Joe McGuire

[Committees Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour to table today, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on biotechnology.

Your committee reviewed the issue of biotechnology as it pertains to agriculture and agri-food. As part of the process of renewing the Canadian biotechnology strategy it came up with a number of recommendations which are contained in this report.

The new Canadian biotechnology strategy involves three departments: Industry, Health and Agriculture and Agri-Food. With the explosion of genetically modified products, this strategy will have to be an ever-changing one which members of parliament will have to respond to.

The committee is also requesting a comprehensive answer to the report from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the committee members from all sides for their work. I also wish to thank the committee staff, especially our research co-ordinator, Sonya Dakers, who will be retiring at the end of the month. This happens to be her last major piece of work after 12 years with the agriculture committee. We all wish her well.

[Prince Edward Island, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 125th anniversary of Prince Edward Island's joining Confederation. It was on May 26, 1873 in the wee hours of the morning that Premier J.C. Pope moved that the address to the Queen embodying the terms of union between P.E.I. and the Dominion of Canada be accepted by the assembly of P.E.I.

The government of the day envisioned the development of a great nation and wanted P.E.I. to be part of that future. Admittedly, to that point islanders were reluctant brides.

Nine years earlier, in 1864, P.E.I. had hosted the initial talks on the union of the British North American colonies. However, when the new dominion was created in 1867, P.E.I. opted to pass on it. It was six years later before P.E.I. finally joined Canada.

The Liberal government of Robert Haythorne negotiated an agreement that included the dominion's assuming the railway debt, advancing funds to buy out the island's absentee landlords—

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his question and for his concern on this topic.

I think it is vital for any part of Canada not to lose its greatest natural resource, that is, the people who live in those areas, including those on the coast of British Columbia who have been displaced because of the decisions taken regarding salmon stocks. They no longer were able to earn a living for themselves. Therefore, they had to sell their licences and move on to something else.

The most devastating part of the mismanagement of any resource is the displacement and uprooting of people, whether it is on the west coast, in the forestry industry or in Atlantic Canada.

What we should keep in mind above all else is that in order to retain the health of our coastal communities the resource has to be in a healthy state to provide a living and work for people so they can stay there, bring up their families and educate their children so they can contribute to the area when they mature.

The diversification issue is something that Atlantic Canada has been grappling with since Confederation. At Confederation the Atlantic provinces had one of the healthiest, most vibrant economies in the new nation. The economy was very diversified.

Through various actions taken by the national government, especially on tariffs, the free trade that we had with a lot of countries in the Caribbean, in the New England states and in Great Britain was diverted into high tariff policies which made our industries very unsustainable.

In order to build up the country, Atlantic Canada had to get into something new and diversify because it was competing on the north-south axis in a very inequitable manner.

It is only now, since the free trade agreements, that we are in a position to restart our economic engines in Atlantic Canada and to renew our connections with the Caribbean, which we had for centuries, with the eastern United States, which have approximately 175 million people, and with western Europe.

With that and with time I think the hopes are great for Atlantic Canada and the future is very bright.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I know he stayed in Ottawa to debate this bill. His committee is travelling in the Northwest Territories at the present time and I am sure his presence will be missed. I am sure I would miss him if I was there.

He has a number of questions and I think some of them have already been answered this morning. One of his questions concerns TAGS, about which considerable pressure is coming to bear on the government. We know that the old TAGS was far from perfect. There were a lot of holes in it. We intended to help a lot of people with that $1.9 billion, but many are still in need of assistance.

The reason is because part-way through the process we took money allocated for the buy back program and for training and put it into personal support because of the underestimation of the number of people that would be included in TAGS. The program was running out of money very rapidly, so money was taken out of two vital sectors and used for income support when it probably should have been used to take fishermen out of the program altogether.

The new program must be designed to take people out of the fishery, but also to ensure that there are enough fishermen left to have a sustainable groundfish fishery off the Atlantic coast.

The member also mentioned zone 12 crab. I think he is aware that probably this week the zone 12 management plan for crab will be announced by the minister.

The only way a fishery can be continued in Canada, whether it is on the Pacific, on the north or on the Atlantic coast, and the only way for small fishing villages to survive is to have a sustainable fishing industry. If we continue to overfish, as we have done in the past, we will continue to have the same attitude and pressures that were prevalent when some of our fish plant workers did not get enough work and pressure was put on for them to continue to work so they could collect EI. That created a reliance on the EI system.

This type of thinking has to change. We have to think of the resource first. If there are not enough fish, there are not enough fish. It takes a while. I know we are dealing with families. We are dealing with the ability of individuals to put food on their table, but at the same time if we continue in this way there will come a time when no one will have any weeks in the fish plants in Atlantic Canada. We have to look at managing the resource in a sustainable way so that it will be there not only for the present but for the future.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the member for Mississauga West who spoke previously for his support for the TAGS program and the support of his caucus for the Newfoundland fishery. He mentioned there were a lot of Newfoundlanders in his riding. I am sure they are enjoying themselves there, but they would prefer to be in the communities where they were born and grew up in.

The past speaker reminded us that we are talking about two oceans when we pass fisheries legislation, and also the fish committee that is in the north, and there are three oceans that this bill impinges upon and that is why it is so necessary to have it. He raised the matter of the Estai . The member for Burin—St. George's was saying why it cost us $100,000 to prosecute in that particular event and why we had to return to Spain the various bonds that were required. That is why we have this bill today. We knew that in an international court we would have lost those cases because the legislation that we have before us today was not in force. We are here today to take care of that and to make sure that a predator or a pirate ship will be prosecuted if it is caught ravaging our stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap.

Even as we debate this bill today, massive fishing power is being deployed on the high seas. Large vessels armed with the latest technology are zeroing in on the world's dwindling fish stocks on the high seas. There are flags of convenience vessels that can and do plunder the oceans of the world. They are getting away with it because they operate in the global commons, that is, they fish the high seas that belong to no one and lie outside the authority of any single state.

The legislation before us today amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. When they are amended, Canada will be in a legal position to implement the UN fisheries agreement. That agreement will provide a needed step to deal with the world's fish pirates.

The Brundtland commission, or more properly, the World Commission on Environment and Development, made the following comment about the global commons. I quote directly from the commission's report written more than 10 years ago, in 1986:

Without agreed, equitable and enforceable rules governing the rights and duties of states in respect of the global commons, the pressure of demands on finite resources will [eventually] destroy their ecological integrity.

In other words, unless we move to stop the plundering, we face destruction of many fish stocks around the world. Time is running out.

That was only one of many similar warnings. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that disastrous social and economic consequences await the worldwide fishing industry unless fleets are reduced in size, subsidies are eliminated, and fishing activity on the high seas is regulated.

The legislation before the House today represents those agreed to equitable and enforceable rules that are needed for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in the global commons.

When we pass this legislation and prepare the necessary regulations, Canada will be in a position to join that handful of nations that have ratified the United Nations fisheries agreement, UNFA. A total of more than 59 have signed the agreement and 17, including the United States and Russia, have ratified it so far. We will build the momentum needed to get the 30 ratifications required for entry into force.

When Canada ratifies the UN fisheries agreement, Canada will underline its commitment to settling fisheries disputes with other nations through negotiation and co-operation.

In 1994 Canada was the first nation to sign the UN Food and Agriculture Compliance Agreement for vessels fishing in the high seas. The agreement committed us to exercising licensing control over any Canadian vessel fishing the high seas.

Canada was the prime mover and is among the strongest supporters of the UN fisheries agreement. That is one reason why we should support this bill, so that we can add Canada's name to the list of those who have agreed to work toward a sustainable harvest of protein from the high seas.

The UN fisheries agreement rests on three pillars. First, the agreement sets out the principles on which conservation and management must be based for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. One of these principles is the precautionary approach. That means when it comes to setting catch limits, net and mesh sizes and so forth we agree with the UN fisheries agreement to err not on the side of high hopes or greed but on the side of caution. Conservation measures on the high seas must be similar to the measures enforced within national waters. That means we cannot have incompatible regimes for straddling or migratory fish inside the 200 mile limit of coastal states and outside the 200 mile limit.

Also in setting up the conservation regime, we agree to use the best available scientific information. That is an important point. Under this principle, states will not wait for so-called better information to come along before they limit their catch.

We will not be swayed by those who argue that we do not have enough information to set limits accurately. We will not listen to those who say “let us study the problem some more and then decide”. That is an old dodge. It has been used from time immemorial to delay action and maintain the status quo. If we maintain the status quo we will not have to worry about setting limits because there will not be any fish left to conserve.

No one should think I am suggesting that we should stop or cut out our research programs. We should increase them. Indeed the UN fisheries agreement calls for the parties to commit themselves to continued and increased research. That applies especially to the collection of high quality data, for it is on the basis of this information that we set fishing limits.

The second pillar of the UN fisheries agreement is credible enforcement. Unenforced conservation and management measures are not worth the paper they are written on. We will enforce our conservation and management decisions co-operatively along with other parties to the agreement.

The primary responsibility for enforcement will continue to be with the flag state, the nation that, like Canada, licenses and regulates fishing activities. But the agreement enables states concerned about conservation on the high seas to take effective enforcement measures.

The agreement sets out a framework for action against vessels that break the rules by states other than the flag state, but there are clear safeguards against the abuse of these powers.

Canada has no wish to deprive those who fish on the high seas of their right to do so. I am referring to vessels from those countries known as distant water fishing states. We do not want to end their legitimate use of the high seas, but we do insist on an end to the abuse of the high seas by them or anyone else.

Regional and subregional fisheries management organizations will play the major role in conserving and managing straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In fact it is groups such as these, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, is one example, that establish the specific measures we must take to conserve and manage fish stocks. NAFO sets measures for the conservation and management of stocks that straddle our 200 mile limit. ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, sets them for highly migratory stocks, specifically swordfish and tuna, that move through the high seas and through the exclusive economic zones of many countries.

The third pillar of the agreement is a commitment to settle disputes peacefully. The UN fisheries agreement provides for a number of methods to settle fisheries disputes. Some of these are non-binding, but if these methods fail to resolve the dispute, there is provision for compulsory and binding procedures. My colleagues will have more to say about these particular provisions.

In the little time left to me I would like to return to the enforcement issue. What will happen under this legislation in those cases where fisheries inspectors know that a serious violation has taken place in the international waters within our 200 mile zone?

First of all, what is a serious violation? Some are listed in the legislation and some are brought in through regulations which incorporate by reference the relevant provisions of regional or subregional fisheries management organizations. The agreement specifies fishing in a closed area or during a closed season, exceeding a quota, fishing without a licence, using prohibited gear, or fishing for a stock under moratorium.

As well, a vessel may commit minor violations that cumulatively can be regarded as a serious disregard for conservation and management measures. Here is what the agreement allows. Canadian officers may board and inspect fishing vessels of any other state to verify compliance with conservation and management measures; that is, any other state whether it is or is not a party to the agreement.

Where there are clear grounds to believe a violation has been committed, the protection officer will notify the flag state which is then expected to take appropriate action against the vessel. If it does not respond or if it does not begin to fulfil its obligations to fully investigate and does not take appropriate action within three days, our officers can search and seize evidence and bring the vessel to port.

Actually, the legislation goes beyond this. We can take action when any fishing vessel from a state that is party to the UN fisheries agreement contravenes conservation measures adopted by a local fisheries management organization and we can do that whether or not the state in question is also a member of the organization. This is a breakthrough in the development of the International Law of the Sea.

Under the United Nations fisheries agreement our protection officers may take charge of a vessel until the flag state fulfils its obligation to investigate fully and promptly and then take follow up action. As it stands now, under NAFO for example, if the flag state cannot be contacted our inspectors must leave the vessel even if they discover a serious violation.

The United Nations fisheries agreement procedure is another significant breakthrough.

Enforcement is vital if we are to properly conserve and manage straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. However, we cannot rely exclusively on these provisions. The real goal of the agreement is to create an atmosphere of mutual trust coupled with effective enforcement to ensure the sustainable exploitation of these many important living resources of the sea.

I would like to conclude by quoting Ambassador Satya Nandan of Fiji. It was Ambassador Nandan who chaired the conference that produced the UN agreement. He said:

In essence, this agreement provides for the conservation and sustainable use of the fish resources of the oceans. In place of conflict, it provides a framework for co-operation.

That is something that Canada has always sought. I urge all hon. members to pass this bill and thus permit Canada to ratify this important agreement.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend previous members on their speeches in support of this particular piece of legislation.

I would remind the member for St. John's East that when this government came to power in 1993 the now premier of Newfoundland was fisheries minister. He went to cabinet to find out what plans had been made to continue the support for the Conservative compensation plan and he found there was not a nickel. There was absolutely no plan to do anything with the people who were coming off the Conservative compensation package. That government, during the time of the most massive cuts in the history of this country, found $1.9 billion to put toward the TAGS program in support of the liability which the federal government had to the people of Newfoundland and indeed Atlantic Canada.

There is blame to go around. There is a lot of blame to go around. We can spread it as thick as we want to. However, the fact is that TAGS is running out.

In deference to my colleagues from Ontario, if the hon. member had been at Liberal caucus meetings—and perhaps some day he might be—he would have heard the report of the Ontario caucus. The number two concern in that report was for the government to address as quickly as possible the problems with TAGS in Newfoundland.

I think the hon. member owes the members of parliament from Ontario an apology for the accusations he made that they are doing everything they can not to help the fishermen from Newfoundland who are suffering because of the groundfish collapse.

It is okay to pass the blame. We will take the blame and past governments will take the blame. John Crosbie stated in his book that when he was the minister of fisheries his problems occurred when he was dealing with the provincial premiers. The provincial premiers put on the pressure. The unions put on pressure to keep the quota as high as possible for the people in order to get qualified for work during the fishing season.

With that I would ask the member for Burin—St. George's to address the comments he made to the members of parliament from Ontario who, indeed, support, in every way possible, the government moving on a new TAGS. The old TAGS, as I am sure he will agree, was far from perfect. The new TAGS must address the shortcomings of the old program.

[Committees Of The House, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which concerns Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, and to repeal the Grain Futures Act. The committee studied the bill, which was referred to it on March 27, 1998 by the House, and has decided to report the same with amendments.

I take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee from all sides for their co-operation and a job well done. I also thank the officials and the witnesses who appeared before us and the committee itself.

[Thomas D'Arcy McGee, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, on April 7, 1868 a remarkable father of Confederation was assassinated. However, 130 years later the legacy of Thomas D'Arcy McGee is symbolized by the goals that we as parliamentarians strive to achieve.

McGee's important contributions reflect his Irish descendancy, defined by struggle and suffering, and his compassionate conscience which assisted in the development of the Canadian economic, social and political nature we have inherited.

McGee's work with immigrants led him into the political arena with a Montreal seat in the House of Assembly of the Canadas in 1857. He was responsible as a Reform MLA for legislating progressive social and health conditions and for providing a stable foundation for the Canadian fabric.

It was also his participation in the Confederation debates that fostered his historical legacy as a compassionate visionary, encompassing an equitable partnership between two peoples which would result in what he called a new nationality.

McGee saw Canada as a nation that would bridge differences—

[Oceans, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to remind members of the House and all Canadians that 1998 is the international year of the ocean.

This is not only a year of celebration but also a year to raise public awareness about the role oceans play in our daily lives, even for those Canadians who live far from coastlines.

More than 70% of our planet's surface is covered by water and what we do inland makes a difference to the oceans' health.

Oceans regulate the world's climate and provide more oxygen than the rain forests.

Despite the importance of the oceans to every living being on the planet, they are often taken for granted.

By celebrating the international year of the ocean we can learn more about the three oceans that surround us and include all our communities in efforts to protect them.

We must raise awareness of the importance of this natural resource by involving municipalities, governments, youth groups, neighbours and friends.

It is encouraging that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has taken a leading role on ocean related issues and that the department is seeking collaboration with oceans stakeholders toward the development of Canada's oceans strategy. The goal is to have a strategy in place by the year 2000.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I believe members opposite know the amount of consultation that has gone into this piece of legislation. As I said earlier, there are a lot of different of opinions being expressed in the wheat producing provinces with regard to the wheat board and what should or should not be done there.

I think the minister has struck a proper level here in consulting and listening to the people who are affected by the wheat board.