John M. Cummins

[Petitions, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.

The first petition has to do with the issue of salmon farming. The petitioners note that the federal minister has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitats, and they call upon Parliament to ensure that the minister fulfills his obligation to protect wild fish and their habitats from the effects of salmon farming.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is not with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak to this issue because it is one that we addressed not that long ago in the House, the concerns that many of us had about the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in the country. It is also a problem in a sense that is symptomatic of the fisheries department. That is what disturbs me the most.

I have been in this place almost 10 years and during that time there have been five federal ministers of fisheries. On the west coast, the sockeye salmon has a lifespan of about four years. It is said that the average fisheries minister does not last half the life cycle of the odd sockeye salmon. That is part of the reason we are standing here today. It is because there is no commitment on behalf of the government to putting in place the kind of leadership that is necessary to manage the fisheries resource in this country.

It just does not stop there. If we look at our fisheries committee, I have sat on the fisheries committee for the best part of the last 10 years. Certainly fisheries issues have been at the forefront of my interests in Parliament, aside from other constituency matters. Yet there are members in the House who have been here much longer than I, and unfortunately when I look at that committee, I am probably the senior member on it. That is not healthy because it says that there is a lack of corporate history and understanding of these issues and that is reflected in the very committees of the House, the committees that are charged with the responsibility of managing the fisheries resource.

It goes on from there. We have a new deputy minister now and this deputy minister is not a man who has a history in the fishery. He was a rear admiral, a navy man. I have not a clue what to say about the talents that individual will bring to the table when it comes to managing the fisheries resource. I have not a clue what to say about the kind of leadership he will be able to exert on the department. He is not somebody to whom I would want to go for advice if I were the minister of fisheries for this nation. I certainly would not be looking to an admiral for advice about fisheries matters.

However it just does not stop with the deputy. If we look at the assistant deputy ministers here, again they are largely inexperienced when it comes to management of the fisheries. They are people who may have demonstrated the ability to manage elsewhere in the government, and for some reason someone in the Liberal government feels that they are capable then of being a manager in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However what do they bring to the table when it comes to accepting the advice of those people in the department who are working the field, who have a knowledge of the fishery and who have made it their life's business?

Of all the deputies in the department now, the only one that I can think of who has dedicated his civil service career to the fisheries is Mr. Chamut. Lord knows I have had many a battle over the last 10 years and before that with Mr. Chamut but for sure he has dedicated his civil service career to the fishery, he is knowledgeable and when we engage him in debate we know that we are debating someone who understands the fishery. He may not come to the same conclusions as us but at least he has some knowledge. Unfortunately, because of the requirements in this department, he is precluded from accepting or being promoted to the lead position in the department.

We have a problem in the fishery on the east coast and we have a problem in the fishery on the west coast because there is no competent leadership in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is no competent leadership at the political level. There is no competent leadership within the department.

As a way of an example, a couple of years ago the department put in place a manager whose career before that had been in the Coast Guard. The previous year this individual had been running a boat for the Coast Guard and all of a sudden he was deemed fit to be a manager of the Fraser River fishery. With that kind of leadership, I see the troubles continuing.

I am bothered by what I see here today. I am bothered by the decisions the minister had to make. I do not agree with many of the decisions he has reached but he certainly has my sympathy because he has a huge job and he does not have the troops backing him up.

It is common knowledge that some of the largest Newfoundland towns are now located in Alberta. That is a sad commentary. It gets to the very heart of what it means to be a Canadian and what it means, I am sure, to come from the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador because there are no job opportunities there. One of the major industries is being run by people who really have no business being in the position of managing a fishery because they do not have the experience and they do not have the background. However that is part of the problem we are facing in this country, and this lack of leadership is largely the reason why we are here today.

I mentioned that I had some sympathy for the minister and I do. However I have to be very critical of the decisions he has made recently and of the failure of the Liberal government over the past 10 years to make decisions that should have been made.

We know, as one of the members previously said, that the cod stocks on the east coast are in worse shape now than they were in 1992. In some areas they are only a fraction of the level that they were a decade ago. The reason for that is the government has taken no aggressive conservation measures to aid in the rebuilding of fish stocks on the east coast.

The government has allowed other fisheries to disturb cod spawning areas. Seal populations have mushroomed, moving in like a pack of wolves on a herd of unsuspecting lambs, attacking cod spawning and nursery areas, all without any response by the federal government. In fact this decade of moratorium has really become a free lunch program for seals.

The information that the department gives us, for example, on the harp seal population shows that in the 1970s the seal populations were at their lowest. In 1972, according to DFO estimates, the seal population reached a minimum of 1.85 million seals. By the 1990s, the harp seal population was increasing, it claims, at a rate of 5% a year, reaching 4.4 million seals in 1992. In 1999 the population had reached the level of 5.2 million seals.

I would like to know this from the government. What level of seals it feels is appropriate for the east coast? Is it the not quite two million that were there in the 1970s or is it some other magic number? If we are talking about two millions seals or three million seals, I would like to know how the government intends to get there because the plan that the minister has offered, the $6 million to examine this problem over the next couple of years, will not do the job. What is needed is some action on that front now. I would like to know just what direct action the government intends to take on this very critical area.

We have had a decade of seismic testing that went forward in fragile spawning stocks throughout the coastal waters on the east coast. Foreign fishing continues just off the continental shelf. The fisheries committee of the House and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador both called on the federal government to take over responsibility for the fishery on our part of the continental shelf extending beyond our 200 mile limit. That notion was rejected by the minister, and quite incorrectly so.

The support the minister had from all parties in the House of Commons and from the Newfoundland and Labrador government would have served him in good stead if he had decided to take it. However he chose to ignore that support and it weakened dramatically his efforts or influence at NAFO. That was a sad mistake by the minister.

The government, in making the decisions it did with this closure, failed. It took the advice of the scientists but it failed to take into account the vast knowledge of many of the people and fishermen living in many of the coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere had and were prepared to offer to the government.

The FRCC did not make that same mistake. It took the advice of the scientists and then went out and listened to the people. The decisions it made and the conclusions it came to were remarkably different from the conclusions the minister arrived at. Most important, the ban that the minister placed on fishing was not one that was supported by the FRCC.

I, and I am sure other members in the House, support a science-based fishery. I do not think there is any question about that but we also have to look elsewhere. There are other people who have a good handle on what is happening and those are the people who also manage the fishery. Those are the people who fish, as well. They have something to say because they have seen what has happened.

That is what the FRCC did when it took into account all the information it had that was available to it. It came to the conclusion that the best solution was a small ongoing fishery based on the information the fishery could provide to the scientists on an ongoing basis. Also it was to convince people that there was some hope.

If the fishery is shut down entirely, people will come to the conclusion that after 11 years of a moratorium it is not going anywhere and that the stocks are worse. If it is completely shut it down, it says to them it will continue to go downhill and there is no hope for the future.

The small fishery that was recommended was to serve two purposes primarily. One was to provide some ongoing scientific data. The second was that it would provide some hope to people that the fishery could survive and if the department was prepared to pay attention to the other issues, the fishery could revive.

One of the main issues was the seal predation. This is not something new. It is something the FRCC called for before. It is saying that there are certain spawning areas that must be seal exclusion zones. I heard members opposite laugh at the notion of a seal exclusion zone. They said that we could not put fences in the water or we could not do this or that. I understand that fully but I also know we have to somehow make the effort to ensure the spawning stocks are not preyed upon by the seals.

The kind of action that has to be taken will not be pretty perhaps to many people. We sure are not going to do it by running around trying to neuter seals. We will have to do it the old way and that is to have a cull. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is as plain to me as I am standing here and you are sitting there. The cull is especially needed in the seal exclusion areas about which the FRCC is talking.

The other issue that is most important is the one of seismic testing. Seismic testing is a critical issue and we have not done much in the way of science on that. However work has been done elsewhere and it is fairly conclusive, much of it done in Norway.

DFO scientists have advised the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board that seismic shooting kills plankton, including eggs and larva of many fish and shellfish species. The scientists noted that little scientific studies have been done on the spawning areas in Canada. However, they pointed to Norwegian studies on cod which they believed would be applicable to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

This is what the Canadian scientists told us. They said that cod moved at least 30 kilometres from the air guns that are used during this seismic testing. They noted the abundance in catch rates of cod did not return to levels observed prior to the seismic testing over the five days of observation following the testing.

They said that in other areas fisheries catch rates have been depressed by 50% within tens of kilometres of seismic shooting in certain areas. Similar effects have been reported for cod and the snow crab fisheries on the St. Pierre Bank.

The scientists noted that the west coast of Cape Breton and the Sydney Bight are key spawning and feeding grounds for cod. They warned again that any impacts from oil and gas exploration will be amplified due to the small, shallow, and closed nature of the environment there and of the high biomass and diversity year round.

This is compelling evidence that we have from Norway and yet it is ignored. It almost brings to mind the department's failure to look internationally for scientific evidence on other matters, including the aquaculture that we have talked about in the House.

Recently, Norwegian fisheries scientists reported in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences that seismic shooting severely affected fish location, local abundance, and catch rates in the entire investigation area. They noted that troll catches of cod and haddock declined as well. They said that abundance of catch rates again did not return to pre-shooting level for five days.

Why is it that the minister is prepared to force fishermen off the water when he is not prepared to take action against this seismic testing? Why is it that he is not prepared to call to account and hold to account this type of testing in these critical areas? Why is it that he is ignoring the advice of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council?

I find it bothersome and troubling. As I said, the three issues here are that the minister has forced fishermen off the water against the advice of the FRCC. He is ignoring the recommendations and failing to take action now on the seal issue, one that is crying out for need. He is ignoring the advice on the seismic testing.

Without those three components the hope for a recovery is pretty slim. What is needed in this area is leadership. That leadership unfortunately has been lacking in the government for the past 10 years that I have been in this place. That leadership is not evident at the department right now because of this process of bringing managers in from elsewhere, rather than promoting from within the department and demanding excellence in fisheries management and an understanding of the fisheries resource within the department. It is exasperated as well by the minister's failure to take into account the knowledge that is out there about scientific testing.

I hope beyond hope that somehow the government will pay some attention to the debate. I hope that the minister will take another look at the decisions he has made. One of the best premiers that British Columbia ever had was W.A.C. Bennett. Bennett was a strong man and he made good decisions. He was always there and always willing to take a second look. That is what made him a great premier of British Columbia.

I would like to see this fisheries minister be remember as a great fisheries minister. I would like to see him take a second look.

[Question No. 103, April 11th, 2003]

With regard to programs and all other special expenditures for aboriginals in Delta—South Richmond, what was the total expenditure by department for fiscal years (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) thus far in 2002-2003 for each band or aboriginal organization?

(Return tabled.)

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the terminology the member used is the terminology of the day in that leftover embryos are really leftover humans. I do not know any leftover humans but I think that is a dangerous road to walk down.

The issue is how do we define human life and what respect do we have for human life? That has to be the starting point of this debate because in reality that is the issue on which we will be voting.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of items I would have liked to have included in my speech, but as you may have noticed, there was a bit of a race to get it all done. My friend mentioned Vimy Ridge. I have a couple of quotes from France and Europe that are important.

Philippe Séguin, the president of the National Assembly of the French Republic, remarked in the mid-1990s that the trend toward the enactment of bioethics laws “illustrates a growing awareness around the world that legislators must, despite the difficulties, act to ensure that science develops with a respect for human dignity and fundamental human rights, and in line with national democratic traditions”.

That trend is further illustrated in the preamble to the Council of Europe's convention on human rights and biomedicine, which requires its signatories to resolve “to take such measures as are necessary to safeguard human dignity and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual with regard to the application of biology and medicine”.

Lastly, even the European Union directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions calls for the need for patent law to respect dignity. It emphasizes this by proclaiming that “patent law must be applied so as to respect the fundamental principles safeguarding the dignity and integrity of the person”.

There is a very well-stated and profound feeling in the world that what we are talking about today says something significant about how we view ourselves as humans and how we view the human species. This issue and the vote, as I noted in my speech, will provide a guidepost, in a sense, on where we are going as we proceed down the road to making laws, whether in respect to abortion or ongoing variations of this particular issue about which we are talking.

We should be dealing with the fundamental issue of what it takes to be a human. That is the starting point. Unfortunately I do not believe the government has taken that into consideration in presenting the bill.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mississauga for the question and for the marvellous amount of work he has done on this very important issue. He deserves to be commended for his efforts at making this issue understandable to many of us and to the Canadian public. I thank him for that.

I think that the fascination that science has with embryonic stem cell research is derived from two matters. The first one is money. It seems that money flows to the notion of embryonic stem cell research, not because it is more promising or has the potential to provide cures for diseases as we have discussed in our talks, but simply for the diabolical challenge of producing, I believe, another human being.

I think ultimately that is the fascination with embryonic stem cell research. I can see no other reason. It is either money or this diabolical thrill that will result from producing the first human Dolly.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel, in a now famous speech at Stanford University in September 1994, “Forgetting We Are Not God,” reminded his listeners that the greatest human folly occurred in the 20th century under those leaders in governments who had failed to understand “how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God”.

We are engaged here today in a debate where it is well to remind ourselves of the folly of forgetting that we are not God, that when moral and ethical absolutes are lacking, great evil can be done, and if experience is our guide, almost surely will be done.

A fundamental failure in Bill C-13 is that it is ethically and morally neutral as to a preference between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. The bill does not, nor does the government, commit itself to substantial new funding for adult stem cell research. The bill and the government have tragically failed Canadians on this point.

First and foremost this is an ethical and moral debate because we are talking about human dignity. Much is at stake. We are shaping the future of what it means to be human in Canada. We cannot blindly follow the path of expedience, tailoring our understanding of human dignity to what is scientifically possible.

It is important to remember that scientific understanding does not render other forms of human understanding obsolete or irrelevant. The scientific understanding that the human body contains cells which in turn contain DNA does not trump a parent's understanding of a particular human as their child or a moral and ethical understanding of that child as a member of the human race.

Having a scientific understanding of the human body may be required to evaluate a proposed experimental medical treatment, for example, but it does not reduce a child to a collection of chemicals and cells.

In practice, any scientific understanding a parent may have is likely to make only a very minor contribution to their overall understanding of their child. Importantly, scientific information does not relieve even the most scientific parents of the obligation to make decisions regarding their children in the most comprehensive and just manner possible, as a scientist, as a parent and as a citizen, under the law and under God.

The same obligation holds on a larger scale for members of Parliament charged today with making legislative and policy decisions for society. Evaluating whether a highway should be built in Delta does not require a detailed understanding of how to pour asphalt in the rainy weather that we are often blessed with. Such an evaluation does require an understanding of where the road will lead and what purposes it will serve.

Similarly, evaluating public policy on genetic engineering, embryonic stem cells or human cloning does not require a detailed understanding of the underlying technology, but rather a willingness to weigh the issues raised by this technology in a broader social context without merely deferring to the judgment of scientists.

On moral and ethical issues, scientists are no more prepared to provide an intelligent answer than anyone else. In moral and ethical debates, the professional competence of the scientist is limited to a presentation of the facts.

Society has developed a collection of habits, customs and norms that assist us in making prudential and moral judgments when confronted with new experiences and situations. Prudential judgments are concerned with the practical assessments of risks and benefits: What are the most fitting means to achieve a desirable end? Moral judgments are concerned with the nature of right and wrong, with what should and should not be done in a free and democratic society. “Thou shalt not kill” is an example of a moral prohibition deeply ingrained in our culture that has led to the legal prohibition of murder.

In both prudential and moral and ethical matters, we have certain cultural guideposts that assist us in evaluating new situations as they arise. If someone proposed doing away with Parliament, we would instinctively know that this is an imprudent course of action. History tells us of the likely consequences of such actions.

If we witness one man shoot another on the street, we can rather quickly determine that one man killed another, and furthermore, if the shooting was not in self-defence, that this killing would be homicide.

In both cases we have clear cultural, historical and personal experiences that assist us in determining the proper course of action. But judgment based on past experience has its limits. As objects become further and further removed from the common experience, they also become further and further removed from the common wisdom that is culture.

Because modern science is in the business of discovering new things, it is constantly uncovering items that seem to defy our cultural coping mechanisms. Indeed, that is why we are engaged in this debate today.

Great claims are being made for the therapeutic and drug development potential of human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives. We are told that we are standing on the cusp of a medical revolution, if only the law will permit the necessary research on human embryos to be carried out.

The fundamental ethical objection is that the creation or use of embryos for research is wrong and their destruction indefensible. This implies two things: first, that embryos have a moral status; and second, that in a moral calculation we must appreciate that we violate the protected interest of embryos by deploying them for research or destroying them. Of these two points the first is critical, for, if this does not hold, the objection does not get to first base and it can only apply in an attenuated form.

The human embryo must be directly respected. It matters not that it cannot experience distress or make its own choices. It is not like a rock or a stone. It is a living thing and a member of the human species. As such, it must be protected by the overarching value of respect for human dignity. It has moral and ethical status and to treat it like a rock or a stone is to compromise human dignity.

Canada has always regretted doing the expedient thing rather than the right thing. We remember with shame the removal of Japanese Canadians from the fishery and the sale of their boats and equipment during the second world war. Similarly, we remember the refusal of our government to allow, in the days before the opening of the second world war, the entry into Canada of Jews desperately trying to escape Nazi Germany. Let us not repeat the errors of the past.

Why is a debate about embryonic stem cell research so fundamentally important? First, fundamentally the debate over embryonic stem cell research is about what a human being is, what rights a person has and what respect society owes that person. When people cannot agree on so fundamental an issue, terrible things can happen.

Second, this is an aging society about to confront many uncomfortable ethical dilemmas about vulnerable and unwanted people. What Parliament decides now about embryos sets a precedent for all subsequent legislation. It writes a guidebook for future debates about health and health spending.

The role of a scientist is to give facts. From the ethical and moral perspective scientists have done a marvellous job in giving us the facts, indeed all the facts we need to make an informed ethical judgment: embryos have a fully human genetic tool kit; given the right conditions an embryo will grow into a baby; and embryos are vulnerable and cannot survive without a favourable environment.

If the embryo is a person, it is the human rights, no matter how big it is or what it looks like. No person can be experimented on against his or her will. No person can be dissected for profit. This is a fundamental principle of a democratic society.

Regrettably, much of the debate on this issue has taken place on emotional grounds, pitting the hope of curing heart-rending medical conditions against the deeply held moral and ethical convictions of many Canadians. Such arguments frequently ignore or mischaracterize the facts. To arrive at an informed opinion on human embryonic stem cell research, it is important to have a clear understanding of precisely what embryonic stem cells are, whether embryonic stem cells are likely to be useful for medical treatments and whether there are a viable alternatives to the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific research.

A single stem cell line can produce enormous amounts of cells very rapidly. For example, one small flask of cells that is maximally expanded will generate a quantity of stem cells roughly equivalent in weight to the entire human population of the Earth in less than 60 days. Yet despite their rapid proliferation, embryonic stem cells in culture lose the coordinated activity that distinguishes embryonic development from the growth of a tumour.

Much of the debate surrounding embryonic stem cells should be centred on the ethical and moral questions raised by the use of human embryos in medical research. In contrast to the widely divergent public opinions regarding this research, it is largely assumed that from the perspective of science there is little or not debate on the matter.

The scientific merit of stem cell research is most commonly characterized as “indisputable” and the support of the scientific community as “unanimous”, rather like their support for Kyoto. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the scientific advantages and potential application of embryonic stem cells have received considerable attention in the public media, the equally compelling scientific and medical disadvantages of transplanting embryonic stem cells or their derivatives into patients have been ignored.

There is no scientific consensus about the need for human embryo experimentation. The letter from a group of leading medical researchers to the Australian senate committee studying a bill somewhat similar to Bill C-13 is instructive. It reads:

We the undersigned medical researchers submit the following points for consideration of our elected representatives:

1. While accepting that the debate about destruction of human embryos for research purposes is primarily an ethical one, it is relevant that from a purely scientific point of view, arguments claiming the urgent need for embryonic stem cell research are not compelling.

2. Undue expectations have been created in the community, particularly in those with various medical afflictions, as to the imminence and likely scope of embryonic stem cell therapy.

3. The community has not been properly informed of the scientific difficulties involved in developing embryonic stem cell therapies, which include major obstacles of immune rejection and cancer formation.

4. Research using adult stem cells, by contrast, avoids issues of rejection and cancer formation, and has the clear advantage of being able to use the patient's own cells to repair any deficits.

5. Such research on stem cells derived from adult and placental tissues, which has seen great advances in the last three years is quite compelling in its clinical promise, and does not involve the destruction of nascent human life.

6. In proper medical research, “proof of concept” must first be established in animal models before moving to human subjects. Such proof using embryonic stem cells has not been established in any conditions such as Alzheimer's, MS, diabetes and Parkinson's which are so often part of public discussion.

7. Therefore it is scientifically premature and improper to move human experimentation at this early stage of research.

8. Consistent with proper research principles, we advise that there be a moratorium on the destructive use of human embryos until, if ever, animal models are able to adequately demonstrate “proof of concept”, and human safety issues have been adequately addressed.

There are at least three compelling scientific arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells as a treatment for disease and injury.

First and foremost, there are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another. The same compromises and complications associated with organ transplant hold true for embryonic stem cells. The proposed solutions to the problem of immune rejection are either scientifically dubious, socially unacceptable or both.

The second argument against the use of embryonic stem cells is based on what we know about embryology. Failing to replicate the full range of normal developmental signals is likely to have disastrous consequences. Providing some but not all the factors required for embryonic stem cell differentiation could readily generate cells that appear to be normal but in fact are quite abnormal. Transplanting incompletely differentiated cells runs the risk of introducing cells with abnormal properties into patients. This is of particular concern in light of the enormous tumour forming potential of embryonic stem cells.

The final argument against using human embryonic stem cells for research is based on sound scientific practice. We simply do not have sufficient evidence from animal studies to warrant a move to human experimentation.

While there is considerable debate over the ethical, moral and legal status of early human embryos, this debate in no way constitutes the justification to step outside the normative practice of science and medicine that requires convincing and reproducible evidence from animal models prior to initiating experiments on humans. While the potential promise of embryonic stem cell research has been widely touted, the data supporting that promise is largely non-existent.

To date there is no evidence, none, that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safety transplanted into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigour that is normally applied and legally required under the Canadian Food and Drugs Act and its regulations in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed.

As the largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted, scientific techniques frequently failed to yield the promised results. Arbitrarily waiving the requirement for scientific evidence out of a naive faith in promise is neither good science nor a good use of Canadian taxpayer dollars.

Despite the serious limitations to the potential usefulness of embryonic stem cells, the argument in favour of this research would be considerably stronger if there were no viable alternatives. This, however, is not the case.

In the last few years, tremendous progress has been made in the field of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells can be recovered by tissue biopsy from patients, grown in culture and induced to differentiate into a wide range of mature cell types.

The scientific, ethical, moral and, some would say, political advantages of using adult stem cells instead of embryonic ones are significant. Deriving cells from an adult patient's own tissues entirely circumvents the problem of immune rejection. Therapeutic use of adult stem cells raise very few ethical and moral issues.

In light of the compelling advantages of adult stem cells, what is the argument against their use? The first concern is a practical one: adult stem cells are more difficult than embryonic ones to grow in culture. There is a concern that scientists do not yet know how many mature cell types can be generated from a single adult stem cell population.

In theory, embryonic stem cells appear to be a more attractive option because they are clearly capable of generating all the tissues of the human body. In practice, however, it is extraordinarily difficult to get stem cells of any age to do what we want them to do in culture.

There are two important counter arguments to the assertion that the therapeutic potential of adult stem cells is less than that of embryonic stem cells because adult cells are restricted and therefore unable to generate the full range of mature cell types.

First, it is not clear at this point whether adult stem cells are more restricted than their embryonic counterparts. It is important to bear in mind that the field of adult stem cell research is not nearly as advanced as the field for embryonic stem cell research. With few exceptions, adult stem cell research has demonstrated equal or greater promise than embryonic stem cell research at a comparable stage of investigation.

Further research may very well prove that it is just as easy to teach an old dog new tricks as it is to train a wilful and unpredictable puppy. This would not eliminate the very real problems associated with teaching any dog to do anything useful, but it would remove the justification for age discrimination in the realm of stem cells.

The second counter-argument is even more fundamental. Even if adult stem cells are unable to generate the full spectrum of cell types found in the body, this very fact may turn out to be a strong scientific and medical advantage. If adult stem cells prove to have restricted rather than unlimited potential, this would indicate that adult stem cells have proceeded at least part way toward their final state, thereby reducing the number of steps scientists are required to replicate in culture. The fact that adult stem cell development has been directed by nature rather than by scientists should greatly increase our confidence in the normalcy of the cells being generated.

There is clearly much work that needs to be done before stem cells of any age can be easily used as medical treatment. It seems only practical to put our resources into the approach that is most likely to be successful in the long run.

In light of the serious problems associated with embryonic stem cells and the relatively unlimited promise of adult stem cells, there is no compelling scientific argument for taxpayer supported research on human embryos.

Embryonic stem cell research goes to the heart of how we view human life, both at its earliest and its final stages. As in the case for all matters of life and death, this research raises issues that are both painful and profound. Resolution of these issues should certainly not be based on unfounded speculation and emotional exploitation of those desperately hoping for a cure.

The bill opens the door to the use of human life as simply raw material, to make objects and commodities out of life.

It is written that Moses, after he presented to the people of Israel all the law that God had given him, said this:

I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life that you and your descendants may live....

Today we face the same fundamental moral choice. We must choose life.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the issue of custodial management outside of Canada's 200 mile limit and the response to the committee's request and suggestion that the government exert custodial management over that part of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap which lie outside our 200 mile limit.

The underlying issue we are talking about is the concern about fish stocks. In the committee report we note that the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization reports that 47% to 50% of commercial stocks are fully exploited, 15% to 18% are over exploited, 9% to 10% are depleted or recovering from depletion and that only 25% to 27% of stocks are moderately fished or under exploited.

We have a problem of over exploited of fish. The issue of over exploited is especially pronounced when one looks at the issue of cod and the Grand Banks. The fact of the matter is that since the moratorium was imposed on cod fishing and the Grand Banks in 1992, there are less cod now than there were at the time the moratorium was brought into place. That is a horrific statement.

As many members in the House have alluded, the cod resource provided and was the economic engine of many communities, not only in Newfoundland but in other maritime provinces and in Quebec as well on Canada's east coast. The fact that the resource has depleted so drastically to the point where a moratorium had to be imposed in 1992 and the fact that the stocks have failed to recover since 1992 is a tragedy of epic proportions.

The question we want to ask is, why has that happened? Why have the stocks not recovered? Why did a moratorium have to be imposed in the first place?

The first issue I would like to address on that is the issue of science. Has science failed us or has the government refused or ignored the science that is available? Part of the issue which has driven this debate today and part of the reason that my colleague from St. John's West has been so insistent that this matter be debated before the House today is the incident that happened just a few days ago off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Essentially cod were driven inshore by a herd of seals and because the water temperatures were colder inshore, it caused their gills to freeze up and the fish to die.

There are many who will doubt that could happen, but many of the fishermen in the area say that is their assessment of the issue. Let us face it, these people have lived on that coast for their whole lives. They have listened to their parents and grandparents talk about these matters. I would say their evaluation of it is worth paying attention to. The scientists say that it is impossible to say what caused the cod to leave their traditional wintering spot in deeper waters and come ashore. I think the assessment of the fishermen fills in that gap of the scientists who were not there but who know a great many things.

Science is an interesting thing. The government gets a lot of good scientific advice. Unfortunately, one of the bits of advice that it has not responded to is advice about seals and the impact that they can have on the recovery of the cod stocks.

I want to refer the House to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council “2003/2004 Report on the Conservation Requirements for Groundfish Stocks on the Scotian Shelf and in the Bay of Fundy”. This report was presented to the minister in January 2003. The substance of the report is not much different than what we would find in other areas of the coast. On page 7 of the report it states:

It is clear that seals have had and are having a significant negative impact on some species such as cod.

On page 12 of the report it states:

The models of cod consumption by grey seals imply between 5,400t to 22,000t of cod being removed by seals. These are high removals compared with the estimated 5+ biomass of less than 2,000t reported above, and relative to the cod by-catch in other groundfish fisheries.

In other words, the report is warning of a huge number of cod being caught in this area by grey seals. Further the report states:

The mean percentage of cod (mainly of younger ages) in the grey seal diet has remained at about 12%. Given that the grey seal population has apparently continued to increase at the same rate as previously measured...

There is a huge problem. At page 15 it states:

At consultations, the Council heard from fishermen that there were still many grey seals around the Bird Island area and that they feared that the juvenile groundfish in the immediate area were being consumed at an alarming rate. This cod stock, not unlike many cod stocks Atlantic wide, experiences high natural mortality.

It goes on to recommend:

Last year's recommendation of evaluating Bird Island as a seal exclusion zone for the protection of juvenile groundfish is still deemed necessary.

In other words, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council made a recommendation about a seal exclusion area in the particular area where cod spawn and its recommendation was not listened to or considered by the department.

That is a sad commentary on the ministry and its failure to listen to good scientific advice from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which gives good and reasoned advice.

In the “2003/2004 Conservation Requirements for 2J3KL Cod Stocks” report, the conservation council states that old harp seals are now present year round near the cod concentrations suggesting that this is a huge problem for the cod. It talks about seal predation. It cannot get much more specific than this and it was bold faced in the report so that even with a quick reading the minister should have noted it. It states:

The SSR has concluded that seal predation is limiting cod recovery.

It states further:

That seals should be able to feed on and molest the last remaining large aggregations of northern cod is unconscionable and unacceptable to the FRCC. The FRCC is also concerned about hooded seal numbers and the lack of adequate diet sampling on harp and hooded seals on the banks and shelf. This lack of information is not satisfactory in this time of crisis.

It is pretty clear that the FRCC feels that the seals are a huge problem for the cod. It goes on to state:

Fishermen believe that older harp seals are reducing the spawning potential of stock, and are recommending that seals be controlled in areas where seals are destroying cod in large numbers.

It talks about the next five years and states:

Of prime importance is that the mortality from seals must be curtailed.

It cannot get more straightforward than that. On page 11 it states:

The FRCC recommends that to reduce natural mortality, that areas where cod are aggregated during winter (e.g. Smith Sound) or where seals are inflicting high mortality on cod, be designated as seal exclusion zones.

It suggests that seal exclusion zone teams should be established immediately to keep seals out of Smith Sound year round. The FRCC makes it clear that in its estimation seals have posed a huge threat to cod stocks and it is a threat that has been ignored by the government.

There is another failure of the government and that is the failure of science. I reference that failure largely to the issue of seals. We could go on and talk about the failure to try to understand what in reality is happening to the cod stocks, in other words, directed science on the cod stocks themselves. That is sadly lacking. There is the issue of science but the other issue is the one of enforcement. That reflects directly upon the custodial management report of the committee.

Enforcement is a huge issue. If there is no enforcement, it is a wild west show. Certainly the government's commitment to enforcement has been lacking. Just last fall Coast Guard vessels were tied up on the east coast because they had insufficient fuel. If the Coast Guard vessels are tied up, that means that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans lacks a platform from which to operate. They cannot go out there and keep track of foreign vessels which may be operating in our territorial waters or which may be abusing the resource in the international zone outside the 200 mile limit. The issue of enforcement and the failure of the government to commit to enforcement is a huge part of the problem that we are facing.

The solution is many faceted but as a first priority part of the solution must be a commitment to manage the resource adequately to restore funding to science, and certainly a commitment to listen to fishermen. The second part must be international leadership and when we--

[Question No. 102, March 28th, 2003]

With regard to agreements since 1992 between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and various aboriginal organizations that contain provisions for the sale of fish on an annual basis under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy: ( a ) what quantities and species of salmon caught for aboriginal food, social and ceremonial purposes in British Columbia were stored in cold storage, processing or other facilities in British Columbia on an annual basis since 1992; ( b ) in what year were the salmon being stored caught; ( c ) what quantities and species of salmon caught for aboriginal food, social and ceremonial purposes in British Columbia were stored in cold storage, processing or other facilities in the United States on an annual basis since 1992; ( d ) in what year were the salmon being stored caught; ( e ) which agreements required the collection of royalties by the aboriginal organization on the sale of fish caught under the agreements to support management or other activities of the aboriginal band or DFO and which did not require the collection of royalties; ( f ) what is the value of the fish sold under each of these agreements; ( g ) how much was the required royalty, both in terms of a percentage of the total value of the fish sold and in dollars; ( h ) in terms of percentage and in terms of dollars, how much royalty was collected in each of these agreements; ( i ) who collected the royalty; ( j ) by what means was the royalty collected; ( k ) was a special fishery required to catch the fish to pay the royalty; ( l ) for what was the royalty expended; ( m ) who spent the royalty monies; ( n ) in cases where the royalty was not collected or was less than the amount required by an agreement, what were the reasons for the shortfall; ( o ) what action was taken by DFO to recover the shortfall; ( p ) if no action was taken, what were the reasons for not taking action; ( q ) in cases where no royalty was required to be collected, what was the approximate market value of the fish sold; and ( r ) in cases where no royalty was required, what was the reason for the absence of a requirement to collect a royalty?

[Question No. 101, March 21st, 2003]

With regard to Indian fisheries policies and the effect of the government’s responses to the Marshall decisions, the van der Peet decision and the Sparrow decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding special aboriginal rights to fish: ( a ) what Indian Bands and other related organizations have been authorized to undertake a so-called Sparrow food fishery in each of the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002; ( b ) what were the species and quantities authorized for each such fishery named in (a) and what was the value of the fish harvested for each year; ( c ) what was the amount of the grant or contribution to each Indian Band or other related organization in each year for the fishery named in (a); ( d ) what were the costs or expenditures by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to manage and monitor the fisheries named in (a); ( e ) which Indian Bands and other related organizations and which fisheries identified in (a) meet the test established in Sparrow and van der Peet for the recognition of such an aboriginal food fishery; ( f ) which Indian Bands, communities and other related organizations have received fishing licences, vessels, other equipment and grants and contributions as part of the government’s response to the Marshall decisions in each of the following years, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002; ( g ) what were the species involved and what were the quantities harvested by each Indian Band, community or related organization in (e) and what was the value of fish harvested for each species in each year; ( h ) what was the cost of licences transferred to each Indian Band, community and related organization in (e); ( i ) what was the cost of vessels transferred to each Indian Band, community and related organization in (e); ( j ) what was the cost of other fishing and related equipment received by each Indian Band, community and related organization named in (e); ( k ) what was the value of all grants and contributions to each Indian Band in (e); and ( l ) which Indian Bands, community and other related community organization named in (e) meet the tests established by the Marshall decisions (for example, having regard to having signed a treaty in 1760-61, having a traditional fishing area, having fished these species in their traditional fishing areas prior to or at the time the so-called Halifax or Marshall treaties were signed in 1760-61, and that such a fishery was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties that signed the treaty)?

(Return tabled.)