Bill Matthews

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

It is a lot of fish.

We would not have to worry about people leaving their rural communities to go to Toronto, or Alberta, or anywhere else out west if we had some of that resource for our fishermen to catch and our fish plant workers to process.

It is going to be difficult for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to accept another closure of the fishery if we are not going to implement some other measures that hopefully would see a regeneration and a rejuvenation of the biomass. As sure as we are standing in the House today, if we close the fishery and do nothing else, the biomass will not rebuild. We have seen it before. We went through 11 or 12 years of a moratorium before. The scientists who advise the minister have told him that if he closes the fishery, there is no way they can guarantee any improvement in the biomass. There has to be more than a closure or a reduction.

Custodial management has to be implemented. There has to be a significant reduction in the seal population. There is no question that we had to go to more conservation friendly gear types. Right now we are using a range of gear types from hook and line, gill nets and so on. The all party committee of the province recommended very strongly to the minister that a commercial fishery continue but that it continue only with a hook and line fishery because gill nets are very destructive. Gill nets ghost fish. If they are lost at sea they continue to fish for years and fish get caught in them.

There is another downside to gill nets. In my area of 3PS where, thank God, there still is a commercial fishery and where they use gill nets, the only fish that are reported as caught are the fish landed at the wharf.

If we have a total allowable catch, which for the last couple of years has been 15,000 metric tonnes, I can assure members that there was twice that amount of fish that was caught in those gill nets. At least one-third of the fish caught in a gill net and left in the water for any length of time has to be discarded because the fish in the bottom one-third of the net are destroyed before they are taken aboard the boat and taken into the plant.

I am sure that the total allowable catch in 3PS is 15,000 tonnes but, as sure as I am standing here, there has been at least 30,000 metric tonnes of fish caught in that zone. However all that is reported are the fish landed at the wharf by the dockside monitor. What is thrown out of the gill net is never recorded.

For hon. members who are not totally familiar with gill netting, I think that will illustrate the destructive practices of gill netting. That is why the standing committee, on which the member for St. John's West is a member as well as a member of the Newfoundland all party committee, recommended, in its wisdom, of going to hook and line.

Harvesters should not have a say in it. I have talked to a lot of fish harvesters over the last while. I have tried out the gill net and the hook and line fishery on them. There are some who right now are using gill nets. They should be told what gear types they have to use. If they want to continue in the fishery it should be hook and line. If they are not willing to abide by and obey those regulations they should not be in the fishery. The one thing we have to remember here is that the fish stocks we are talking about are a common resource, a people's resource. It is not owned by any one, two or a dozen harvesters. It is not owned by the fishermen's union or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a common resource and that resource has to be protected for future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, future generations of Atlantic Canadians, future generations of Canadians and future generations worldwide.

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were to accept the majority of the recommendations of the all party committee, it would be a major step forward to bringing some hope for our people. It would be a major step forward in causing a regeneration of those important fish stocks.

This will not happen overnight, and we know that, but our fear is that we are already past the brink. Our fear is that it is already too late.

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the people involved in the fisheries industry, the harvesters and the processors, are not willing to buy into the all party committee report of Newfoundland and Labrador on a comprehensive management plan for our fishery, then I would say, and I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West would agree, because he is not a pessimist but an optimist, a realist and he is sincere, that unless we implement the measures of the all party committee, very soon we will be facing a total destruction of those fisheries. I think we can forget about a future for those fisheries. We all know the consequences of that.

I want to say a few words on the custodial management issue, which is what we are supposed to be debating today. It is difficult to talk about only one aspect of the fishery because it is so complex. It is such a mixed bag that if we do not do a number of things together we will not get the desired results.

However I agree with the member for St. John's West that the Government of Canada has to take some leadership on the issue. It is responsible for foreign and international relations and negotiations. It is the custodian of the fishery resources on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Atlantic Canada. We brought this resource, the most abundant fishery resources in the world, into this great Confederation, .

We want to see the fisheries rebuilt but they will not be rebuilt unless some bold decisions are made. That will take some courage because some decisions will have to be taken for the first time.

Some of the recommendations in the report of the all party committee in Newfoundland and Labrador will not be very politically popular. However, the committee, because of its concern for the issue and for our people, decided to go with the recommendations of the all party committee because we believe in the report and its recommendations. If the report is implemented, we have hope that it will cause an improvement in and a rebuilding of our fish stocks.

The custodial management issue is another integral part of the plan, as is the reduction in the seal population an important part of the plan. More conservation friendly gear types for use in the fishery is an important part of the plan. If we were to take three of the recommendations and priorize them, the following would probably be the top three: custodial management, dealing with the seals and the gear types.

Let us imagine what it is like to be a fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador today or in some other part of Quebec, seeing as my colleague from Quebec is here and he has a region that will be impacted by this decision as well. Let us imagine being fishermen for the last 30 or 40 years and being told by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that we cannot fish in a certain zone any longer because he will be shutting it down. He tells us that the resource is so fragile that he cannot allow us to bring in one pound of the fish to make a living.

In the meantime, he announces that he will allow the seal population, which is now at 7.5 million, to continue to grow by about 1 million seals a year. Of the 7.5 million seals that are now in the area, it is estimated that the herd will grow to about 1 million seals a year. When we think about a seal consuming approximately one metric tonne of fish a year, it is kind of hard to accept that I cannot go out and catch my fish to make a living but the seals will be allowed to eat the fish that are in the ocean.

I do not know if I have made myself understood but hopefully someone is listening and by listening they will understand the problem with shutting down the fishery. It is not the answer. There have to be other measures.

By the way, I do not believe we need to shut down the fishery. I believe that if we were to implement the measures recommended by the all party committee, we could still have a commercial fishery and still give our resources a chance to regenerate.

If we were to take out the seals, go to more friendly gear types, implement custodial management and some of the other things we have recommended, then I think we have a chance of rebuilding this resource and a chance to keep our people living in the communities where they want to live making a productive living. All they want to do is harvest the fish, process it and make a living.

Let us look at the very alarming situation that the member referred to in Smith Sound, one of the last few congregations of healthy northern cod. From all reports, it sounds like they were driven into shallow, icy cold water by seals that prey upon them. What happened, of course, is that the water crystallized in their gills and, consequently, they could not get any oxygen and died. It is unfortunate that we would have one of the few healthy populations of cod left in the whole north Atlantic that is now running into this unfortunate situation in the last 48 hours.

I thank hon. members for participating in the debate. I know they are all as sincere as I am about it. What we want is to find solutions to this very serious problem on behalf of the people we represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate. I commend all who have spoken before me, particularly the member for St. John's West, the member for New Brunswick Southwest and the member for Saint John for their interesting comments.

Issues come and go. When we look at the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, its economy and other parts of Atlantic Canada and the fisheries issue, its time has come. I listened very closely to the member for St. John's West when he talked about the issue and his emphasis was on leadership. I listened intently to the member for New Brunswick Southwest and his comments about former minister Crosbie and so on. To date, no one has seized the opportunity to deal with the issue and that is what worries us all.

It worries us because of the situation which once again is occurring in Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of Atlantic Canada. There are a number of reasons that the situation is so grave. The need for custodial management outside Canada's 200 mile limit is certainly one of the factors that has to be dealt with by the government in order to find a solution and to regenerate and rebuild fisheries resources. There is no question about that.

The member for St. John's West talked about the all party committee and the recommendations in its report that it presented a couple of weeks ago to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In my view, it is the first time that such a comprehensive fisheries management plan has been presented to any fisheries minister in the history of this country. It was a very comprehensive fisheries management plan made up of a number of components which, if dealt with, in the humble opinion of the all party committee would cause an improvement in the situation, would lead to a regeneration and rejuvenation of different species of fish, particularly cod, and would make a brighter future for our people.

Custodial management is certainly a very important part of that puzzle. For too many years there have been contracting partners of NAFO who have not conformed to regulations. They have violated and have used the objection procedure of NAFO to catch and harvest at will even though the scientific advice to NAFO has been to set a total allowable catch at a certain level. Under the objection procedure all countries have to do is object to that total allowable catch and then they can fish and catch what they want. These are some of the problems and weaknesses of NAFO.

In the wisdom of the standing committee, after extensive consideration and after extensive evidence was presented by witnesses, it presented a unanimous report. The unanimous report called upon the Government of Canada to serve notice that it will establish a Canadian custodial management regime to manage those fish resources not only for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada but for the benefit of the entire world. As other members have said, if we as a government and as a people neglect to deal with this very important issue, then we are failing not only ourselves and our people, but we are indeed failing the world. This is an important protein resource that should be looked after, managed and controlled for the benefit of the world.

Countries from all over the world have been harvesting this resource for some 400 or 500 years. As the member for St. John's West said, we are not saying that others cannot have any of the fish. What the committee is saying is that based upon traditional fishing practices, harvesting practices, traditional rights to fish in those zones, that would be protected under the management regime. Of course it would be in accordance with the total allowable catch and based upon the traditional percentage of that resource. It is a very reasonable proposal. Again, all we need is for someone at the upper levels of the government to take this issue and run with it. That is basically what the member for St. John's West has said.

I am not here today to be critical. I am trying to be constructive. I want to see that this issue gets the proper attention and that we start moving in the right direction on it. We could go back in time to when we started to experience problems with our fish stocks, and our cod stocks in particular. There is enough blame to go around this place and other places besides but that is not a solution.

The solution is to develop a willingness to move forward on the issue of custodial management and I hope we will see that. The committee brought the custodial management report back to the House for a second time, which was an unusual move. The committee felt so strongly about this issue and had such confidence in its recommendations that it would not accept the original government response to its report. It saw fit to bring it back and table it in the House a second time.

That clearly demonstrates the committee's commitment to this issue and how serious it is about getting the issue dealt with. As a member of the standing committee, I participated in the writing of the report and its recommendations and I want to go on record as fully supporting it.

Members have mentioned a couple of other issues. We are expecting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans within the next few weeks to make a very important decision about our gulf cod stocks and our northern cod stocks. It is very disconcerting to us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and as members of Parliament who represent different regions of our province, to anticipate what the minister may do. If he reduces or closes the cod fisheries, it will once again spell devastation for the people we represent. It will be another severe economic blow to hundreds of our rural communities.

We had one such closure in 1992 and it was devastating. We saw out-migration from our communities and our province of unequal proportion. People had to leave their communities and the province to go to other places in Canada to seek a living. We are facing that reality again.

There were a number of components in the report which the all party committee presented to the minister. One of them was the important component of custodial management. Another important component was the issue of the seal population and how to deal with it.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, there is no way I can accept the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans closing the gulf and northern cod stocks without taking some measures to reduce the ever exploding seal population. The minister will tell the fishermen to take their boats out of the water and find a job in some other part of Canada. He will not allow them to catch those fish, but the fish will be left in the water so the seals can consume them. One seal consumes approximately one tonne of fish resource a year which means that 7.5 million seals consume 7.5 million tonnes of fish resource.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member for St. John's West in this debate and I appreciate his sincerity. He has made a significant contribution to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and to this particular issue of custodial management outside of Canada's 200 mile limit.

Quite often I tell the member, and he is aware of this from certain sources within government, that we hear the opinion that there is no international appetite and we will not get any international support on the issue of establishing a Canadian custodial management regime.

In the hon. member's experience, from some of his recent travels, I wonder if he could inform the House of his experience and, indeed, what some of those foreign countries are saying about custodial management, and the need to protect and regenerate those fish stocks?

[Newfoundland and Labrador, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, March 31 is a historic day for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed for the country of Canada. It was on this day in 1949 that Newfoundland entered the Canadian Confederation as its 10th province.

On this day we all celebrate 54 years of Newfoundland and Labrador as a province of this great nation and all the benefits that come with being a citizen in the best country in the world in which to live.

Canadians look upon Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with great fondness. This has never been more evident than with the recent show of support for those who have suffered due to the terrible flooding in the small Newfoundland community of Badger.

As well, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have given so much to Canada: their infamous screech rum, the Torngat Mountains, Gross Morne National Park, Joey Smallwood, rich musical culture and their unmistakable sense of humour and brightness of spirit.

Of course the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did us all proud with the way they welcomed the passengers from diverted flights on September 11. They welcomed those people into their homes and into their lives.

On behalf of all members of the House, I would like to extend a heartfelt congratulations to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his very interesting question.

The member knows that we are going through an Atlantic fisheries policy review right now and we should allow that process to unfold. The issue that he raised is one that is under serious consideration now.

When it comes to licensing and resources, there is no doubt that everyone does not fish the resource. I do not believe that people who become millionaires and who live in Florida or other places detached from the fisheries should hold licences. As members of Parliament we struggle on a daily basis to find the resources to sustain communities that are already into the fishery and fish processing. Other communities which were in the fisheries have not worked for years. I believe the resource must be utilized by those people and there must be a balance. I am sure the hon. member knows that this is a complex issue.

Let me say one more thing about the possible closure of the gulf and the northern cod stocks. It is my belief that there is one resource that is abundant in our waters and that is the shrimp resource. It is a ballooning resource. It is my sincere belief that because of the crisis in the cod, and because there is no doubt in my mind that the crab zones are in trouble and we will see a reduction in quotas in some of those zones, the shrimp resource should be used to get us through this problem. Even if there is no total closure, but a reduction in the total allowable catch of cod in the gulf and the northern zones, somehow a way should be found to utilize those great shrimp resources for the benefit of those who will be hurt because of a cut or closure of the other resources.

It is an opportunity that, if we go about it right, we may find a way around this serious problem. People may not be hurt too badly financially and communities may survive.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to know the hon. member has come back from a good supper. It is obvious that it has improved his attitude.

Let me just say this to him. Maybe the hon. member thinks that we all should become members of the gun toting party. Maybe that is how he thinks we will keep the seals out of a zone where we have healthy codfish that are delicious meals for hundreds of thousands of seals.

My point is, yes, the FRCC recommended a seal exclusion zone. We are not talking about a garden gate with all this fish inside the gate so that we can close the gate and the seals will not get in. I am talking about being practical. It is one thing to recommend things, but practically, how do we establish a seal exclusion zone? The members can get up and be funny all they like. That is fine if that is the way they want to treat the issue, to be funny about it, but I am asking a serious question.

I take the FRCC very seriously. It does serious work and excellent work for the minister and the department, but how do we implement a seal exclusion zone? That means no seals. How do we implement that in an ocean, when we have a biomass of cod and hundreds of thousands of hungry seals out there, when we say let us establish a seal exclusion zone?

I have asked the question before. No one can define a seal exclusion zone. How do we implement it? How do we make it successful so those seals do not get in and eat the cod? No one has answered the question yet. The hon. member should not be funny about it, because we are talking about an ocean. We are not talking about a garden gate.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I want to reiterate once more that the minister's decision of this year to increase the seal allocation is a positive move. No doubt, as I said before, there is a debate on whether the numbers that we are taking are sufficient to decrease the seal population.

I guess what I have to say to the hon. member is this. There are two extremes in this debate. One is, let us go out and wipe out several million seals. The other is, let us take a seal allocation that the market forces will consume, so that we have markets for the product, a total utilization of the product. These are the two extremes of the argument.

To be very honest, to be totally responsible tonight, not wanting to be irresponsible, I think the seal allocation and the numbers of seal that should be harvested should be market driven. I have to try to answer the member's question by a question. If we went out and took two million seals and the market would only consume 500,000 seals, what would the member suggest we do with the other one and a half million seals? That is the dilemma. That is the predicament. That is where the debate is, in that range.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, as co-operative as I would like to be with my hon. colleague, I cannot forgo my slot on this very important debate this evening.

I want to commend all of those who have participated in the debate, both for the questions and the answers. I think there is one thing we realize, those of us who have been involved in fisheries issues for a number of years and those of us who have served and are still serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and it is that we have a very sincere group of individuals who work on that committee. They take their work very seriously and realize that regardless of party affiliation we all represent the same people and we all try to work in their best interests.

This is a wide ranging debate in which we are talking about fisheries in general. Of course for me the region of the country that matters most, not that I do not care about the west and the north and the Great Lakes, is certainly the Atlantic fishery, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

I want to say at the outset that a couple of positive initiatives have been undertaken by the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the last short while, which I think should not go unnoticed. I can be very critical when I have to be, but I think it is also very appropriate that we commend when necessary and when deserved.

I would like to commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his recent initiative pertaining to the temporary crab harvesting permits, which he has converted into licences now. For some while now this of course has been a desire of those crab fishermen and in particular the union that represents them. I think that is a very positive initiative.

There is no question in my mind that the minister's recent announcement on the three year allocation of seals is positive. It is a move in the right direction. There is no doubt considerable debate about whether or not the numbers taken will see a decrease in the seal population, really a wide ranging debate, but again we have to come back to the issue of utilization. If we were to take more seals than the market could consume, what would we do with the seals taken? That is the issue on seals.

I think that in all fairness the minister is moving in the right direction. He has increased the seal allocation for the next three years and there is a carryover provision in case there are bad ice conditions or bad harvesting conditions. At least if they are not caught not this year, the catch can be carried over, which I feel is positive.

Another initiative that has caught much attention in the last few years and has not been dealt with is the vessel replacement program. That has been ongoing for quite some time. Because of the changing fishery, in Atlantic Canada in particular, there is a desire on behalf of fish harvesters to at least have the flexibility move to larger vessels for safety and comfort. There is a changing fishery because of the very issues we are talking about tonight, a moratorium in the past and a potential moratorium now, and harvesters are having to move to multi-species fishing, having to go to larger vessels and having to be more mobile to make a living.

I know that there is a consultative process ongoing right now, but I sincerely hope, and I am sure all members present sincerely hope as well, that we reach a successful conclusion on this issue, because it is very important for the reasons I have outlined, in particular the issues of safety and comfort for crews who have to go further from shore and further from home to try to make a living. I hope we will see a successful resolution to that before too long.

When the minister spoke tonight, he gave an overview of fisheries within the country. He talked about some pending difficult decisions that may have to be made, particularly with respect to the gulf cod fishery and our northern cod fishery. Let me be categoric and to the point: My preference is that there not be a closure of either one of those cod fisheries.

A number of speakers this evening have given an historical overview of what has happened since we have imposed moratoriums in different zones. There is one thing that I think is consistent. Where we have imposed moratoriums in the past, we have not seen an increase in the biomass in the zones that have been shut down.

There is something other than fishing pressure that has caused the problems and that is still causing the problems. That is why I am going on the record as saying I do not support a closure of those fisheries. In particular, I do not support a closure of the gulf fishery, where even though the stock is not in great shape I guess it is fair to say it is in better shape than the cod in 2J3KL. I am hoping we can avoid a closure.

I do not wish to upstage the all party committee, which has been doing some very good work in Newfoundland and Labrador. A number of my colleagues are members of that committee and are present this evening. I do not want to upstage them, but I think if we do move to more conservation friendly gear types, if we look at issues and species in the food chain, which the member for St. John's West has already referenced as being so important in the food chain for cod, if we take some measures that will strengthen and regenerate that food chain, then I think we will see a regeneration of our cod stocks. I think it is going to take a number of initiatives by the minister and by the department to make that happen.

A number of speakers this evening have also referenced DFO science and the need for more financial resources to boost up the scientific branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I could not agree more with all those who referenced that tonight. We have gone through approximately 12 years of a moratorium now. My view has always been that in troubled times such as these we do not cut back on our scientific branch. We should boost it up. We should give it adequate financial resources to do its work.

We need to determine the causes. Yes, there is no question that fishing pressure, fishing practices and abuse by some individuals, and by our own in some cases, we cannot ignore that, has led to the problem. It is my sincere belief that we really should have maintained a more than adequate scientific branch at DFO instead of going in the opposite direction.

I think it is incumbent upon me now to say this in light of the budget of just a few short days ago, in which there was significant reference to the government's scientific program in general. What I want to say to members present tonight, to the parliamentary secretary to the minister and to the minister and his staff who may be listening is that I hope there is a very concerted effort put forward to find adequate financial resources to boost the scientific branch of DFO. I am sure that somewhere in that broad, general government scientific program we can find adequate dollars to significantly and properly boost this scientific branch of DFO, because we really need to know the answers.

We know some of the answers. We know some of the problems. We know that gear types have been destructive in some cases. We know that seals consume an extraordinary amount of fish resources. We know that we are taking species other than cod from the ocean, which is interfering with the food chain. But I think we really need a boost in that DFO scientific branch.

A number of speakers this evening have referenced the Coast Guard as well. The minister himself referenced it. There is no question that $95 million is positive. I think what it will do is relieve the pressure on the operating and maintenance budget and consequently enable the vessels to sail more. We know they need to sail more. We know they need to be at sea more. The vessels have not sailed at times when they should have because there have not been adequate financial resources for them to do so. I think this $95 million will at least reduce the pressure on the operating and maintenance budget and allow the vessels to be at sea more, where we want them.

I have covered a number of issues here. The one I have not touched on is custodial management. I think my position is quite clear on that. I do support the Government of Canada implementing a custodial management regime, a Canadian fisheries management regime. As a number of speakers have said already this evening, it was never the standing committee's intent in its report to kick the foreigners off the nose and tail of the banks and Flemish Cap. It was to look at historic fishing practices and to look at historic total allowable catches. But any regime must be a management regime that is implemented by Canada, and it has to be managed by Canada. If necessary, it should be paid for by Canada, because we cannot afford to lose this very valuable protein resource for the world or for this great country.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I want to commend my colleague from St. John's West for a most passionate and understanding speech about the plight and how far we have come or have not come since 1949. As well, the member for Delta—South Richmond referenced the FRCC report and seal exclusion zones. I really wanted to ask the member for Delta—South Richmond the question, but I will ask the member for St. John's West.

How would he describe a seal exclusion zone? How does he see it working? Does he think that a seal exclusion zone would work if we put up a number of signs saying “no seals allowed” or “enter at your own risk”? Would we put a big net across some inlet or bay or erect a fence?

Every now and then the issue of seal exclusion zones comes up. No doubt it was mentioned in the FRCC report a couple of years ago. Occasionally it surfaces again.

How would the hon. member with his experience and who can now see the seals from his porch because there are so many of them in his home community, see a seal exclusion zone working? I am at a loss to understand how it would work.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to all of those who have participated this evening and in particular, my friend from the New Democratic Party. I listened very closely to his observations about how Canadians might feel if indeed there is another aid package for displaced harvesters and fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador or Atlantic Canada.

I am sure the hon. member is well aware that we have an exploding seal population that is consuming extraordinary amounts of fish resources. Therefore I am wondering if we can count on the hon. member and his party to try to bring Canadian public opinion on side that there must be more seals harvested, that we must reduce the seal population so the seals will consume less fish resources and our food chain replenishes and we will see a rejuvenation of our cod stocks. Can we count on the hon. member and his party to persuade Canadians that this issue has to be dealt with?