John Cummins

[National Defence, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the families of servicemen who have been disabled as a result of military service are all too often left to fend for themselves.

On November 24 Marg Matchee goes before the federal court in Halifax seeking veterans benefits. Her husband Clayton Matchee is totally disabled as a result of his service in Somalia. A respected Canadian forces doctor described his condition as mefloquine related. That is, his present condition is the result of a drug, an unlicensed drug illegally administered and fraudulently obtained by the department of defence.

In October 1997, the minister of defence was advised by officials that they had misled the Somalia inquiry on the status of the drug mefloquine. The minister has not bothered to inform Marg Matchee and her daughter that DND misled the inquiry.

I now call on the minister of defence to tell Marg Matchee the truth so that she can support her claim before the federal court next week in Halifax. Time is running out.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the future of the fishery depends on the protection of the marine environment. When our rivers and coastal waters cease being a safe place for fish, we will no longer have healthy and abundant wild stocks.

Bill C-48 would do for the marine environment what parks have done for the buffalo: save a few. Perhaps it was never realistic to expect buffalo to continue to roam the western prairie in vast numbers to survive in the face of settlement, agriculture, mass hunting and the railway.

Today our fish stocks are facing the same pressures the buffalo faced a century ago. Cod stocks on the east coast collapsed nearly a decade ago due to the mismanagement of the fishery by the department of fisheries, corporate greed and the development of new fishing methods that allowed our fishermen to catch literally the last fish. When northern cod stocks were devastated, my friend, the member for Gander—Grand Falls, demanded that those who failed to protect Newfoundland's most valuable resource be held to account. My friend no longer chairs the fisheries committee. Apparently it is okay to call for the creation of marine parks but it is considered threatening to those charged with protecting those fish stocks and their marine environment if we seek to hold them to account.

Salmon stocks on both coasts faced similar devastation to that suffered by the cod. Salmon stocks on the east coast have already been devastated. The Saint John River in New Brunswick has three hydroelectric dams on its stem and one on a key tributary. Migrating salmon are blocked. On the west coast, the federal and provincial governments have allowed hydroelectric dams, poor agriculture and forest practices and industrial pollution to threaten the once mighty Fraser River and its tributaries as well as rivers and streams on Vancouver Island.

Recently the Ottawa Citizen and the Saint John Telegraph Journal reported on a study by scientists at the University of Ottawa. That study reveals hydroelectric dams are silent killers of our rivers. The study finds that dams stand accused of being the principal stressors on rivers. Such findings are not a surprise to fishermen and environmentalists on the west coast where the department of fisheries and its minister sold out to Alcan and those who would dam the Fraser. Although it claims to be a protector of the fishery, the Government of British Columbia has a long history of being seduced by those who would build dams. There is no doubt the province's current agreement with Alcan on Kemano does not adequately protect fish habitat. Marine parks will not halt the devastation to marine life caused by hydroelectric dams.

The Toronto Star recently carried a report on the possible threat to wild fish stocks from fish farms on the Bay of Fundy:

The salmon slipped into vacuum sealed bags for shipment from this brand new processing plant are manufactured, not caught. They are a genetically manipulated species that is born in a plastic tray, vaccinated, often treated with antibiotics, fed red dye and doused with powerful pesticides before they go to market.

Disease is at the heart of the controversy over fish farming in Canada. Environmentalists say the periodic epidemics that sweep through the farms are clear evidence the industry is not healthy. They worry the antibiotics and pesticides used to treat diseases and parasites in fish farms are getting into the food chain.

The story also quotes University of British Columbia infectious diseases specialist, William Bowie:

The idea of pouring potent anti-infectives into the ocean strikes terror into those who see patients we can't treat because they have caught bugs we can't treat.

Another Toronto Star story summarized the disaster that has befallen wild salmon in Scotland. The story quotes Scottish fishermen who blame the disaster on fish farms that produce multitudes of sea lice, parasites that live on the farmed fish and kill salmon when they swim by.

It is thought that the infestation of sea lice in New Brunswick had its origin in Norway or Scotland.

There is now a fear that these diseases or similar diseases will spread to the west coast. Marine parks will not protect our wild salmon from such threats. Rather than turning our federal and provincial departments of fisheries into centres for aquaculture promotion, their main focus must be to continue the protection of the marine environment for wild fish. That does not mean the end of fish farms. There is lots of room for aquaculture operations which respect the marine environment.

In the end, a marine environment that is not safe for fish is one that is not safe for humans.

A department of fisheries report catalogued the effect that poorly planned urbanization and destructive agricultural and forest practices have had on the salmon-bearing streams in the Lower Fraser.

Of the 779 Lower Fraser Valley streams examined, 117 no longer exist, 375 are considered endangered, 181 are considered threatened and only 106 have retained their wild status.

Bill C-48 will not preserve the streams on the Fraser between Abbotsford and Hope. The study classified 58 of those streams as being threatened.

The future of fish stocks and fish habitat depend not on the Minister of Canadian Heritage, no matter how well intentioned she is. The future of the fishery and fish stocks depend on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans making fish stocks his number one priority, enforcing the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and the avoidance of overriding the advice of scientists in favour of the private profits of friends of the minister.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the fundamental protection for fishermen against arbitrary action by the government is found in the public right to fish. The fishers bill of rights introduced by my colleague from Charlotte recognizes the importance to fishermen of this right. It is for this reason I stand today to offer my support for this bill of rights for fishermen.

This ancient public right, a right for all citizens, until recently was so ingrained in our law making that it was not often spoken of. As of late it has become fashionable for ministers of fisheries to trumpet the importance of the creation of exclusive or private fisheries. Sometimes well meaning but weak ministers have been tempted by the idea that they could buy peace on the water and end lawlessness through the creation of private fisheries. This happened in British Columbia in 1992 with the creation of the exclusive native commercial salmon fishery on the Fraser.

Another insidious trend is just as great a threat to the fishery as the attempt to buy peace through the creation of private fisheries. That is the turning of a fishery over to a large corporation, to the rich and the powerful.

In the rush to create these private fisheries, our policy makers have forgotten our history and our fisheries law in regard to the public right to fish. The legal principles underpinning the public right were not arrived at overnight or in some great economic think tank. The public right is not the preserve of the right of economists on the right or the left. The public right knows neither left nor right.

It has stood the test of time. When we tinker with the public fishery we can do great harm unless we have understood what the public right is and its proven utility over hundreds of years, that it has given all citizens access to the public fishery, rich or poor, large or small, native or non-native. That equality of access deserves careful tending in a fast changing world.

Like so many of our legal and political conventions the public right developed in English law, but from the earliest days of settlement found root in Canada. The public right to fish has been a recognized feature of our law since the reception of English law into what is now Canada.

It became codified in 1215 when it was set down in provision 47 of the Magna Carta. It was designed to address a public grievance caused by the practice of the king in those times to clear the public off the fishing grounds whenever he wished to go fishing.

Since 1215 it has been accepted in English law that the king does not own the fisheries in tidal waters. They are public. The king has no power to transfer such public fisheries to an exclusive group. All members of the public are equally entitled to access.

Because the public right to fish has an ancient basis, it is sometimes asked by those not familiar with fisheries or marine law if it still has any basis in law in Canada. The courts and the law officers of the crown have from the earliest days in Canada recognized the public right to fish.

In 1996 the Supreme Court of Canada in deciding Van der Peet, Gladstone and NTC Smokehouse, fisheries cases from British Columbia, relied on the legal principle often referred to as the public right to fish.

This ancient right has stood the test of time and is very much alive today. It guarantees the public right of access in public waters. Fish in navigable or tidal waters are not owned by the crown. Rather, the crown is the guardian or trustee for the public in this right of access to a fishery in public waters.

The supreme court's 1996 decision in Gladstone relied on the position our courts and law officers have been taking for the past 150 years. The court in Gladstone relied on and restated the decision in the 1913 British Columbia fisheries reference:

Since the time of the Magna Carta, there has been a common law right to fish in tidal waters that only can be abrogated by the enactment of competent legislation.

The 1913 reference certainly established that the public right of access was a part of Canadian law, yet it operated in Canada long before 1913.

The National Archives contains an 1866 letter from the solicitor general of the province of Canada that is still quoted today. In the 1866 legal opinion the solicitor general states:

Without an act of parliament—no exclusive right could thereby be gained—as the crown could not—grant an exclusive privilege in favour of individuals over public rights—in respect of which the crown only holds as trustee for the public.

The National Archives also has a handwritten letter to Sir John A. Macdonald from one of his ministers dated 1882 advising him of the centrality in fisheries law of the public right to fish:

Fishing rights in public waters cannot be made exclusive excepting under the express sanction of parliament.

Justice LaForest, a recently retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his legal text “Water Law in Canada” describes the federal government as a trustee for the public of the public right of fishing.

The federal government in its argument in the supreme court in Gladstone neatly summarized the law:

Since Canada was not settled by the English prior to the Magna Carta there could not be exclusive fishing grounds in tidal waters in those parts of Canada which are governed by the common law (unless granted by statute).

“Fisheries Law”, a document prepared by the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia as an aid for lawyers seeking to upgrade their knowledge of fisheries law states:

[The public right to fish] places a restriction on the power of the crown, and therefore on the discretion of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which applies to this day—Without clear express statutory authority common law rights in the public fisheries—cannot be extinguished.

I have taken a great deal of time addressing the public right of access to the fishery because it is fundamental to any bill of rights for fisherman.

Recent actions by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reveal that he has played fast and loose with this ancient right in British Columbia.

My views on the legality of the native commercial fishery regulations are well known.

The provincial court of British Columbia ruled this year that these regulations were outside the law. The court found the minister in contempt of the law but I am not here today to talk about the now illegal exclusive native commercial fisheries regulations.

If the minister and his officials had respect for the law and the ancient right of public access to the fishery, we would not be confronted by an illegal act by the minister of fisheries.

Fishermen must know their rights if they are to protect themselves from those policy makers who would create private fisheries for the profit of the powerful, whether they be large corporations or those that engage in lawlessness.

The best advice, whether in 1866, 1882, 1913 or 1996 by law officers of the crown and the courts has been to remind ministers that their job is to protect the public right. They are its trustee, its guarantor.

I support this bill of rights for fishermen because it acts to remind the minister of his responsibility as trustee of the public right to fish in public waters.

I bring to the attention of the House another area of arbitrary action by the minister of fisheries where fishermen are in need of protection.

Last summer at a time when American Fisheries Society scientists had named at least 214 coho stocks in B.C. at a high risk of extinction, the department's chief spokesman on fisheries management told fishermen that of the 900 individual coho stocks in B.C., only two were threatened with extinction and that efforts would be made to protect them.

On June 19 the minister stated: “In order to meet my coho conservation objectives announced on May 21, all areas on the coast will be defined as either red zones where there is an objective of zero fishing mortality or yellow zones where fishing will be allowed if and when the risk of coho bycatch mortality is minimal”.

When it came to putting in practice the notion of protecting fish, the minister was nowhere to be seen. In fact, he allowed fishing in a red zone area around the Queen Charlotte Islands, an area where coho stocks were at high risk of extinction.

John Disney, a respected fishermen from Masset in the Queen Charlotte Islands, tells me that in the last cycle year commercial gill net fishermen in that area killed only 1,038 coho as bycatch for the whole season.

The minister allowed sports fishermen, in particular his friend, the owner of the Oak Bay Marine Group, to conduct a sport fishery in that area which Mr. Disney estimates was killing 900 coho per day.

A fishers bill of rights as proposed by my friend from Charlotte would have prevented this arbitrary transfer of allocation designed to profit a rich friend of the minister and would have offered protection to the resource.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution states that treaty rights include rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. Thus the Nisga'a treaty becomes part of the Constitution.

Will the minister accept B.C. Premier Clark's logic that a change to constitutional arrangements is not a change to the Constitution, or will she accept the will of the people of B.C. and the B.C. Liberal Party and call for a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty significantly changes the relationship between the Nisga'a people, their neighbours, the Government of Canada and British Columbia.

The treaty represents a fundamental change in the constitutional arrangements in Canada and has resulted in a call for a referendum by the B.C. Liberal Party.

When will the minister join B.C. Liberals and call for a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty?

[Question Passed As Order For Return, October 7th, 1998]

With reference to the antimalarial drug mefloquine administered to Canadian Forces bound for Somalia in 1992-93 and the legal framework under which it was available for use and administered: ( a ) was mefloquine a licensed drug when it was administered to Canadian Forces, if not what was its status, and how was it legally available; ( b ) were the Canadian Forces participating in the Lariam (mefloquine) Safety Monitoring Study during this period; ( c ) was the mefloquine administered in accordance with the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act; ( d ) who was the “principal investigator” responsible for the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study in the Canadian Forces; ( e ) who was the Canadian Forces physician responsible to the “principal investigator” of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study; ( f ) what was the role of Canadian Forces physician, Dr. Martin Tepper, in the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study; ( g ) who was responsible for the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study at the Department of Health's Health Protection Branch during this period; ( h ) what was the role and responsibility of the Health Protection Branch under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act and its regulations in regard to the use of mefloquine by Canadian Forces personnel; ( i ) when did the Health Protection Branch become aware that mefloquine was being administered to Canadian Forces personnel bound for Somalia; ( j ) what responsibility did the Canadian Forces have under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act prior to the licensing of mefloquine to inform the manufacturer of its use; ( k ) what responsibility did the Canadian Forces have under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act to the soldiers who were administered the drug; ( l ) did the Canadian Forces fulfil their responsibility to the manufacturer under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act prior to the licensing of mefloquine and if so how did they do so; ( m ) what responsibility prior to the licensing of mefloquine did the Canadian Forces have under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act to the Health Protection Branch; ( n ) did the Canadian Forces fulfil their pre-licensing responsibilities to the Health Protection Branch under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act and if so how did they comply; ( o ) what action did the Health Protection Branch take in regard to the manufacturer on becoming aware that mefloquine had been administered to Canadian Forces in association with subsequent unexpected bizarre homicidal/suicidal behaviour; ( p ) what action did the Health Protection take in regard to the Canadian Forces and Dr. Martin Tepper on becoming aware that mefloquine had been administered to Canadian Forces in association with subsequent unexpected bizarre homicidal/suicidal behaviour; ( q ) what disciplinary action is provided for under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act for failure of the manufacturer to comply; ( r ) what disciplinary action was taken against the manufacturer for failure to comply with the requirements of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act; ( s ) what disciplinary action was provided for under the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act for Dr. Martin Tepper or others in the Canadian Forces who failed to comply; ( t ) what disciplinary action was taken by the Health Protection Branch against Dr. Martin Tepper or others in the Canadian Forces for failure to comply with the requirements of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act during the pre-licensing period; ( u ) what action was taken by the Health Protection Branch to remedy the failure to comply with the reporting requirements of the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study and the Food and Drug Act; ( v ) did the Health Protection Branch investigate to determine the nature of the adverse reactions that occurred among Canadian Forces personnel; ( w ) what action did the Health Protection Branch take to ensure that the reporting deficiencies in the Lariam Safety Monitoring Study were accounted for in the Study's final analysis of the drug; and ( x ) as a result of the Canadian Forces experience in Somalia with mefloquine, what measures to date has the Health Protection Branch taken to assess the accuracy of the information regarding the nature and frequency of behavioral and neuropsychiatric effects of mefloquine provided to Canadian physicians, in accordance with the Food and Drug Act?

Return tabled.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yes. As yet I have not received a response to Question No. 91. Question No. 91 was asked on March 27 so the 45 days have long since passed. I have other questions I would like to ask and I would like to get this one off the paper. It is of some significance and importance to me. As well, the auditor general who is doing a study on the health protection branch has indicated an interest in these responses.

[Fisheries, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on September 25 native commercial fishermen from Campbell River, B.C. were refused a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

A statement from the native fishermen says in part: “Pilot sales of salmon under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy must stop. Pilot sales are unenforceable and unmanageable. Harvests of salmon on the Fraser River from which pilot sales occur are completely out of control”.

Native fishermen claim that pilot sales are an extremely serious threat to all the salmon resources in B.C. and do not provide effective control over fishing. They noted that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike are suffering.

Native fishermen demanded that the minister put a stop to the pilot sales program. They stated that not only does the pilot sales program threaten the management of the salmon resource, but it is also crippling the businesses and families who cannot access available harvests.

Native fishermen are angry and incensed that the ministry keeps telling them that this misguided program will continue.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am inquiring today about Question No. 91. The question was asked on March 27, 1998. The time has long passed since it should have been answered. The question relates to the use of the antimalarial drug mefloquine by the Canadian forces in Somalia.

It would seem to be a straightforward question. The Minister of Health should know what his responsibilities are under the act and I would like to know when I can expect an answer to this question.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

With reference to infectious salmon anemia (ISA) and its possible effect on salmon and other marine life on Canada's east and west coasts: ( a ) where on the east coast has the disease been found amongst farmed Atlantic salmon, how many pens have reported the disease, how many farms, and how many bays; ( b ) what action has been taken by aquaculture operators to control the disease on the east coast, how many farmed Atlantic salmon have been slaughtered, and what was their value; ( c ) what chemicals, antibiotics or other medicines have the aquaculture operators on the east coast used to prevent or control the disease, and which of these products have been approved for use in the marine environment; ( d ) what is the effect on wild salmon, shellfish and other marine life of the chemicals, antibiotics or other medicines used by aquaculture operators to prevent or control the disease; ( e ) is it possible that local wild species of salmon and other marine life on the east coast have been affected by the strain of the disease found amongst farmed salmon, if so which species of wild salmon and other marine life are most susceptible to the disease, and which of these species would be most threatened by the disease; ( f ) what is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in regard to this strain of the disease, more particularly what responsibility does the department by statute have in dealing with this disease when found in sea-base aquaculture operations; ( g ) what responsibility does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have to prevent the possible transmission of this strain of disease from aquaculutre operations on the east coast to local wild fish stocks; ( h ) what action has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to ensure that this strain of the disease is not transmitted to wild fish stocks on the east coast; ( i ) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans succeeded in preventing the transmission of this strain of the disease to wild stocks on the east coast; ( j ) what research has the Department of Fisheries undertaken on the possible spread of this strain of the disease to wild stocks on the east coast, when will this research be completed and when will it be made available to the public; ( k ) what resources (money and personnel) has the Department of Fisheries spent in the control and prevention of this disease; ( l ) so as to prevent the transmission of this disease what research has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaken into alternatives to net pen salmon aquaculture; ( m ) are farmed Atlantic salmon on west coast susceptible to this disease; ( n ) has this disease found on the east coast yet been found in farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; ( o ) what responsibility does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have to endure that the disease does not get tranferred to farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; ( p ) what action has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to ensure that the disease is not transferred to farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast; ( q ) what special precautions is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertaking to prevent transfer of the disease to the 214 wild coho runs on the west coast identified by the American Fisheries Society as being at high risk of extinction; and ( r ) is it possible to transfer the disease from farmed Atlantic salmon stocks on the west coast to local wild stocks and if so what wild salmon and other marine species are susceptible to this disease?