Peter Stoffer

[Small Scale Fishing, November 30th, 1998]

In my five minute reply.

[Small Scale Fishing, November 30th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should declare an international week of awareness about the benefits of small-scale fishing for the environment and for the sustainability of communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House and the Canadian people for the opportunity to speak to this motion.

The motion basically states that we should respect and honour those fishermen, fisherwomen and plant workers in our coastal communities, on all three coasts, and those who fish in our inland waters of the Great Lakes and in the inland waters of provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

It all started in the 1950s with the invention of the freezer trawler and the ocean factory freezing draggers. These technological advances, the new way of catching fish, have literally destroyed different species of stock throughout the entire world.

In 1977 the present Governor General, Romeo LeBlanc, was the fisheries minister of Canada and he extended our limit from 12 miles to 200 miles. One of the reasons for doing that was to have greater control of our ocean resources.

The unfortunate aspect is that the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated, quite rightly, that governments of the past, Liberal or Conservative, have favoured the large corporations over the inshore sector. I thank him for that admission.

This motion does not in any way reflect on monetary value from the government. It does not reflect in any way any on political partisanship. This motion honours those fishermen who risk their lives every day on the oceans to put food on our tables.

It was announced today in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that search and rescue crews are searching for three more fishermen who are presumed drowned. There were five fishermen on that ship. Two bodies have been found and three more are still missing. Fishermen spend their entire lives working so they can put food on our tables. All this motion does is honour and recognize them.

November 21 is international oceans day. On that day we stop to reflect upon what benefits the oceans provide the human race. We also reflect upon those individuals who work in the resource in all countries.

The resources of the oceans do not just belong to Canada, they belong to all Canadians and to all human beings in countries bordering oceans.

In Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland and in other coastal areas we often see on top of people's homes architectural pieces called the widow's walk. The widow's walk enabled women, especially the wives of fishermen, to watch and hope that their husbands or sons would come back from fishing. Widows' walks can still be seen throughout Nova Scotia and in other provinces as well. They were put there so that the wives could watch for the return of their husbands and sons from their perilous days or weeks of fishing.

Fishing in the old days was not like it is today. It was not the hook and line and small dory fishermen who destroyed the fishery, it was advanced technology. It used to take weeks to catch the fish. Now it takes just minutes.

Today is the opening of the lobster fishery in West Nova and literally thousands of small boats will be out fishing. The chances of some of them not returning are very real. Fishermen risk their lives to earn their livelihood. It is said that farming is one of the most dangerous occupations. Fishing is right behind it. Every year we lose dozens of lives in our coastal communities to fishing.

This motion proposes that we honour fishermen internationally for one week a year. It would provide the opportunity to reflect on what benefits small scale fisheries bring to Canada.

It would be a tragedy if we lost our coastal communities to a lack of resources. Currently in Halifax there is a week long conference on the oceans. This motion is in perfect timing with debates concerning what the world should be doing with the resources of the oceans.

Recently we had the Swissair disaster in Nova Scotia. The very first people on the scene were inshore fishermen; people from Sambro Head, Blandford and from the St. Margarets Bay area. They were the very first people at the scene when that Swissair plane went down.

If we continue in our ways and force fishermen and their families out of these communities that type of ability will be lost forever.

It is not a good idea to pull people out of their communities and move them into urban centres. We absolutely cannot do that.

Again, this motion would allow us to honour for one week of each year these people and their commitments, their ancestors and their communities. I will ask for unanimous consent later on in the debate for this to be made a votable motion.

Many people in my caucus agree with the fact that coastal communities, inland communities, small communities are really what make this country great. They built this country and they will sustain this country.

All I am asking parliament to do, this House of Commons, this very respected and hallowed place, is to honour the inshore fishermen and the small scale fishery, which was, by the way, very sustainable. It went on for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Just recently, since 1956, we have destroyed many aspects of the fishery. Now we are slowly starting to consult and to work with people in the industry to rebuild the stocks and to make employment in the industry as equitable as it was before.

We know there have been changes to the fishery, some good and some bad. All this motion asks for is one week to recognize the hard work of these people, what they do for our environment and also what they do to put food on our tables. It is important to reiterate that these fine, outstanding people risk their lives every day on these small boats, mostly to sustain those in urban centres.

A lot of the children of these fishermen will not realize what it is like to be with their dad, mom, uncle or brother on a small boat because, as we speak, more and more small inshore fishermen are being forced out of the industry. Even the government admits that big scale, big corporate fishing is the way to go. I am certainly not here to debate that. That debate is for another time in our committee hearings.

I know that the parliamentary secretary who is here today realizes that beautiful Prince Edward Island also has thousands of inshore fishermen and that these people risk their lives as well. Members of the Reform Party, including the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, my hon. colleague on the committee, also know that there are hundreds of people in their ridings who realize their livelihood from this resource.

When we travelled to the riding of a former member of our committee, the member for Vancouver Island North, thousands of people came to speak to us about the feasibility and the possibility of retaining small scale fisheries to keep their communities alive. Many of these communities are coastal communities. They do not have road access and many other things that the great urban areas have.

It is an honour, a privilege and a real treat to go to communities like Sointula, Alert Bay, Port Hardy and Prince Rupert, B.C.; Burgeo, Newfoundland; Malpeque, P.E.I; Sheet Harbour, Sambro and Shelburne, Nova Scotia; Broughton Island, Baffin Island in the Northwest Territories and thousands of other communities. It is an honour as a parliamentarian to visit those communities.

All these people ask for is the opportunity to remain in their specific field of fishing. They do not want to become rich. They just want to make enough money to maintain their livelihood and look after their children. That is not very much to ask.

This motion would recognize a symbolic week. It would be a gesture from the House of Commons saying “We respect you. We appreciate what you have done in the past and will do in the future. We will honour your commitment to fishing and providing sustenance for our tables so that we can survive as a species. We will do that by giving you an international week”.

Some people may say that it will be difficult to have an international week. It was difficult, but we managed to do it fairly quickly on the land mines issue. We give the current Minister of Foreign Affairs top marks and a lot of credit for his efforts and other countries' efforts in establishing the treaty on land mines.

If we can do that we can certainly honour fishermen in all coastal regions around the world like those of India, Bangladesh, Namibia, the United States, Chile and Canada. I could go on and on. All nations that have coastal communities and people within those communities can certainly get together either through the UN or through parliament to recognize these communities, fishermen and their families throughout not only Canada but the entire world. It would be a symbolic gesture. It would go a long way toward honouring their commitment to the economy of nations and to the livelihood of their communities.

It is a real pleasure to speak today. I hope the government of the day and future governments will be able to respect and honour small scale fisheries and the people who live within those communities.

There have been many protests directed toward government. I remember the ones in February 1996 when many inshore fishermen occupied DFO buildings because of their perception that their livelihoods were being taken away from them and traded over to big corporations. That argument still continues and the battle still continues.

The unfortunate part right now is that people have given up hope and dignity. The motion will restore some hope and dignity to the lives of these people. I do not have to go into the number of suicides of inshore fishermen and plant workers which have recently happened in South West Nova. A rash of suicides is also happening on Vancouver Island. These people were at one time proud people who worked hard in the fisheries and made a little money to look after their families.

The unfortunate part is that in their perception, and sometimes in their reality, their livelihoods have been taken away by the government or past governments in co-operation with big corporate industry. Evidence abounds which indicates the government today is still favouring certain sectors of the fishing industry over those of the small inshore fishers. That debate would be for another day.

I ask for the indulgence of the House. I will at the end of my speech ask for the motion to be votable. It is not a monetary motion. It is not a motion that binds the government or future governments in any, way shape or form. It is a symbolic gesture to say to people in the inshore communities and our coastal communities that we respect them, that we honour their way of life, and that we will do all we can as a government and as an opposition to respect their way of life and their families.

I thank all members in the House who are taking part in a debate which I think is a very important one.

[Fisheries, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to allocation of the fisheries resource the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has admitted that past governments have favoured large corporations over small inshore fishermen in their coastal communities which have devastated thousands of Canadians and their families.

My question is for the parliamentary secretary. When will the government change this disastrous policy and enter into regional and community based management agreements for this precious resource?

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will be supporting Motion No. 7. It would empower Revenue Canada to use the retrospective duty assessment in cases where there will likely be sufficient fluctuation in prices or costs. In such cases Revenue Canada could require cash deposits on incoming goods with the final liability to be determined on review. The reason is that the U.S. employs this system for all cases, giving it a tougher overall regime on anti-dumping. It is not unreasonable to allow Revenue Canada similar powers which could be used in the appropriate circumstances.

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of our critic for international trade, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, and the Canadian Trade Tribunal Act, CTTA. Unfortunately my colleague is ill but he has asked me to speak on his behalf and I am quite honoured and proud to do that.

With reference to Motion No. 1, I wish to advise the House that we are in support of the Bloc's motion and to provide the position of the New Democratic Party on this bill.

We opposed the bill at second reading on September 25 due to the fact that in our opinion it may well weaken our anti-dumping system, in particular as it compares to our major trading partner, the U.S., the lesser duty provisions being the chief example.

Canada has repeatedly stuck its neck out and been hurt in its headlong embrace of trade liberalization measures i.e., support for our farmers, FDA, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. It is our belief this is not the time to do so again.

Recently we have been hearing in the media concerns about agriculture and why we find it so difficult to support our farmers in terms of any kind of subsidy because of what it may do to countervailing duties from the United States or other nations we currently trade with. I find that appalling and I am sure farmers in Canada would find that appalling as well, to know their government would be hesitant to help them because of the reaction from other countries.

I am sure that is the last thing on farmers' minds as they see animals being shot because they cannot be looked after or the fact that we have grain and seed rotting away because there are no storage facilities. Farmers are leaving their farms in droves as our fishing people have done in our coastal communities as well.

We are a party that opposed the MAI which is an extended version, we believe, of the NAFTA arrangement. Some European nations recently have denied the MAI's going further. Unfortunately the MAI is stalled at the present time. We would like to drive a stake through its heart because of the fact that it was modelled on the NAFTA. European nations are saying quite publicly who in God's green acres would sign the NAFTA deal. Canada puts up its hand and says we did. They found a lot of problems with it. We in the New Democratic Party and our partners throughout the country have found a lot of problems with it as well.

We oppose this bill but we accept and support Motion No. 1 by the Bloc.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do apologize in advance if this has already been discussed.

My colleague from the Reform Party indicates there were many allegations of concern with the vote process that was going on. I am wondering if he has received any written confirmation of those allegations. If he has, has he forwarded those allegations on to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I used to live in the Yukon Territory and I worked quite extensively with the Kaska-Dena council in that area. Now I am working with northern fishing groups who are mostly aboriginal, first nations and Metis people in northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba for them to gain more control or access to their own resource in terms of the fishing industry.

I know it is a long question and deserves a long answer, but would the member and his party not agree that the government and we as parliamentarians should be helping aboriginal and Metis people to gain greater access and control of their own resources?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, probably one of the problems in the country is that politics get involved in what would be considered a very good idea.

Our party supports the marine protection act, although we have some reservations about it. Allow me to digress for a moment, as my critic area is fisheries and oceans and I would like to relate that to this argument. There is a bank off Nova Scotia's shelf called the George's Bank, which by the way and for the public record is not named after the member for Gander—Grand Falls. I mention that because I know he is watching and listening intently to every word. The Americans have put an oil and gas moratorium on their side of the George's Bank to the year 2012.

This is a prime fishing area for all the east coast. Although it has not been accepted and there will be hearings and reviews of it, Canada is considering the possibility of allowing a discussion of oil and gas drilling within the George's Bank, one of the prime fishing areas of the world if not off the coast of Canada.

For us to even consider having a review, talking to companies like Shell, Mobil, PetroCan or whatever is unbelievable. We should not try in any way, shape or form to destroy a resource to exploit another resources. By the way, the resource we are talking about in the fishing industry is renewable. If it is done sustainably with an environmental message behind it, it can be renewable and bring economic wealth not only for future generations but for generations to follow.

If we destroy that and allow oil and gas drilling on the George's Bank, we will have economic wealth for our generation and nothing for the future, absolutely nothing for the future.

The problem with part of the Bloc, Liberal, Reform, Tory and even our debate by allowing politics to get involved is that we can only see in four year terms. I am a new politician. I know that politicians are a reactive bunch. They are not very proactive.

The hon. member for Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan is Metis. His culture and his people look a lot further than the current generation. The input they have on the land and the impact they have on resources is for future generations, not just their children or grandchildren but children hundreds of years down the road, so that they will be able to access and live with the species and resources we currently have.

We have some particular reservations about the bill. We would like to see some refinements, but it is not a bad bill in terms of what we have done with land. The current Prime Minister is very proud to say that he has produced more parks in Canada than any other minister before him. Unfortunately, as in the case of Banff National Park, we trumpet that success and then allow coal mining or strip mining on the border of that park for economic gains right now, but nothing for the long term future of the country.

I remind all parliamentarians and those people who are watching today that we are not the masters of the globe. We share the planet with many other species. For us to exploit a particular species to its extinction is a detriment to all mankind. It is a disgrace that we have a list a mile long of species that used to walk on this planet which are now extinct because of our short term thinking.

Marine parks just add to the parks in Canada. When the provinces get involved, they start introducing legislation which may allow discussions about entering into mining or development inside the parks. Call me old fashion, but my interpretation of a park is a park that we can share in, walk around, canoe in and camp in. It is not necessarily to play golf in, to have saunas, or to exploit mineral resources, fishing resources or to cut down all the trees. I would like to think I could move myself in space 500 years and come back and find the parks just like they were before.

That will not happen because we are looking at these parks and areas of our country and our world as avenues in which to exploit. There is a piece of pie out there and we will take every last bit of it and not share it with anyone else. Unfortunately we do not have enough parks and wilderness areas that are protected. The marine parks act will just move what we have in Canada to our ocean coasts.

I would like to move the discussion to an area called the Gully off Sable Island. Actually there is more than one gully, but this gully, for those who do not know, is a marine wilderness. It is an absolute explosion of marine aquatic life. We are allowing, I do not think with much hindsight, oil and gas drilling in the vicinity of that gully. They say environmental assessments and everything else have been done, but the fact is I do not believe they have done enough environmental assessments on the long term possible damage which may happen not only to that area of the ocean shelf, the Gully area, but other areas there as well.

Another area is the renowned area called the Flemish Cap. As everyone knows, especially the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls and the hon. member for Malpeque, the Flemish Cap is a prime, pristine area of fishing resources. Currently, with acquiescence from our government and foreign nations, we are raping and pillaging that resource. We are using long term draggers.

It is funny that a senior official of DFO actually said in committee on the public record that dragging could be good in some cases because it turns up the soil at the bottom. I have never heard before that dragging a resource, where we exploit completely, rape and pillage the entire bottom, is actually good. It is good for very quick economic gains. It is very fast and efficient but there is no long term thinking in that regard.

If we are to protect the livelihood of fishermen in coastal communities, we require marine parks on all three coasts and within the Great Lakes waters so that fish and other species have a place to go to nurture and to grow. If we do not, there will be nothing left for future generations.

I find it a disgrace that we as parliamentarians can allow politics to get involved in something of this nature. We have to get it out of here. We have to forget the party politics aspect and start concentrating on our children and our children's children so that they can enjoy seeing what we see today.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, being a very young man in age, you must know right now that things you saw as a child your children, your nieces and nephews and their children will not be able to see because we have exploited them. We have altered it. We have changed it for our specific short term benefit but have not thought about the long term.

My party and I are in support of the bill with some reservations. Some changes need to be made and we are hoping they will be made. We are hoping that the provinces, especially Quebec, would be very interested in doing this.

Let us face it. If we take away the provinces and the people, what do we have left? We have the natural resources that were here long before we were ever here. I do not know who gave us the right to exploit them and actually exterminate them. If we do not look at this in the long term, future generations, if we have any, will look at this generation and say we were a bunch of spoiled brats who just took everything for ourselves and left nothing for them.

I will conclude my comments. I extend our support for the bill with some reservations and hope that all parliamentarians will look to the future and not just to themselves.

[Petitions, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, several hundred people signed this petition from various places in Nova Scotia. They pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.

[Fisheries, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago on Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia I attended a funeral of a 26 year old fisherman who committed suicide because he could not make a living from the fisheries sufficient to support his family.

This is the fifth suicide in southwest Nova in the last six months and it coincides with a rash of suicides in small coastal communities on Vancouver Island. The government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been warned repeatedly that their policies of individual transferable quotas and corporate concentration of the resource have to be addressed.

If the destructive policies are not modified the hope and dignity of coastal communities, fishermen and plant workers will be lost.

When will the government stop punishing these people and begin to listen to their concerns? The suicide note of the latest victim summarizes the situation many fishermen find themselves in today. It simply said that if the government would not allow him to provide for his children maybe God can.