Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1997

Supply

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. We are definitely sticking to our principle of conservation. The priority of DFO is conservation.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise following discussions among all the parties. I believe you will find consent for the following motion:

That the present debate on the opposition motion continue until 5.30 p.m., and at the conclusion of the debate all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 28, 1997 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. government whip have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see we have an audience of the faithful here this afternoon. We will take advantage of the opportunity to teach the adult class of hon. members seated across the way a thing or two, because they certainly need it.

I am pleased to speak today on a subject as crucial as the future of the fisheries. I note that the Conservative Party has made it an opposition day topic. That is a step in the right direction, but I would like, if I may, to clarify where I stand on it.

I agree that the fishery should be discussed every day. I see the Conservatives calling in the preamble to their motion for the House to recognize the urgent need for action to address the serious problems in fisheries. Well yes, there are serious problems in fisheries. And hooray for them, the Conservatives have woken up and realized it. I must also point out they were part of the problem.

Where they go off the track, however, is that their motion identifies the problem but is way off on the solution. The Conservative motion asks the government to establish a national policy. I will explain why they are on the wrong track.

In this motion, the Conservative Party forgets that British Columbia called for an agreement on co-operative management, which it obtained in part, and their premier, Mr. Clarke, whom I congratulate warmly on it, wants more because it is his perception, along with all the BC fishers, that the federal government is negotiating from a grovelling position with the United States.

The Conservatives also forget that the Government of Quebec has called for repatriation of part of the management of the Quebec fisheries, particularly the non-migratory species, and for a co-operative management agreement for the migratory species. If a party wants to regain power, it needs to treat the east the same as the west.

This motion speaks of resource conservation, that the government must assume leadership. I must remind you that the Conservatives and the Liberals were in power over the last ten years, and that the problem originates with those two parties.

I listened this morning to the speech and the response to a question asked after the speech by the Conservative Party critic. He was replying to a question by the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries who asked him “What would you have as a national policy?” His reply: “More research. More research”. Studies we've got. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have their studies, but they are commissioning more. They accept the ones that suit them.

The problem is that they are both judge and accused. They look at the biomass, for instance, determine the total allowable catch, and then when that figure is not high enough to suit their little buddies, they just cook the figures and raise the TAC.

I think that it was an NDP colleague who called this morning for an investigation. We are in favour of one as well.

We are not in agreement with the motion, and I will explain a little more. We are not in agreement with a policy that is styled as national and overall, but we are still less in agreement with the amendment proposed by the Liberal government, to continue with the policy already in place. That is a free translation of what was said: continue the implementation of.

How could I possibly give my blessing to a government that has been the downfall of the fisheries. The auditor general's report is still fresh in everybody's mind. The auditor general was not exactly kind to the Liberals. He told them point-blank “You created a strategy to rationalize the industry and allow it to survive”. What mark does he give them? Let me tell you: 0% because, in their obsession to reduce the deficit, cuts were made in manpower training, in licence buy-backs, in early retirement programs.

Hearings started this morning in fishing communities. Witnesses from Newfoundland, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and Nova Scotia were heard. People are saying that they still need the Atlantic groundfish strategy because they have not yet started to diversify. In some cases, it is almost out of the question. The program is still needed.

Better still, however, people are coming with ideas on improving things. They are looking to the future, something the government opposite is not, obviously. The government should keep a close eye on the work of the standing committee. I think the coastal communities will show us the route to take.

I will not dwell on the policy of the Conservatives, because I learned nothing new this morning. However, I was surprised that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans actually spoke on the subject. I consider him brave for setting out four principles this morning.

He spoke of what, in his view, could guide a national policy. He spoke of trying to establish a relationship between sustainability of the stocks and the advisability of issuing quotas. That is all very well, but I heard nothing in the minister's speech of his course of action.

He also spoke of trying to strike a balance between catch size and fish stock renewal capacities. Here again, the minister indicated no course of action. He provided no specifics, only principles. I recognize that principles is what we are dealing with, here.

The minister's third principle was about ensuring self-sufficiency for fisheries in the future. He wants to try to make coastal communities and fishing associations self-sufficient. He talked of his way—and here a way is offered to achieving independence—he spoke of co-operative, or joint management.

Every time I have heard the Liberals opposite talking of joint management it always translated as: “Well, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to manage jointly, that is, we are going to share the bill with you”. And it is true, fishing licence fees have gone up, and, as we saw in the previous bill, under the system of joint management, the government was preparing to unload part of the bill for biological and management costs. I still have not seen the benefit of this. The fishing community, whether coastal or midshore, has yet to see its share of benefits.

The fourth principle stated by the minister, and the last speaker boasted about this quite a bit, is conservation, the ultimate goal. For that I must commend the minister. No one can argue with that, not even a sovereignist Bloc member like me. We are all for conserving our fish stocks. But let us wait and see how this will be done.

To continue with this adult education class for the members across the way, with your permission, I could table before this House a document I released last February. We had a different fisheries minister at the time; it was long before an election was called. This goes to show that the we in the Bloc Quebecois do not wait for an election to be called to put proposals forward.

In this document, I set four prerequisites to a reopening of fisheries; indeed, last spring, the minister was toying with the idea of perhaps starting to reopen fisheries. But there was not much consultation with fishers. The biomass threshold at which fisheries could reopen was not determined.

There were no discussions with fishers either to let them know how this would be done, because it has to take place gradually. We expected a reopening but with small quotas.

Nothing was done to identify fishers and on what basis. Nothing was done in terms of identifying the nucleus of fishers who will make up tomorrow's fisheries. This is a serious problem. Everyone in the industry agrees that there are too many people active in the fisheries. Some will argue the harvesting capacity is too big. We will see within the prerequisites I will identify how a balance can be struck between the harvesting capacity and the number of individuals who will be able to earn a living fishing.

Let us start by looking at my four prerequisites. First, the downsizing, or reduction of the harvesting capacity. Second, we must have some idea of what we will do with fishers once they start fishing again. This refers to versatility, to the possibility of catching various species. The third point critical to any reopening, to any negotiation and to the future of fisheries is provincial quotas. I will elaborate on this in a moment. The fourth point is the delegation of powers to the provinces, as I briefly mentioned earlier.

How will we achieve this streamlining and why do we have to do it? Under its Atlantic groundfish strategy, or TAGS, the Liberal government promised to streamline operations. This was the ultimate goal. In return for this upcoming streamlining, the government was to provide income support. Everyone waited. People thought if they were not designated as surplus fishers or workers, it would mean that, some day, they would be able to work in the fisheries again. However, the Liberals fooled us, because not long after the first year of implementing the TAGS program, everything was stopped as regards buying back permits and offering preretirement programs.

The objective behind the streamlining was to match the harvesting capacity with the available biomass, once the moratoriums were over. So, when the minister says he wants to try match this with his second principle, I have suggestions for ways of doing it. An assessment of the situation must be done.

The worst as regards streamlining, and I will say it again, is the definition of the core group of fishers. Those who said this morning that the harvesting capacity must be reduced are on the right track. They recognize that it might be necessary to reduce it by 50%. This is a laudable objective. Some will suggest using more ecological fishing gear. I know there are several schools of thought on the issue. Some will say that only longlines should be used. For those who have never heard of them, these are lines with nothing but baited hooks. It takes a fish of a certain size to be able to take the hook and the bait. That is one approach.

I myself am of another school of thought that says that the various types of gear used nowadays are aimed at different year classes. In the category of mobile gear, longlines and gill nets each catch different year classes. Each of these year classes has a mortality rate. I think that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could examine the mortality of each, and of course, if we wanted to catch more slightly older fish, we could perhaps reduce the catch of those who are taking a bit more. But we shall see. I am indicating an approach, and I am open to other suggestions.

Why is variety so necessary? Everyone began talking about variety when the moratoriums were being introduced. People said that when they began to fish again, they would like to be able to count on fishing from one freeze-up to the next, because everyone knows that, when winter comes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there is the problem of ice and it is very difficult to go fishing. Or, as our NDP colleague said the other day, it is not easy to pick strawberries in January and blueberries in February. Our activities depend on the seasons.

Why am I talking about variety? Regardless of the gear fishermen have, there is always a risk that they will catch a species other than the one they were looking for or the one on their permit. People should therefore be allowed an incidental catch that is a bit larger than present limits. And there should be monitoring of all catches landed as to size and variety.

When I say variety, I am not talking about someone who sets out to catch herring but who sets his nets for salmon—even when he no longer has a commercial fishing permit for salmon. That is not what I mean by variety.

When fishers are after groundfish, they can end up with species other than cod—monkfish and rake, for example—which would add to the value of catches. These are species we are not much used to catching at present, and particularly unused to selling. But it is important that we go in that direction.

That will also enable us, while avoiding waste, to return to the sea certain of the species classified as non-commercial. That would also allow us, since we are entering new markets, to say that the small fish taken accidentally—even though no one wants to take the small ones—can also be sold. When they are deep fishing, any fish that is brought up must be expected to die, because when they are brought up fast through several atmospheres, their guts will burst.

What I see in multi-species licensing is that everyone can have access to various fisheries. We often hear people calling for crab quotas, and they are not traditional crab fishers. Some call for shrimp quotas, and they are not traditional shrimp fishers.

If we took the time to properly rationalize by type of commercial fishery, identified by name at present, the time to do the exercise so that each of these fisheries would be in a position to support the number of fishers and others working in it—first of all there would have to be a fishery-by-fishery exercise. What I am then proposing is that, when it can be identified that such and such a fishery is capable of supporting such and such a number of persons, the type classifications should be removed. The main problem is that the principal lucrative types of fisheries we have are highly specialized and, in many cases, operated only by single-licence fishers. They do not, therefore, have access to diversifying their catches.

What I would propose is that a mechanism be put in place that could be called something like an individual transferable quota. It already exists in areas such as shrimp fishing in the St. Lawrence River or midshore cod fishing, but it should be expanded to other groups.

Why suggest an individual transferable quota? Because, with individual quotas, it is possible to control the fishing effort of any given catching vessel. I would like this quota to be transferable so that, some day, groups of midshore cod fishers can trade quotas—against cod of course—with shrimpers using essentially the same type of gear, that is to say mobile gear. We could take similar measures regarding so-called offshore crab fishers whose gear is called fixed.

Through these mechanisms, we could establish a relationship between the various fishery stakeholders. The cornerstone of this whole downsizing process is, of course, the provincial quota—and in this respect the minister will have to come to terms with what went wrong with the TAGS program the first time around: insufficient involvement on the part of the provinces. Why did the provinces not want to get involved? Precisely because they had no guarantee that provincial quotas would be protected.

How could a fisheries minister, say in Newfoundland, agree to reduce the number of existing plants without any guarantee that his quotas will be protected? It goes without saying that, in order to resolve the deficit problem and effect downsizing, powers will have to be transferred to the appropriate provinces.

It is very important that the minister be made aware of these four prerequisites and I think these four principles give him something to work on. I am now prepared to entertain questions and comments from my hon. colleagues.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks from the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

The hon. member opposite makes suggestions very different from what I heard from the Reform Party, especially the allegations from the member in the back row that really what we should be giving people in fishing communities when they have had disasters is tax breaks.

I will tell the Reform Party that tax breaks do not work when there is no resource for the people to fish. We want to change that. That was the allegation from the member in the back row. That is the kind of stuff we hear from the Reform Party all the time, as if they do not care about Atlantic Canada.

It was very good to hear some of the hon. member's remarks. There are some suggestions that make a lot of sense. I am particularly interested in his comments on transferable quotas.

Having come from a strong farming background, I certainly favour a supply managed industry and quotas which will manage the supply according to demand. One of the problems with the quota system in the past has been that over time it concentrates the ownership in fewer and fewer hands.

One of the concerns on ITQs put forward by fishers and fishing communities is that if they went to a transferable quota system, the quotas might be concentrated into corporate hands and therefore not meet what the real objective is which is to ensure long term viability for the fishing community.

How in terms of the transferable quota system does the hon. member foresee preventing transferable quotas from becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands?

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the government party is interested in my proposals. I will continue to provide those opposite with a little adult education.

Transferable individual quotas are arranged by and for the people who work in the fishing community. Before I get into politics, I would point out that I have worked for a fishing association in Gaspé. We developed one of the individual quota systems, and as we did so for and by the fishers, we knew who it was for and so could set a certain limit within the rules. I will explain.

This has to be anticipated because at some point it becomes difficult when quotas are held by only two or three. No association is possible. The maximum share of the total eligible catches that can be taken by the various parties must be anticipated. It is possible to go even further. It is possible to establish a dollar value by mutual agreement.

If you take the time to meet with the fishers, they will tell you that they want an opportunity to get out. They want to be equipped to be able to work. In many cases this is not possible. I do not need to be a dyed-in-the-wool sovereignist to come up with that. I am happy to see my colleague opposite, who does not share my political philosophy, take interest.

I will go even a bit further in the context of multiparty management of catches and of individual quotas.

A provincial partnership is necessary and there has to be a provincial quota so that the provinces can say: “Okay, with such a small percentage, we will streamline our processing industry”. If a province had this type of undertaking, with Ottawa if necessary, individual quotas could be established. In other words, the available resources would be put on the table and we would look at how many fishers could live off them.

And here I will go a little further. Things could be organized not only by province but also by coastal region. If I take the example of Quebec—I will leave it up to the parliamentary secretary from Prince Edward Island to speak for his region—it is because we in Quebec have four main pillars. There is the north shore of Quebec, the north part of the Gaspé, the south side of the Gaspé, that is, the baie des Chaleurs and the Magdalen Islands. I would not want fishers in the northern Gaspé to be drawing on the quotas of the people of the Magdalen Islands and vice versa. If we protect each other in our communities, the provinces should also protect one another.

It is the fishers who are fishing at moment. Some licences are for processing plants. Some have a grandfather clause. Perhaps we could look with them at ways to manage things, except that the plants need resources to process. There is always some give-and-take in negotiations. However, the government must show from the outset a will to provide provincial protection, to allow a system of individual quotas, and to put in place a structure that will prevent any concentration. We want fishers to have access to that process themselves. It may be decided that the permit holder will be the operator of the boat. All this can be included in the system of transferable individual quotas.

It goes without saying that this implies something in return, as fishers must go through the controls at the docks. Some things must be included in the package. When we talk about partnership and co-management, if fishers are designated and told which group they can join, if they know where the minister is going and at what negotiation table they will be invited to sit, in return, they will say “Okay, we know the number of players involved, now we can talk”.

I had this discussion with many associations. Sure, I still have to establish some contacts. However, I want hon. members to realize that the issue of protection through provincial quotas is extremely important. If I were a provincial fisheries minister, I would never agree to reduce the number of processing plants without a guarantee that my percentage would remain the same. We must always be prepared. This is why we have everything to gain by examining the process.

While I still have the floor, I would like to say that I thought the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would provide an answer. But it is his right to leave the floor to his parliamentary secretary. I would have liked to talk to him in more detail about the Atlantic groundfish strategy and how he intends to go about identifying the core group of fishers.

I would also have liked the minister to be here, because there are rumours concerning the closing of a coast guard radio station in the Magdalen Islands. Based on the discussions I had with the minister at lunch time, this station is not slated for closure. The minister even confirmed he was prepared to look at the most recent arguments in favour of keeping the radio station in operation. Therefore, allow me to question the government's will to establish a partnership, given the marks it received from the auditor general and its attitude regarding management in other areas.

I am still prepared to answer questions from the parliamentary secretary.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from the Bloc. He obviously knows a lot about the subject and I believe in the last Parliament was also involved in this committee.

It is important that we tell all of the story when we talk about transition. Leaving more money in people's hands, no matter what they are doing, is very important. A focus on retraining and a focus on fewer boats fishing is also crucial. All of the transition strategy cannot be based on income support.

People leaving Newfoundland, for example, is very sad indeed.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope we will have a chance to talk again with the Reform Party member.

If I understood the first part of what he said clearly, he is saying that he would rather leave more money in taxpayers' hands and that that is why they are calling for a halt, if I understood correctly, to extending TAGS. I am not in agreement. If they do not want these amounts to keep coming up every year, the right action has to be taken.

If members take the time to read the four conditions I am proposing, they will find solutions that will cost the government nothing later on.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques-employment insurance; the hon. member for Scarborough East-human rights.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion tabled by the leader of the fifth party. I would like to tell the House right now that I will be dividing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

You see how enthusiastic the members opposite are.

I will give a report on the famous Fonds Québec Côtier. The results are so good that the members opposite are already excited.

The motion tabled by the leader of the fifth party raises an important issue in that it addresses the problem of the fisheries, particularly the Atlantic fishery. In this sense, I must say that the motion has some merit.

However, where the government differs fundamentally with the motion by the leader of the fifth party is when the latter mentions that the government has done nothing to help, that it is indifferent to the fate of fishermen and their families.

This is to largely ignore the measures put in place by this government, by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, beginning in May 1994. Furthermore, it will be recalled that the measures had several components. They were seen in part as emergency measures because, obviously, economic issues were involved, as well as more humanitarian ones. It was necessary to act immediately, on an urgent basis, to help these families.

In May 1994 my colleague introduced a multi-faceted program. Obviously, there were income support measures, which were transitory, but there were also economic and community measures. In the Province of Quebec, these measures were assigned to the Federal Office of Regional Development, which I have the pleasure to head up, and we implemented the Programme Québec Côtier. I recently had an opportunity with others to look at the situation in the Gaspé last October 14.

The aim of the program was to ensure that we could intervene in the regions and communities affected by the groundfish crisis, to help not only the fishers affected but also all of the communities, so that the Canadian government together with all the people involved in economic development can rebuild an economic safety net by repositioning the fishing industry and developing new sectors.

At the start of my speech, I heard members of the Bloc shouting and enjoying the fact that I was rising to speak. I can understand that, because they have had little opportunity to become familiar with my report. I must say it is rather an eloquent one. It exists because of the government's intervention and because people in the regions affected were particularly dynamic. They knew how to roll up their sleeves and work together.

In this report, which covers the period from March 30, 1996 to September 30, 1997, in the context of the Québec Côtier program, 229 requests for financial assistance were submitted to the department. Of this number, 121 received offers worth a total of $5.3 million. A total of 380 jobs were created or maintained as a result of these joint ventures. These figures clearly attest to the quality of the Canadian government's commitment.

As the member for Sherbrooke, the leader of the fifth party, pointed out in his motion, these figures testify to the seriousness of our commitment, the quality of our leadership in this matter and our sensitivity to the problems of the families and people affected by the groundfish crisis.

Now if we look a little closer at this intervention by Québec Côtier, and break it down into sub-regions, in the Gaspé region, 70 projects worth a total of $2.8 million were implemented and 200 jobs maintained or created.

On the subject of partnership, the community futures development corporations, which are prime movers in the area of rural and local development, were brought on board. They were stakeholders in the program. They helped deliver the front line services of the Québec Côtier program.

As my colleague from Abitibi pointed out, these corporations are without equal in regional development. The quality of assistance and expertise that they offer is remarkable. When we talk of accurately targeting interventions, we are, obviously, talking about intervening in technological sectors, in cutting-edge sectors but also in areas that are a bit more traditional.

As I indicated, results are encouraging, and the results are encouraging because we in the Government of Canada were concerned and because the interventions were true to our philosophy of working in partnership and in tune with regional realities. This is why we joined up with a policy committee, and I would like to thank the members of this committee, and especially its chair, for having helped develop and implement the program. All of the objectives for this program for economic intervention were met.

As you know, my colleague has indicated that income support measures would end in May 1998. He also announced that he would set up a committee, an individual to determine the impact of the end of these income support measures. Of course the government will pay close attention to all of this study's recommendations.

I would like to point out to the House that, when the time comes to examine future courses of action, if the government deems it appropriate, and particularly if my colleague deems it appropriate in light of the studies' findings, I must say that the model of the Québec Côtier program is one that had considerable success and, although it was an interim measure like all those announced, might prove to be a formula we could continue.

In closing, since I am getting the sign that my time is up—ten minutes is always too short, unfortunately—I would like to sincerely thank the people who worked on the implementation of this program, the members of the advisory committee, and all of the public, because this was obviously not an easy undertaking. Families were affected, but with all of the people helping, we have been able to take a certain number of steps that, without a shadow of a doubt, may make it possible for the regions affected to, essentially, cast their economic nets in different waters and to build quality businesses and, as a consequence, to develop quality lasting jobs, so that not only the major centres but all of the regions will be able to move on into the 21st century.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, I am pleased to be here for the first speech of the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec. I listened carefully and noticed right away that the minister is very self-congratulatory. We have a self-congratulatory secretary of State. It is quite remarkable.

He mentioned projects, indicating that some 70 projects, totalling $2.8 million, created 200 jobs. But the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok tells me that 4,000 jobs were needed. So, to congratulate oneself for creating 200 jobs is all fine and well, but 200 jobs are a far cry from the 4,000 that were needed.

In this context—I listened carefully and did not miss a word of what he said—he congratulated the president. That is but one person. If he claims to have consulted the Gaspe by congratulating one person, the president of the steering committee, he is off the mark. He must do more than that.

He mentioned local community futures development committees. That is fine but there are regional development structures in place in Quebec. He did not say a word about these structures, which have been recognized by the Quebec government, and not a word either about co-operation, consultation, collaboration—these are all good words—with the Quebec fishery minister, who is also the agriculture minister. He did not say a word about that.

I am giving him an opportunity to tell us how well he works with the regional officials within structures under the jurisdiction of Quebec and I would like the Minister of Agriculture, or else the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, to explain how he intends to proceed.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the first comments of the official Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development.

Based on his comments, and given the information provided by the government, there seems to be a lack of experience or understanding on the part of Bloc members regarding regional development, including the number of interventions, the spirit of co-operation and the drive that are required not only from governments but from people in every region to succeed in creating jobs.

In this respect, I want to point out that, in my main speech, I first thanked the members of the steering committee and the residents of the communities affected, because these people displayed an incredible drive. It was unfortunate on the part of the critic on regional development to say that a mere 300 or 400 jobs were created.

[An hon. member]

Two hundred jobs.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Two hundred jobs. For them, 200 jobs is nothing. We should have created 4,000.

Such a disconcerting attitude shows to what extent Bloc members can be disconnected from regional reality. I am pleased that the government, in co-operation and in partnership with all those affected by this crisis, managed in a short period of time to create or maintain such a high number of quality jobs.

I stand by what I said earlier, namely that the role played by the Québec Côtier program was appropriate and meshed with other measures taken by the Canadian government on regional development, including investment funds for community future development corporations and for youth, and also the programming of the Federal Office of Regional Development, through the EEDI-EMP, and the strategic regional initiatives.

Since our government took office in 1993, we have managed to establish good relations with the regions—in Quebec and across Canada—and we will continue to do so to ensure our expertise can be of help to the regions in their development, so that they can enter the new millennium with a strong momentum.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party introduce this motion in the House and listening to what he said were the disaster points in the Canadian fishing industry, I only wish he had listened to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore this morning or the MP from Îles-de-la-Madeleine yesterday before the committee because he might have learned something.

Let us set the record straight on one thing. The major mistakes in the destruction of the northern cod were made when the Government of Canada decided to destroy the food of the cod. The first action it took was in 1990 off the coast of the hon. member's riding, Sackville—Eastern Shore.

The squid caught on the Quebec coast and the coast of Nova Scotia and the coast of New Brunswick and the Gaspé coast and the coast of Newfoundland are actually born in Florida. They travel up the coast of the United States in a thin black line. The fishermen call it the trans-Canada highway of the squid. They go up the coast of Nova Scotia and into the gulf and around Quebec and P.E.I. and up around the coast of Newfoundland.

In 1990, the federal government approved five foreign nations using factory freezer trawlers to put down nets with one-half inch mesh—

[An hon. member]

One-half inch?

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Yes, the fishermen used to call it the panty hose zone. The fish plant workers called it the hair net zone. The federal government called it the small mesh gear zone at that time. Five foreign nations with licences to fish inside Canada's 200-mile zone interrupted the run of the squid.

I ask the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who introduced this motion, were the Liberals in power in 1990 when this was done?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

No, Madam Speaker. Who was in power in 1990 when this was done?

[An hon. member]

Brian Mulroney.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

It was the Tory Party of Canada.

The second biggest error that was made was for the other major food of the codfish. If you want to catch a codfish using bait, you first of all try squid. You would then go to a fish called capelin. The great capelin capture in Canada took place in 1991 when the Soviet Union was given a quota of 100,000 tonnes of capelin in Canadian waters, which is more than any recorded catch of capelin in Canadian history.

In 1991 was it the Liberals who were the Government of Canada? No. It was the Tory party of Canada.

The third greatest mistake that was made by the Government of Canada involved mackerel. The greatest spawning area for mackerel in the world is the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The mackerel enter the Gulf of St. Lawrence from the Atlantic Ocean at the end of May. Prior to 1957 when the causeway was built to Cape Breton Island they would come in between Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia. Now they go up the coast of Cape Breton Island and in through Sydney Bight.

In 1990 three foreign nations were given what were called experimental quotas to catch mackerel in Sydney Bight. In 1991 five foreign nations were given so-called developmental quotas to catch mackerel as they entered Sydney Bight.

Was it the Liberals who were the Government of Canada in 1990 and 1991 when this was done? Who was the Government of Canada? The Tory party was the Government of Canada in 1990 and 1991.

What was the greatest error ever made as far as the spawning grounds for codfish are concerned? It just so happens that in 1990 an internationally recognized spawning ground for cod, commonly referred to as the Flemish Cap, had had international protection for 10 years. This great Canadian government in Ottawa went to international meetings and sat down with the international community under NAFO and decided to lift the moratorium on codfish on the Flemish Cap, on an internationally recognized spawning ground where a moratorium was in existence. That was the Canadian government in January 1991.

Was it the Liberals who were in power in 1991? No. The leader of the PC party forgets it was the Tories who were in power at that time.

[An hon. member]

A selective memory.