to reach an agreement on this.

[Election of Speaker, October 4th, 2004]

I also wish to have my name removed from the list. My name being there has more to do with Canada Post than with my desire to be Speaker.

[Contraventions Act, February 24th, 2004]

I will be voting no, Mr. Speaker.

[Fisheries, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I would like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to inform the House about the timely Marine Finfish Commercialization Forum that is currently being held in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This industry is very important to the people I represent on the south coast of Newfoundland. Could the minister inform the House about the future of this industry?

[Fisheries, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the member for St. John's West for once again bringing this issue before the House for debate. I want to thank members who have contributed this evening to this very important discussion.

I want to say to my friend from the NDP from the outset that I do not want to blame the foreigners for all of the problems with our fishing resources. They are certainly a very important factor but there are other factors as well that have led to the demise of many of our fish stocks.

I wonder if members would consider a vote in the House some day to turn over to NAFO the management of the exploding seal herds off our coast. It has done such a dismal job of managing the resources in the NAFO regulated areas that if it took over the management of the seal herd, we would not have about 10 million seals off our shores eating tonnes and tonnes of fish resources.

I want it on the record that I will support this motion. I have been a consistent supporter of Canada taking action to extend custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap for very good reason. I listened to hon. members such as the parliamentary secretary, but they should go along the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and visit communities such as Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche, Burnt Island, Isle aux Morts, Burgeo, Ramea. All the way along the coast people once worked for 12 months a year in a very productive and prosperous fishing industry. A significant outmigration has taken place and today the age of the people left in those communities is not very comforting. Those communities were founded on the fishery. People spent their lives working in the fishery.

The member for St. John's West rightfully said when Canada joined Newfoundland, and if it had really happened that way, things may have been different today. The Government of Canada was given the management of our fisheries resource when we joined Confederation and successive federal governments have failed in their management responsibilities. I would like to say to the hon. member for St. John's West, it was a former member of St. John's West, the former minister of fisheries, John Crosbie, who in 1992 announced a shutdown, a moratorium on our northern cod fishery.

Successive federal governments have failed on this issue. Having said that, it is incumbent on the government of the day to deal with this issue. People living in those communities who want to continue to make a living there have run out of patience. Canada has a great record in the world for diplomacy and peacekeeping, but the people in those communities are tired of diplomacy and have lost patience on this issue.

There is only one thing that will cause a positive change in the NAFO regulatory areas. That would be a Canadian management regime where Canada would set the total allowable catch, where Canada would have observers on the vessels and we would enforce any violations in those zones.

There is a misconception that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has recommended that we kick the foreigners out of the territory. That is not what we are recommending. We are recommending that Canada manage the resource in those areas or that those countries which have traditionally fished the areas for centuries be allowed to fish their traditional share of whatever the total allowable catch would be.

Nothing else will work. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization has been in existence for 25 years. For the last 10 years or so there have been some serious flaws in the NAFO management. We attend the NAFO meetings annually and talk diplomacy. We ask them to be good boys and girls. They tell us they will be but in another year's time we find that nothing has improved. What is happening in the meantime is that those once prolific fish resources, as the member for St. John's West has said, the greatest protein resource in the world, are being decimated.

It is 2004 and with the environmental concerns, concerns, the concerns about the ecosystem and other issues that we hear about in this place on a daily basis, imagine that as Canadians and as a government we are content to sit here and watch this go on and on. This is a great resource, a world resource. It is a protein resource not just for Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, not just for Canada but for this great world where there is a shortage of protein.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary say on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that we have to be diplomatic, that we have to show more patience and maybe it will work. I do not think that the people in the communities I represent have the time to be patient any more. They are tired of being diplomatic. They want someone to take charge of the issue and it is time we took charge of the issue.

I said that the foreigners are not all the problem. I mentioned the seal herd, the eight to ten million seals that consume something like a tonne of fish a year per seal. With all due respect to my friend from the NDP, if only he would show the same concern about dealing with the seal population as he showed about dealing with the foreigners. We can deal with the foreigners and we can deal with the seals and we can deal with some other conservation issues because it is going to take a combination of all those to bring back that resource. It is not going to happen by kicking the foreigners off the banks. We need more than that.

We need to deal with the seal issue, I say to members of the New Democratic Party, whom I have accused at times of caring more about seals than they care about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not say that lightly. I hear the talk about a coming election and how they are going to go on the campaign trail. Well, I invite all members of the NDP to come down to Newfoundland and Labrador and tell the people that they care more about seals than they care about the people who are going hungry in those communities.

Let us call a spade a spade. If we are serious about addressing the issue, we must deal with NAFO, we must deal with the foreigners, we must deal with the seals. As well, there are things that we must clean up in our own back yard. It is not only foreigners who have caused the problem. We have to take some of the responsibility ourselves.

If we are really serious about dealing with this issue, let us be mature. Let us be sincere about it. Let us hear the NDP tomorrow get up and say that they are prepared to deal with an exploding seal population where every seal eats a tonne of fish a year. Let us hear that if they want to deal with the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador, or do they just want to pay lip service to it?

I want to provide my colleague from Newfoundland with some time so I will conclude by saying that I have continuously supported this issue. Custodial management, in my view, is the way to go. I call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of the country to come to the table in a very serious manner so that we deal with it and we do have a custodial management regime on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, for sharing his time with me.

I am pleased tonight to take part in the emergency debate on the fisheries, particularly the cod situation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to say at the outset that I cannot support the decision that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made last Thursday when he announced the closure of the northern and gulf cod stocks.

The minister's announcement, particularly as it pertains to the northern cod stocks, pretty much tied in with the recommendation of the all party committee and the FRCC. Where the big difference lies is in the gulf cod situation. There the minister has gone from a 7,000 metric tonne allocation to no fishery at all. He shut down the fishery in the gulf. I therefore cannot support the minister's decision, and there are a number of reasons for that.

I have two main reasons for not supporting the minister's decision. My colleague alluded to both of the reports. The first report was from the all party committee from Newfoundland and Labrador, a committee made up of provincial and federal politicians; members of the Senate; leaders of all three political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the premier, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the NDP; and parties in the House of Commons. The other report was the FRCC report.

The FRCC report and the all party committee report were together on a couple of points. One point was that there should be an information fishery in the northern cod zone, and we respect that. An information fishery was all that the very fragile biomass of cod could sustain. The difference in the gulf is that the all party committee recommended a limited commercial fishery. We did not say that the minister had to keep the total allowable catch at 7,000 metric tonnes. We said that it should be a limited commercial fishery.

The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the minister's own advisory council, people appointed to advise the minister, recommended a 3,500 metric tonne fishery in the gulf. Even if the minister had not been willing to have a fishery somewhere between 3,500 metric tonnes and 7,000 metric tonnes, which, in my own personal and humble opinion, my recommendation to the minister would have been a 5,000 metric tonne fishery where the minister could have reduced the catch by 2,000 metric tonnes in the name of conservation, he could have gone to a more friendly gear type with hook and line. We could have taken more action on seals and some other actions recommended by the all party committee.

In my view, a 5,000 metric tonne fishery, done under the recommendations of the all party committee and the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, would have given this stock a much better chance of rejuvenation and regeneration than what will happen now with a total closure.

I would not be standing in the House tonight suggesting that if I did not seriously believe that was what should have happened here. The all party committee gave the minister a very comprehensive fisheries management plan. In my view again, it is the first time in the history of this country and of our province where a federal minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been given a comprehensive fisheries management plan to deal with the cod situation in the gulf.

Having said that, I think I have explained why I have difficulty supporting the minister's decision. The most lingering question in the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans, in particular those fishermen and fish plant workers, and those communities affected by the minister's decision, is why the minister did not listen to the recommendation of his own conservation council.

There is a debate as to whether 3,500 metric tonnes is a real fishery or not, but if the minister had accepted the advice of his conservation council, then the people could have decided that for themselves. If they did not want to pursue the 3,500 metric tonne fishery or if fewer of them had pursued that 3,500 metric tonne fishery, it would have been a decision that they would have made.

However we felt, and we still feel as members of the all party committee, as do people who I have talked to in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there is a real need to have a limited commercial fishery in the gulf for all the right reasons. It is not because we do not believe in conservation. It is because we do believe in conservation. We believe the best way to deal with this issue is to engage people, sectors of the industry and, in particular, harvesters on the water.

If we take them off the water and do nothing else, we will, in my view, further decrease the biomass. We have done it for 10 or 11 years. We shut down the fisheries and did nothing else.

I ask members in the House tonight and others listening if they can please tell me what the state of the biomass is today after 10, 11 and 12 years of moratorium? The biomass is worse. Obviously closure is not the answer. People must be on the water. Other measures must be introduced in the name of conservation and in the name of rebuilding these fish stocks which are so important to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and our rural communities.

As my colleague from Bonavista—Trinity—Conception has so rightly said, it is a Newfoundland and Labrador resource, it is an Atlantic Canada resource, it is a Canadian resource and it is a world resource. It is a food, a protein for this world that we are talking about rebuilding. Who in the name of God can talk against conservation? Who can talk against proper measures to rebuild that important resource for all of us, including the whole world?

Ten minutes is not very long in a situation like this but I respect having the time, and I know other members want to speak, but there is another thing I want to say.

I want to again go on the record again as saying that I do not support a closure. I support a limited commercial fishery. The minister has the authority to shut down the fishery which he announced last Thursday. I ask him to reconsider that. I ask him to at least reconsider establishing 3,500 tonnes at least in line with his own conservation council's recommendation.

When we have shut down fisheries in the past, many important components were part of that closure. There was an early retirement program based on certain criteria: age and experience in the industry. There was a licence buyout program for those who wanted to sell out their enterprises, who wanted to get out of the fishery because of their age or because they really did not see any hope.

This time there is no early retirement component and no licence buyout component. I asked the minister today in the House, as I did the day before yesterday, why those components were not there if he himself had made this decision. I also wanted to know why there was no extension to the employment insurance benefit program for those people who would be exhausting their benefits in the next few days or in the next two or three weeks, or for those who will not be able to fish lobster and crab because of the ice.

I have asked very legitimate questions that must be answered by someone in authority in the government. I think it is totally unacceptable that we have not seen fit to extend the employment insurance benefits to those people who need them, those people who have paid into the fund and those who have contributed to the surplus. We would not be precedent setting. We have done that on a number of occasions in the past. Why is it different this time? We cannot treat the people any differently this time than we have treated them in the past.

I have talked about the components. We have extended EI. We have had provisions for early retirement. We have had licence buyout programs. The people affected this time should have the same treatment. They cannot be discriminated against.

Every decision on the management of this resource is a federal government decision. The size of the boat, the type of gear, the length of the season and the total allowable catch are all federal government, DFO related management decisions. We have to take responsibility for it.

Those people who will be negatively impacted because of a decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must be treated fairly. We cannot treat them differently this time in 2003 than we treated them in 1992.

In conclusion I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada to please reconsider his decision and to please take the advice of his fisheries resource conservation council and at least set the total allowable catch at 3,500 tonnes.

I ask the minister and other ministers to please consider an extension of the employment insurance program, to bring in an early retirement component and a licensed buyout program for those people who want to take it. There may be those who do not want to but the opportunity should be afforded them.

I ask the minister and other ministers in related portfolios in the government to please consider this on behalf of the people I represent and we all represent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Fisheries, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday's announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was devastating for fishermen, fish plant workers and communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. In past fishery closure announcements there were always provisions for an early retirement program and a licence buyout program.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans considering an early retirement program, a licence buyout program and an extension of EI benefits for those immediately affected by this closure?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The area that I represent was, not all that many years ago, the most prolific fishing area in the whole of the country. In fact, I would not be surprised if it was in all the world. We were founded on the fishery. We had a deep sea fishery which fished year round. We had I do not know how many deep sea trawlers that fished the Grand Banks and the northern cod stocks for years and years. They fished 12 months a year. They brought the fish back to shore to the processing plants.

If my memory serves me correctly, there were in excess of some 6,000 people employed in the processing plants; maybe some from the hon. member's area, somewhere around Trepassey, and down across the south coast. In excess of 6,000 were employed in the processing plants, in addition to hundreds of deep sea trawlermen. The only time they got off during the year was a couple of days through Christmas. They would come in the day before Christmas Eve or thereabouts and by New Year's Eve they were on the water again. There was no such thing as vacations, and those working in the plants did not have any vacations. All they did was go to work to make a good living, and that is all they want today.

It has been total devastation. The hon. member mentioned Burgeo. I could name seven or eight communities along that coast that were 12 month operations, vibrant, wealthy, well managed and productive, with happy people. They hardly exist anymore. It has been very devastating and we do not want more devastation. What we want now are some measures to be implemented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, by the government, which will give us some hope and some chance that those fish stocks will regenerate, but unless it is a multi-measure decision that encompasses the things I have talked about, I am afraid that we will just be wasting our time again.

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

That is an interesting comment, Mr. Speaker, and I can sympathize with the gopher situation.

Something that most members would not know is that in other parts of the world and even in this country, decisions have been made to reduce certain species. Someone informed me today that over the last few years 2.5 million snow geese have been eliminated because they were causing some problem with vegetation in some area of this country.

As the hon. member said, there is an imbalance in the ecosystems in our area. Eventually some disease will set into the seal population or they will consume all the fish resources and starve to death, which is probably where they are headed because not only do they consume cod, they eat caplin and herring. I guess if they were hungry enough and you were in their way, Mr. Speaker, they would probably take a bite out of you as well.

What is happening is that it is throwing the food chain completely out of whack. Over time caplin has been the main dietary source for cod. There is a lack of caplin for a number of reasons, one being the consumption by seals. There still are commercial caplin fisheries in some areas, which I believe is wrong. The all party committee recommended that be ceased too.

Scientists tell me that because of the lack of caplin in the cod diet the cod are not in very good shape. When they examine the liver in cod, it lacks certain ingredients. Consequently, it takes the cod longer, if ever, to reach a mature enough stage to reproduce. The old food chain is out of sorts and it is having a devastating impact on cod and other fish stocks. It is a very serious situation and we think it is time to deal with it.

I understand the concerns of some environmental groups. I also understand that a seal in Brigitte Bardot's arms looks very attractive, although Brigitte looks far more attractive than the seal, but we know what it does to public opinion. We know that people taking pictures on the ice floe years ago influenced public opinion worldwide. We received all kinds of threats about boycotting our fish exports. There is still a fair amount of it around today. I can tell by what the hon. member said that he knows full well that the situation still exists.

There are those who, for some reason that I do not understand, have chosen to be more concerned about 7.5 million seals than they are about 500,000 Newfoundlanders, and that is the truth of it. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian I cannot help but say that there is more concern right now about an exploding seal herd of 7.5 million. The population of the herd is not endangered. A little over 2 million is a sustainable seal herd and we are at 7.5. million. Yet we have 500,000 Newfoundlanders who want to make a living but there are still those factions inside and outside the country who care more about 7.5 million seals than they care about 500,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The west coast has its problems as well because of an exploding seal population and of course seals are not unwise. They congregate in the mouths of rivers and in the bays and wait for dinner to come along most times. The salmon of course go on their runs up the rivers so the seals, being pretty astute, just sit there and wait for dinner.

The hon. member is correct. It is not that they consume the whole fish. They just eat the underbelly of the fish. What they are interested in is the liver and so on. That is what they feed on.

However I understand that there has been some action in some places on the west coast to deal with the seal situation. It probably is not as adequate as one would expect, but I understand there have been some measures in the last couple of years to cut down on at least that predator situation in river mouths and so on and cut down on the amount of salmon that is being intercepted by seals and consequently destroyed.