Steve Mahoney

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that someone has to speak on behalf of the Conservative members. They seem to be incapable of doing it. This is their opposition day. As a result—if the member would just take a Valium for a moment—all I am suggesting is that they should have taken an opportunity to put some constructive ideas on the table. They did not do that.

What they want to do is try to pretend that they are friends of the western farming community when they know they are not their friends, and the results of last night's byelection proved that. They try to do that but, at the same time, they do not want to upset the east coast fishery because they have a number of members from that part of the country, the only part, I believe, where they actually have any members except for one member in Ontario.

I am just suggesting to the member that I am not afraid to stand up in my caucus and in this place and say that I think what that government did to the east coast fishery was a travesty. I think this government should take some steps, such as increasing the quota of the seal hunt, to see if we cannot help improve the fishing stock on the east coast.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Which am I, ineffective or eloquent?

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. I find the motion interesting. I am sure there must have been a lot of discussion in the Tory party caucus in trying to write this resolution. Sprinkled throughout it there are references to the fishing industry. It talks about Canada's food industry, but it primarily focuses on agriculture, as would be seen in some of the responses.

However, because of the very few number of seats the Tories have in the maritimes, I am sure there was a battle suggesting that they had better not just talk about agriculture and focus on western Canada. I believe yesterday the results in Saskatchewan would show that the Conservative Party is hardly on what any one might call a comeback. I believe it came in fourth. The Liberals did well in three other ridings, one in Ontario and two in Quebec, so we know that the people are generally satisfied with the programs.

I would like to discuss from the point of view of the fisheries a bit of the nonsense about the failure to provide leadership and the failure of the Conservative Party to seize this opportunity to actually say something important about what has happened to our fishing industry.

I recommend to all members a book they should read called Lament for an Ocean .

Far be it for me to quote too much from a book written by a journalist, one who is not necessarily supportive of Liberals or the government, and the name Mike Harris comes to mind. He is not the premier of Ontario but rather the journalist who wrote the book. I must give him credit because when one reads the book and the research that was done one can see a pattern that was developed. Frankly, it was developed under the leadership of Conservative governments and a minister. It is unfortunate to have to criticize someone who is not in this place any more to defend himself, but I am sure he is quite capable of defending himself, as we have seen, and that minister was John Crosbie.

The programs in place in the maritimes were such that they totally had blinkers on and allowed foreign freezer vessels to come in, rape the ocean, particularly off the coast of Newfoundland, and destroy the fishery. Why not take this opportunity with this small gathering of Conservatives from the maritimes to ask the government to do something that would actually help restore the cod fisheries? I do not see any mention of that. The motion mentions solutions for Canada's fishery, but it focuses fundamentally on agriculture.

On the agricultural side of it, we know that there have been what I would have to carefully call some flip-flops by some hon. members. The sponsor of the motion, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, actually said in Hansard “The U.S. government provided $8.7 billion” in farm aid. He went on to ask “When will the minister use his influence to put forward similar resources?” Just seven days later, he was quoted as saying that he had never asked for more money to be added to the pot. I guess we misunderstood that. That was in reference to the money in the AIDA program.

We all know that the government has responded by increasing the funding for AIDA. It is never enough to satisfy members opposite but it is a response. The minister of agriculture, in a responsible way, has topped up that program. Notwithstanding the complaints I have heard about the bureaucracy and red tape, that money is flowing into the hands of Canadian farmers.

Because this is about food in the country, let me go back to the fishery. Our new minister has just announced a $600,000 program to fund new aquaculture programs. That is not a lot of money but it is recognition of the importance of aquaculture, particularly given the damage caused to our natural fisheries throughout the east coast. There is a commitment there. I would like to see more of it.

My colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury, has a program where they want to raise Arctic char in an abandoned mine pit. Apparently all the science and research shows that the Arctic char that comes out of this technology is absolutely spectacular. A small investment at the local community level is needed to make that kind of thing work. Why would members opposite not call for the government to invest in something like that? It seems to me that is a productive thing, something that we could look at and something that should be supported.

I am also surprised that the member opposite did not take the opportunity to address something that I think is one of the great sins of our time, the reduction in the quotas and at one time the banning of the seal hunt. It is really bizarre if we look at why the cod is down. As my hon. friend from the east coast, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would say “seals eat fish”. It is amazing.

Why not look at the fact that there was a recent report to the committee on the situation with the seals? Let me just read about how seals are predators. The report states:

One of the most controversial aspects of the debate on seals is whether predation by harp seals is impeding the recovery of cod stocks.

Imagine anyone asking that question. If we want to create more food and more fish in the country, why do we not look at the fact that there are over five million seals in the population? I believe that figure is three or four years old. The population is probably over six or seven million. They are destroying not only a fishery and a species but a way of life.

The committee went on to state:

None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee claimed that seals were the cause of the collapse of cod stocks, which they clearly attributed to both foreign and domestic overfishing.

The committee puts on blinders and says that even though it has restricted the catch by foreign fishing companies, by freezer trawlers, and even though it has taken the steps to correct the mistakes of former Tory governments in that area, it continues to refuse to believe that the seals are in fact predators that are destroying the cod fishery.

The committee goes on to state:

However, it was noted by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in their April 1999 report “that the single cod stock in the Northwest Atlantic considered recovered, namely, the southern Newfoundland/St-Pierre Bank stock, is the only stock that does not have a large number of seals occurring within its stock range”.

That is pretty clear evidence to me. It basically states that the cod in that part of the world has recovered in terms of its population and size—and the size of the cod is a key factor—because they are not facing the predators in terms of the seals.

I have some other statistics. Do we want to find a way to support Canada's food industry, Canada's fishery? This says that grey seals are consuming between 5,400 and 22,000 tonnes annually of eastern Scotian shelf cod; harp seals may be consuming as much as 140,000 tonnes annually of northern cod; seals in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence may have consumed as much as 68,000 tonnes of cod in 1996 alone; and, seals in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence may be consuming over 10,000 tonnes annually of cod. That is a lot of fish.

Why is it that we somehow feel the need to protect the seals to the tune where they are literally crawling across highways in Newfoundland, for goodness sake, coming right out of the water?

In 1997, the NAFO science community reported clearly that the seals consumed 108,000 tonnes of juvenile northern cod, those less than 40 centimetres, which represents 300 million fish. If we want to do something to help the fishery we should support the report of this council which says that the seal hunt should be increased by 50%? That may be drastic, but in reality that is a step that will allow the cod to recover, that will allow the fishery on the east coast to recover and that will allow the families in that part of the world to get back on the water to make a living so that they generate food for the rest of Canada.

I would have thought that would be the kind of policy that the Conservative Party would be interested in seeing so it could resolve the mess that it caused in its time in office.

[Apprenticeship National Standards Act, November 16th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-318, an act to require the establishment of national training and certification standards for trades that receive apprenticeship training.

Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is to establish national training and certification standards for all apprenticeship trades. It would improve labour mobility and, I believe, encourage our young people to take up apprentice occupations at a time when there is a real shortage in the construction industry.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, November 4th, 1999]

I do not care for how many years. It is not an acceptable solution. If the position of ombudsman is created, it should be created by the reserves. We talk about the programs being introduced on reserves. Something like 83% of the programs were administered in a paternalistic fashion by the ministry in years gone by, dating back to the fifties when it was all just handouts and doing it the government's way. Some 83% of the programs have been transferred to local communities and an additional 7% have been transferred to the provinces. This is making huge strides in a heretofore very difficult, very paternalistic, very government dominated process.

Reformers are constantly yelling about the fact that we should slash government and cut funding. Their policies would decimate the funding of that ministry, the assistance to aboriginal communities. It is difficult to understand how they suddenly think an ombudsman will come cheap. It cost tens of millions of dollars in my home province, and I am sure that was the case in other provinces. My colleague tells me the office of the ombudsman in Newfoundland has been abolished. That is not the way to solve these problems.

I do not doubt his sincerity or the fact that the member spent an enormous amount of time this summer travelling and talking to the men and women whom he has identified in this place. However there is a better way. There is a democratic way to work within government. It is not easy because we are dealing with human beings.

I would ask members of the Reform Party to take an inward look at their own policies, to take a look at the fact that we have just signed an historic treaty in British Columbia which protects the rights of every Canadian. It passes on our constitutional rights to the Nisga'a band yet they continue to oppose it for reasons that are totally unclear to the vast majority of Canadians.

The member may have his heart in the right place, but I am afraid his head is a bit off when it comes to finding a solution. It should be self-government. It should be working with the tribes to help them develop their own programs and their own self-esteem.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for his speech. As he knows, there have not been too many times I have risen in the House to say that. The member deserves the respect of members of the House for the sincerity he has put forward in trying to address some of the very serious problems that exist on reserves across the country.

I too spent some time on reserves in my younger days with the department of lands and forests in Ontario. I saw the poverty. I saw brand new schools being built and all the windows smashed out the very next day. The lack of self-respect, the lack of self-esteem, the lack of jobs that existed in northern Ontario, not in western Canada, are still a problem in too many areas.

I have often thought it is a real travesty that a nation as wealthy as Canada, blessed with its natural resources and financial capabilities, has a people within its boundaries who live life in what could only be described as third world conditions in many instances.

The member will probably not be surprised to know that I disagree with his solution to the issue. I appreciate the fact that it is not his solution, that it has come from the grassroots. I do not mind saying that I disagree with them in using this particular issue as a solution. Let me say why.

I had a private member's bill in the Ontario legislature that would have abolished the office of the ombudsman in the province of Ontario. The reason was that from the days when the ombudsman's office was created in our province, it grew from being a complaint or resolution mechanism to becoming a bureaucracy that was, and in Ontario still is, out of control. It became nothing more than a court of last resort.

I recognize it is different with the folks on the reserves the member is talking about, but there are similarities. Once that is set up it becomes a no at this level and a no at that level but there is always the ombudsman. It just becomes one further process in the bureaucratic jungle with which people have to deal.

My argument to eliminate the ombudsman's office in the province of Ontario was that elected representatives were the ombudsmen. We should be the ones to raise issues. To suggest that the ministry is not accountable to parliament is simply not a fact.

The member may not like the action and there may be things that need to be done to improve it, but I would have thought in all honesty that at the end of the member's speech, for which I did congratulate him, he would have said that therefore he supports the Nisga'a treaty, as an example.

What about a long term solution? This is not an overnight quick fix, the setting up an office and appointing an ombudsman. There would be great criticism about how such a person gets appointed or who it is. There will be accusations of partisanship. All that will take place.

The reality is that we should be working with our first nations to develop programs around self-government and partnership, and I believe the ministry and the minister are doing it. They may want to establish an ombudsman. I appreciate it may not be going fast enough, but Nisga'a is a clear example, whether the member likes the fine print or the details, of a self-government treaty that it is totally beyond my comprehension. I do not understand why the Reform Party opposes something like ensconcing democratic principles in a first nation that has been debating the issue for over 100 years.

I do not want to fight the Nisga'a battle. It seems the Reform continues to do that. However I want to talk about the ministry's attempt to work with first nations leaders and develop self-government principles.

What is wrong with self-government where the members of the band actually elect the council and elect the chief? If an individual is not being accountable to his constituents then there must be mechanisms to deal with it. The member has talked about people making six figure salaries when most of the members of the band are on some kind of social assistance. That is not acceptable. I agree with him and I think we should do something about it.

He talked about the auditor general and the public accounts system. He is empowered to go in and investigate. If there are criminal acts and wrongdoing, the RCMP is also empowered. It is unacceptable for anyone to stand in this place and say an RCMP officer who shall remain nameless told him or her about a criminal activity and then said to forget about it. That is unacceptable. That is not the role of the police. If it happened, it should not have happened. It should have been reported to his superior. There should not be any attempt to withhold an individual's identity or name when that kind of issue comes forward.

The reality is that self-government will ultimately bring self-esteem, not perhaps as quickly as members of the Reform Party would like. They like to think that at the snap of a finger they can solve all these problems. Self-government will bring self-esteem. Self-government will bring democracy to the reserves. We owe a debt as a nation, recognizing that for years we have treated our first nations, our aboriginal people, in an unacceptable and disgusting manner.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know. Two hundred million dollars was given at about 12.30 p.m. and by 5.20 p.m. it is a ridiculous amount of money. I find that difficult.

I know that the member takes a little ribbing from time to time, but I know he is a sincere gentleman. While he stands in this place and goes on about the politics of Saskatchewan, he knows full well that the issue of gun control was probably what sent him here. As long as there are curtains on the back of the truck, somewhere to put the rifle, they will send the member to Ottawa. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with support for the farmers.

The farmers out west know darned well that we are attempting to address the problems they are facing and that it is a crisis. The member opposite cannot in all seriousness stand and try to pretend that he was sent here in some God-like fashion to protect the men and women on the farms. It is a pill I am not prepared to swallow.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we all have fits of common sense, including separatists. It is interesting to me that a separatist would stand to say that they supported the attempts at free trade and the negotiations as a Canadian initiative. It is unfortunate they would not recognize that all of the benefits that have been negotiated through globalization and freer trade around the world have benefited the province of Quebec.

I recall during my days with the ministry of industry and trade in the province of Ontario travelling to various places in the world. I invariably came across an office wherever I went that was the largest, most aggressive trade office representing any government that existed, whether it was Hong Kong or the United Kingdom. That office would be the office of the province of Quebec. They are very aggressive about negotiating trade. They are indeed free traders. For that philosophical understanding I congratulate them.

It is too bad they have to have that one plank in their party to rip the guts out of this country.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen selective memories before. This party has never been willing to climb into bed with an elephant who could roll over and crush it at a whim, unlike the Conservative Party. Members of this party recognize that we have to have agreements all over the world; that free trade does not simply mean a deal between Brian and Ronnie, which is what it was; that free trade means that we have to liberalize trade and take the great technologies and the great talents of Canadians and export them around the world. That is what this party believes. That is what the government believes. That is exactly what we are going to do in Seattle.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we would not be in a surplus position today if it had not been for the wisdom of Canadians who threw that government out of office and put this government in.

I hope the hon. member does not need what he just tore up. I remember a certain prime minister tearing something up and we were not sure what it was. I think what he tore up was the heart of this nation. He left a $42 billion deficit which we have had to clean up.