Peter Stoffer

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, one thing that has not been mentioned tonight is the possible effects of oil and gas exploration off the east coast, but also of the potential on the west coast. We understand that there are discussions ongoing about the possible seismic and possible exploration of oil and gas quite inshore within the British Columbia coastline.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate a bit more. Has he heard those concerns from people in his riding? Exactly what should the government do to proceed in order to maintain its main priority of the protection of fish and fish habitat from the possible effects of oil and gas? We know it has had effects on the east coast. We are very concerned about what it may do on the west coast as well.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for raising the issue of the Great Lakes. He knows that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, a bit of Alberta and northern Ontario, as well as the Northwest Territories, in combination with the Great Lakes, we have the world's greatest inland commercial fishery. All of it is at risk in terms of invasive species.

One of the things we heard was ballast exchange. Although the member was not on the committee in 1998, the east coast fisheries report came out with recommendations regarding ballast exchange water and how the government had to react to that serious issue. Five years later we are still debating it. It was five years ago that we raised the issue of ballast exchange water. I am sure previous committees made similar recommendations, yet the government dithers around on these things.

The former finance minister is the owner of CSL ships. His ships come in as well and there is concern with ballast exchange water. I thank the hon. member from the Alliance Party for raising that as well.

With the position he is in, what can he do to advise the government once and for all to take the issue of ballast exchange water seriously? Many of the invasive species enter our waters from foreign ships entering our ports.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member from Quebec and the parliamentary secretary for fisheries for bringing the issues of the Quebec region to Parliament, because in a lot of cases we think about Atlantic fisheries and we think of the four Atlantic provinces. In many cases we inadvertently do not discuss the issues of Quebec, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine and those issues, for example.

Being the only one from Nova Scotia participating in tonight's debate, apart from the Minister of Fisheries, what I would like to ask him is this. We know that DFO science and research have been cut drastically. We know that the budget did not address that issue. What suggestion would he and his party make to the government to address this serious issue?

We know that whatever information is gathered now will only be helpful down the road. The reality is that we need that information now. We simply do not have it. We have an awful lot of people out there who can give us the information if we would just allow them to access the resources that are required and to work in a co-operative, co-management way in order to deal with the issues of, for example, environmental concerns, ice floes, seals, and dragging, et cetera. I would like him to comment on that, please.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the people in the hon. member's riding want to fish. They do not want compensation packages. They do not want TAGS programs. We heard the FFAW say, “We are not part of this game. We want to be able to fish. Fix the problems before you give us more money to not do our job”.

Would the hon. member agree with that sentiment? Being on the government side is the member proposing that the government rethink this before it makes the final decision and shuts down the economic opportunity of thousands of people on the east coast?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. gentleman and my good friend was on the fisheries committee, we made a unanimous recommendation on ghost nets. To date very little or no effort is being made to retrieve ghost nets.

For the record, ghost nets are nets that have been lost and they fish continuously for many years at the bottom just above the ocean bed. If we could retrieve those nets and get them out of the ocean, we could do an awful lot for fisheries survival not only on the east coast but on the west coast as well.

Would the hon. member for Labrador like to comment further on the issue of ghost nets? What is he doing to ensure that the government is putting the resources in place to retrieve those nets and eradicate them as best as possible from the ocean floor?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Skeena knows, and it is in a beautiful part of the country, there is a major disconnect between those in the regions and management to DFO and those in Ottawa.

He knows that when we were in Vancouver we asked one of the directors for the Coast Guard what the situation was with financial resources for the Coast Guard. He said that money was not a problem. When we went out to the regions, every person condemned that manager for what he said.

Recently in the public accounts committee, the ADM for DFO said that they had the resources and the personnel to do the job. Where the hell do those clowns get the idea they know what they are doing? That is unbelievable. The fact is they have no idea of what is going on in the regions of this country and that is one of our biggest problems.

Would the hon. member agree with that?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I could not help but notice that tonight, out of the seven members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador, five of them are participating in the debate. It shows how seriously their representation takes this debate.

The hon. member mentioned licensing and everything else. We know very well that in Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of the country people who do not fish own many licences. That is something that the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters have stated time and time again. Its policy is quite simple: if we do not fish, we should not own a licence.

What is the hon. member doing inside the walls of government to advise the minister of exactly that principle alone. He knows that the FFAW, the MFU, the PEIFA, and many others in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Atlantic Canada are saying the same thing. They want regulations in place that state that if a person does not fish, they should not own a licence. I know that he agrees with that, but what is he doing inside the party to ensure that the minister knows that and will bring forth legislation to ensure that will be the case in the future?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I will give my hon. colleague from St. John's the opportunity to elaborate a bit further. We heard from the Canada Lands Surveyors the other day regarding the opportunity of expanding the 200 mile limit. They indicated that even though we have not ratified the law of the sea, we may have legal jurisdiction to continue to do that.

I remind members that the Flemish Cap, nose and tail of the Grand Banks used to be called the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Now it would be the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to let the member go on a bit more about that because he is right. If we had the courage and fortitude to stand up for Canadian fishermen and their families, we could extend that limit tomorrow.

I could give the assurance that the rest of the world would say that we are not kicking the foreigners out. We are basically saying that they are now going to fish under the quotas we set and that we are going to monitor and make sure they have the quotas, that there is no cheating, that no one is skimming from the top. We are going to make sure that they only have the fish they are allowed to catch and after that they can leave.

A lot of people think that we would kick people out permanently. That is not true at all. We want to operate it under a Canadian management regime with the science and enforcement to ensure that the fish will be taken according to the regulations and not according to the cheating that is going on now.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, if the government decides on a moratorium and the fishery has to be shut down, there has to be compensation not only for the fishermen and their families but for their communities as well.

Also, the member wants quick remedies. Put money into the Coast Guard. Ensure there is enforcement out there. Let us not forget that recently a Russian vessel had 49 metric tonnes of moratorium cod in its hold. What happened? The vessel went back to Russia.

Let us enforce the 200 mile limit. Let us ensure that there is no illegal fishing out there. Let us open up the market on the seals and ensure that the seals are fully utilized. Let us ensure that the fishing is done through a hook and line method and not through dragging.

If the member wants some specifics I can go on all night. However, I know I am about to be cut off. Put the money into enforcement and into management. Allow regional managers to make decisions when they deem it necessary, especially on the west coast. If the regional department had been allowed to make a decision, then $200 million of economic opportunity would have happened and would not have been wasted.

If those types of things happen on the east coast, then we to stop them. We have to put faith in our east coast people. We have to put faith in our fishermen, their families and their communities. These people make a living from the resource. They feed us. They risk their lives when they are out on the water. We need to concentrate and look at their needs.

If the fishery is to be shut down, ensure these people are looked after as well as their communities. Do not download this problem to the provinces.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I would refer the hon. member for Burin—St. George's, who I consider to be a good friend, to the 1999 seal report. I would ask him to read exactly what the minority report has to say. We support the vast majority of the report, the fact that the seals are a harvestable product. We support the economic opportunity from seals.

I keep hearing about seal exclusion zones. We never hear how that would be done. What does that mean? We are asking for clear clarification of that. We supported, without hesitation, the increased seal harvest that the minister did over a three year period.

Also, we want the government to do exactly what our report said, and that is to find markets for the seals, open them for those products and ensure that seals are fully utilized. Therefore, the economic opportunities from seals will exist throughout all of Atlantic Canada with the regular fishery.

We have always supported that and we will continue to do so.