Bill Matthews

[Fisheries, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate and thank the member for St. John's West for moving this emergency debate tonight. I want to thank the member for Malpeque for sharing his time with me. I want to thank all those who have participated so far in the debate and those who will participate later on.

This in my view is probably the most serious issue facing Newfoundland and Labrador today. There are very many serious issues in our province but in my assessment this is the most serious issue facing our people.

I represent an area of Newfoundland and Labrador, the south and southwest coasts, that has been devastated because of mismanagement of our fish stocks by successive federal governments.

We brought into Confederation a tremendous resource. The Government of Canada ended up with the jurisdiction to manage that resource. I would like to go on record tonight by saying there is no other province or region in Canada that would have tolerated for so long the mismanagement of a major resource by the Government of Canada.

Imagine the attention we get in the west when we have a drought. Farms and farmers get hurt. Right now the dilemma of softwood lumber is getting a lot of attention and rightfully so. Kyoto is getting a lot of attention and rightfully so. On and on it goes.

However, imagine a way of life that is being threatened in great levels, a staggering out migration of people, a proud and historic people who worked year round. I am one of them. I grew up there. I live there. I represent them now. They work 12 months a year harvesting and processing fish.

In the region that I represent in Newfoundland and Labrador, just 15 years or so ago there were approximately 6,000 people working in fish processing plants. Today, because of mismanagement, mainly by the government of Canada, there are less than 2,000 people left working in those processing plants. Imagine the other jobs in small business and other sectors that have been affected because of the mismanagement of this resource by the Government of Canada.

I ask hon. members who are here tonight this. Where else in Canada, where else in the world would such action or lack thereof by a national government be tolerated? I do not think it would be tolerated anywhere else. Imagine if it was some other province in Canada that got that treatment from its national government for so long.

I concur with the statements of other members, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the member for St. John's West and the fisheries critics for the NDP, the Bloc and the Alliance. The one thing about the makeup and the membership of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is that it is a non-partisan committee. It puts the issues above partisan politics. We work together and we have worked together for years. This committee is committed and dedicated to seeing the issue addressed properly by the Government of Canada and by this parliament.

I was delighted today to hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announce his decision on Faroese. He is going to close our ports to those people and rightfully so. However I want to go on record tonight and say it is only a start because there are many other violating countries out in the NAFO regulatory areas that will have to be dealt with. For awhile, many of them were pretty good, but now they are starting to non-comply.

What are the results? We are talking about straddling stocks that are sometimes inside our 200 mile limit and other times are outside because, as the member for the NDP said, fish do swim.

The area that they are raping is a nursery area for fish species. It is a nursery area because of the nutrients in the water and because of the water temperatures. It is where fish spawn, multiply and grow. It is a natural area for that. We have those nations that go out there and rape the area. We call them rogue vessels.

We have the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization that manages those NAFO areas.

If any member country of NAFO does not agree with the quota that has been set, it is ironic that it can register an objection. Then it can go out in the NAFO regulatory area and catch what it wants. That is just how simple it is. NAFO quotas are set on scientific advice by the NAFO scientific council, but all a country has to do is object to that scientific advice, object to the quota as set by NAFO, and go out and catch what it likes.

I want to elaborate on another point. The member for Malpeque talked about fishing days. I am sure members who are not familiar with the situation wonder what he meant. It means that countries go out and fish for a certain number of days. They catch what they can within the fishing days. It is not that they have 5,000 tonnes of fish to catch and they go home and do not come back any more for that year. These countries fish for fishing days. They catch 10, 20, 30 and 40 times more fish than the scientific advice allows. We can imagine what that is doing to those stocks.

We have a very serious problem with our membership in NAFO. We pay 50% of the cost of NAFO. It is not working for us.

I am convinced that the Government of Canada through the Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to become very involved in this issue. I say the Minister of Foreign Affairs and not the bureaucrats from foreign affairs.

Where else in this country or this world would this kind of abuse be tolerated? Every day I read articles by environmentalists who express concern about Kyoto, GATT and this and that. Two matters are at risk in the issue we are talking about tonight. One is the species of fish that spawns, multiplies and grows in those areas. They are very much at risk. They are very much endangered species.

Another species that is very much at risk is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are just hanging on by a thread to their way of life because of mismanagement after mismanagement by successive federal governments.

I am convinced that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will do its job. I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister will become involved and do their jobs. However I really believe that we will see a mobilization on this issue in Newfoundland and Labrador like we have never seen before. Right now the rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador, the spinal cord, is ready to sever. It is ready to break.

The latest census of the last week or so showed a staggering outmigration from the communities of our province. The age of the people left in our communities is such that our youngest are gone. There is no tax base left for local municipal governments to offer basic services to our citizens. That is how serious the situation is. I am not sure if the movers and shakers of the Government of Canada understand how serious it is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a part of the debate tonight, as a part of what has happened with the Russian trawler over the last couple of days, and as a result of the mobilization that will take place in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am hoping that finally the national government, which has full responsibility for the harvesting practices and for the management of our fish stocks, will take the issue seriously.

In the last number of years, because of mismanagement of our stocks, it has cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars for NCARP and for TAGS. If we wipe out the fish and wipe out this way of life, it will cost taxpayers much more.

I congratulate the member for St. John's West for initiating the debate and I thank all those who participated. I plead with the national Government of Canada from the Prime Minister down to get involved. Let us not tolerate any longer abuse and violation of our continental shelf when we can take custodial management, set the quotas, enforce and manage the stock for our people.

[Science And Technology, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago yesterday, on December 12, 1901, a new age of communication was born. Amidst skepticism and facing extreme odds, Italian born scientist Guglielmo Marconi sent the first wireless signal across the Atlantic Ocean. The message, simply the letter S in morse code, was sent from Poldhu, England, to Signal Hill in St. John's, Newfoundland, a distance of 1,700 miles.

This simple accomplishment changed the course of history. Marconi received many honours including the Nobel Prize in 1909, and Signal Hill gained distinction as the place where the impossible became possible.

This is a proud part of our Canadian history. The legacy of that single transmission is still heard literally all around the world.

I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting the achievement of one determined scientist so many years ago as well as the accomplishments of all present day Canadians whose innovative ideas are changing the shape of modern technology.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern for the unemployed in his riding and in the Atlantic Canada region.

Initially when the member raised this question with the minister responsible for ACOA, the minister outlined to him the initiatives that had been taken by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to try and increase employment and to further develop business opportunities in Atlantic Canada to make it globally competitive. In that regard, through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, we have made great strides in Atlantic Canada.

We realize full well that we have a way to go but we have to become globally competitive and we have to be innovative. We have to encourage and promote business opportunities and strive to create long term employment. We fully realize that many people in Atlantic Canada are employed in seasonal industries. We have to strive to create long term employment through business promotion in Atlantic Canada.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the comments made by the member for Acadie--Bathurst recently and again tonight as they pertain to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the creation of jobs for Atlantic Canadians. I begin by reiterating what the minister said initially at the time.

ACOA has invested in some 4,100 commercial projects over the past five years alone helping to create and maintain over 62,000 jobs in the region. The unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada is 2.8% lower as a result of ACOA programming. A 2.8% result is not insignificant. It is a significant result and yes, there is no doubt we would like to see better.

ACOA clients accounted for over 30% of the total net growth in business employment in Atlantic Canada. Net employment in ACOA assisted firms increased by 15% compared to 18% for all of Atlantic Canada firms. As well exports from Atlantic Canada firms have increased very substantially, some 119% since 1993, going from $8 billion to $17.1 billion. A lot of the increase is largely as a result of the ACOA programs in place to help Atlantic Canada businesses.

Each dollar invested in federal-provincial tourism promotion activities has generated almost $9 in tourism spending in Atlantic Canada. That is a tremendous return, $9 for every dollar that governments have put forward.

Since 1997 ACOA has provided over 1,800 low interest loans to young entrepreneurs. These loans have helped create more than 2,400 new jobs in businesses that are run by young entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada.

What is even more exciting is what is happening right now in Atlantic Canada as a direct result of the Government of Canada's investment in the region. The Atlantic Canada investment partnership will invest $700 million over the next five years to help Atlantic Canadians innovate and compete in the global knowledge based economy.

We have had a tremendous response to our first request for proposals under the innovation fund. ACOA has received 195 proposals, very much proving that businesses and our research community are more than willing to work together to increase and invest in the R and D capacity of the region.

ACOA investments are directed at economic capacity building. They go into the start up and expansion of Atlantic businesses and into providing Atlantic Canadians with entrepreneurial skills. All of these activities are beginning to work. Not only are new jobs being created in significant numbers but a fundamental change is taking place in the attitudes of Atlantic Canadians. The region is becoming more entrepreneurial, more forward looking and more innovative. Atlantic Canada is becoming more confident in its ability to compete globally.

Addressing unemployment in the Atlantic region requires taking a long term view. The Government of Canada is committed to a long term view and it will stay the course.

In conclusion, I share the member's concerns for unemployment in Atlantic Canada. The government intends to work to try to deal with the problem.

[Petitions, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition today on behalf of several hundred residents of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, the Burin Peninsula region of Newfoundland and people from all across the country dealing with the tragic and unnecessary death of a 15 year old gentleman by the name of Joshua Doyle. Two young youths have been charged in this incident. One is 15 years old and the other is 18 years old.

The family and many friends of Joshua Doyle are petitioning the House of Commons that the 18 year old who has been charged be tried in adult court and not in young offenders court because the family and friends fear that the treatment would be a little too lackadaisical and not severe enough. This was a very tragic incident where a 15 year old young man lost his life unnecessarily.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of residents of Winterton, New Pearlican and Heart's Content, communities in the riding of Bonavista--Trinity--Conception in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petitioners request the Government of Canada to reinstate 10 weeks of employment as the divisor for employment insurance instead of the current diviser of 14 weeks.

[Food And Drugs Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I sympathize with the hon. member. I understand his question very well.

Representing pretty much a total fishing riding, I know the difficulties that the lack of resources can cause, not only for the harvesters but particularly for fish plant workers who do not have enough resources to process in their plants to provide meaningful work.

Having said that, the 1996 crab season was marked by riots and demonstrations by traditional crab fishery workers in northeastern New Brunswick. To provide temporary sharing of a very lucrative resource with non-traditional participants meant that these workers would see their weeks of work decline with reduced quotas for the traditional crab fleet.

As a result the traditional crab industry proposed a solidarity fund to assist plant workers and displaced crew members to adjust to declining employment. The solidarity fund has always been an industry led initiative with contributions from all crab harvesters each year.

The province of New Brunswick has also made contributions over the years, including a contribution of $1 million this year. The New Brunswick portion of the fund currently includes about $130,000 remaining from last year, plus contributions made this year by temporary participants in the fishery. The issue of contributions to the fund is one that must be resolved between crab fishers and plant workers.

In addition, under the Employment Insurance Act there are a number of HRDC benefits designed to aid unemployed Canadians. To further address the issue of the shortage of work for crab fishery workers in New Brunswick, officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are currently co-operating with HRDC and the province of New Brunswick to try to find some solution for this problem.

The plant workers have asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate crab to them. To do so would be contrary to a long established policy.

[Bélanger-Campeau Commission, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it seems that my remarks are striking a chord or a nerve with some members opposite. I do not know why that is. I guess it goes back to the point I just made that the referendum question put to Quebecers in 1995 was ambiguous.

The significance escaped half the voters. How can the government be reproached for requiring that in future such debate be held in a context of pure clarity? Is that too much to ask? No one on this side of the House thinks it is. We want clarity. We want a clear question and we want a clear majority.

In conclusion, I want to make one further criticism of the motion. It attempts to paint a false picture of what the Bélanger-Campeau Commission really proposed. One of the scenarios in the commission's recommendations was that a referendum on Quebec sovereignty should be held. One would have to conclude that this proposal runs counter to what is being touted these days by the leader of the Parti Quebecois, who talks about some form of confederative association without defining what it actually means.

The Bélanger-Campeau Commission also envisioned the possibility of an offer, originating from the Government of Canada, of a new constitutional partnership. Under such a scenario, Quebec could and would stay within Canada. That is the true nature of the partnership the Bélanger-Campeau Commission was talking about.

Needless to say, it in no way corresponds to the meaning the hon. member opposite wants to convey through his motion, which is every bit as vague and misleading as the question put to Quebecers in 1980 and 1995.

Quebecers already have an effective partnership, one that works very well. That partnership has a name, and that name is Canada. Quebecers want to keep it that way and they are absolutely right. The Government of Canada, and I cannot reiterate this strongly enough, does not want to prevent Quebecers from making their choice.

[Bélanger-Campeau Commission, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member and I want to say that I am quite pleased to be participating in the debate on Motion No. 220 which has been tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.

The motion at least has the merit of providing us with the opportunity to rectify certain facts and to set the record straight in this debate on Quebec secession. The motion is clearly designed to challenge the legitimacy of Bill C-20, which was passed last year by Canada's parliament.

It is therefore necessary to respond to the motion by turning again to the main arguments that were advanced in support of the clarity act. I would first like to address the portion of the hon. member's motion that reads as follows: “that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion”.

I find the hon. member's wording of the motion extremely one-sided. It seems to imply for all practical purposes, and in a manner that is simplistic to say the least, that the current Government of Canada is trying to prevent the government of Quebec from holding an umpteenth referendum on Quebec secession, an option that it is attempting above all to camouflage through vague hints of an alleged will for association.

How many times will it have to be reiterated that the current Government of Canada is in no way seeking to prevent the national assembly from consulting Quebecers on any matter whatsoever?

It should be noted that a recent poll has confirmed that only a minuscule proportion, less than 10%, of Quebecers want such a referendum to be held during the current mandate, while 49% say they never want one to be held, and 76% of respondents, regardless of option preferred, want Quebec to remain in Canada.

I would urge the hon. member to use his inside contacts with the current government of Quebec and to remind Mr. Landry of these facts, since to date he still does not seem to get the message.

Regardless of these considerations, I can only remind the hon. member, who certainly cannot not have forgotten, that Bill C-20, passed last year by Canada's parliament, in no way sought to prevent Quebecers from deciding on their political future. As respected a personality as Mr. Claude Castonguay emphasized this point eloquently before the legislative committee studying Bill C-20 when he said about the bill:

I did not see anything in this bill that limits the jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly nor the right of Quebecers to decide their future.

Indeed, Bill C-20 in no way prevents the national assembly from wording the referendum question as it sees fit. A future referendum would have to be held in full compliance with provincial laws. The clarity act merely specifies that the federal government will not enter into negotiations unless a clear majority of Quebecers vote in favour of secession in response to a question as passed by the national assembly and do determine, through a resolution, whether the question is clear. It is very important that the question be clear.

I ask hon. members to remember that Bill C-20 was our response to the opinion of the supreme court in the Quebec secession reference which was issued in the summer of 1998. Like that opinion of the court, it emphasizes the need to ask a clear question—I emphasize again, a clear question—and to obtain an equally clear majority.

I understand that some members opposite do not particularly like the words clear question and clear majority. They find something radically wrong with a clear question and a clear majority.

Paragraph 87 of the opinion specified states:

The democratic principle—would demand that considerable weight be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada, even though a referendum, in itself and without more, has no direct legal effect, and could not in itself bring about unilateral secession.

Further on in paragraphs 92 and 151 it states:

The continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.

The opinion referred to a clear question on numerous occasions and the supreme court used the expression clear majority 13 times. Why put so much emphasis on clarity? The answer is obvious: the consequences of secession are so grave that it must be clear that the province's population does in fact want to cease to be a part of Canada. Let me say as well that of course secession has very grave consequences for other provinces and other people of Canada as well.

A question that refers to the possibility of a political or economic association is not clear, because if the response is favourable, how can it be known whether it applies to independence, to a new partnership or to a form of independence providing for some type of association?

A clear answer to a clear question: who can be opposed to this principle other than those who, not once but twice, have presented Quebecers with vague, misleading options, with the sole objective, as Mr. Parizeau boasted himself, of getting the lobsters into the pot? Mr. Parizeau boasted publicly that all they wanted to do was get the lobsters into the pot. We all know what happens to lobsters when we get them into the pot. They get cooked.

I can well imagine the objections the Bloc raises in this connection, just as I am hearing now from an hon. member opposite. The Bloc maintains that the questions asked during the 1980 and 1995 referenda were clear. On the contrary, they were nothing of the kind, because they referred to such vague, nebulous concepts as association and partnership which, as I just pointed out, tend to cloud and skew the issue.

To demonstrate the confusion generated by the question asked on the last referendum, I want to refer to the statement made by Professor Maurice Pinard before the parliamentary committee studying Bill C-20.

In Professor Pinard's own words:

In 1995, only about 50% of respondents realized that sovereignty did not necessarily mean partnership. The others believed that sovereignty would not be declared if partnership could not be achieved.

How can it be contested, in light of such figures, that the referendum question put to Quebecers in 1995 was ambiguous when its true significance escaped half the voters?

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to say a few words on the debate amending the Employment Insurance Act. I have listened intently to colleagues from both sides of the House and their serious discussion and comments pertaining to what is a very important issue for most members of the House of Commons.

I represent a very rural riding on the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador where people through no fault of their own find themselves working seasonally. As someone said to me not too long ago, it is not the workers that are seasonal. It is the nature of the business they work in that is seasonal, whether it is forestry, logging or the construction industry, which is dictated by the abilities of government to fund road construction or climatic conditions such as winter conditions that prevent construction from taking place.

In my area of the country it has been dictated by the mismanagement of fish stocks around our coast. People who once worked for 12 months a year now find themselves working for much reduced periods of time. The length of employment the people I represent now enjoy has been decided in large measure by actions of successive federal governments.

We brought our resources into Confederation. The Government of Canada was supposed to be the custodian of our resources for our people. We have found that the situation has not quite worked out, for we find ourselves in some very difficult circumstances.

The people who I represent along the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador always worked for 12 months a year. They did not know what vacations were. Our fish resources were so abundant that our people harvested and brought the fish to shore where our plant workers processed the fish in the processing plants. Then there was a collapse in our groundfish industry and as a consequence the duration of employment was significantly reduced.

As I travel around the coast it is quite sad to see what has happened to very proud people who knew nothing other than 12 months of work and through no fault of their own now work in a very seasonal industry, the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The bill was introduced last fall. Debate had begun. Then we went into a general election. Obviously Canadians gave the government a very clear mandate to proceed in the direction we were going in, which is the direction we are continuing today. That is why we reintroduced the bill.

The changes in the bill will certainly improve our ability to address the original goals of employment insurance reform that were introduced before the election. One very important amendment we see coming forward today is the elimination of the intensity rule.

I have met on many occasions with representatives of fisheries unions, logging unions and construction workers all along the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. One thing they can never understand, and I never understood it as well, is how the intensity rule ever got passed into law. We have been penalizing people through no fault of their own because they happen to live in regions of the country where they are unable to find full time employment.

The intensity rule has penalized them each time they were laid off and went to reopen an EI claim. The dreaded intensity rule reduced their employment insurance benefits by 1%. They went from 55% down to 51%, where most of them are right now. If it had continued they would have bottomed out at 50%. They would never have gone back up to the 55% benefit rate if these amendments had not been introduced in the House. I strongly support the elimination of the intensity rule because it has penalized people in all regions who could least afford such penalization.

What really was ironic and brought it home to me was that the Government of Canada was the custodian of our fish resources from coast to coast to coast. We make decisions about how much fish we can catch and the technologies that can be used in harvesting fish. All management decisions about fish resources are made by the Government of Canada, and successive federal governments have mismanaged our fish resources. That is why our groundfish stocks collapsed and our people were put out of work.

How ironic it was to see the very people who were put out of work because of government mismanagement and a decline in fish stocks being penalized each time they re-opened an EI claim, and through no fault of their own, by the government that was supposed to be managing those resources on their behalf.

I am absolutely delighted today to see that we are going to eliminate the intensity rule and re-establish the benefit rate to 55%. Those of us who have followed EI reform for the last six or seven years know full well that not too long ago the benefit rate was much higher than 55%. Even with re-establishing it at 55%, people are still receiving significantly less in EI benefits than they were five or six years ago and are still bringing home far less through no fault of their own.

As well, I am very pleased that we are going to see the removal of the benefit repayment clawback. It will be raised to $48,750. This is very important as well to a lot of people because at the $39,000 cap many people were clawed back when they filed their income tax return. Raising that cap is a very good move.

The other encouraging thing is that the measure will apply to the 2000 taxation year and those people who are filing income tax returns about now will benefit for that year.

Representing a very rural riding in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am very pleased as well to see that there will be an adjustment to the fishing regulations pertaining to special benefits to ensure that self-employed fishers can take advantage of the recently improved maternity, parental and sickness benefits. Again, this measure will be effective retroactive to December 31, 2000.

These amendments are very positive and are amendments that I strongly support. I lobbied and worked hard within the Atlantic Liberal caucus and the national caucus to bring about those changes because I believed they were needed. It has been a key undertaking of mine to bring about changes. Even though the government, back in 1996, said it would monitor, assess and evaluate the employment insurance reforms that were brought in, and we had done that, I felt that three or four of those measures were very necessary to make the system fair. Those measures included taking away the penalties that were being imposed on people who were involved in seasonal work through no fault of their own. I am delighted that we are making those amendments.

Having said that, and realizing that my time is about up, I just want to say that even with those changes and amendments, there are other areas of the Employment Insurance Act that, in my view, still need to reviewed, such as changes to the divisor factor and some other things. We are making some very important changes with those amendments, but other important amendments and changes are needed.