Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1997

Supply

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion certainly is a very straightforward motion. I have not conversed with my colleague the fisheries critic so I am not sure where we are coming from but from my perspective, I think it is a good motion. That is not the point.

The point is that this leader has a tremendous amount of gall. This leader was in government. He just finished saying he was in government as the environment minister working with John Crosbie who at the time was the fisheries minister. What was going on was that the fisheries science was being completely swept aside. Just take a look at the political interest from a Conservative perspective on that day in 1990. The problem has been created by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. It has never been more true that Liberal, Tory, same old story when it comes to fisheries issues.

I find it absolutely amazing that this leader would stand up and make this kind of speech when it was he, his department and his party that actually were the major contributors to the problem in the first place.

Where the Reform Party is coming from on this issue is we respect the perspective of the people of the Atlantic and the people of the Pacific. The people in the area should have had the input. The people in the area who know what is going on should have had the input but they did not have an opportunity. It was centralized. It was drawn into Ottawa. The bureaucracy made the decision and it was at the time when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power that the issue absolutely peaked.

I ask this leader, how in the world he can stand up in this House condemning the Liberals as they should be condemned when in fact it was his policies that in the first place created this mess.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for announcing that the Reform Party will support our motion. I sincerely appreciate that.

I have to regret that he gets up and makes my point about one of the problems we have in this place. He started by saying he did not know how they would vote on it. He lives in British Columbia. This is a motion that is tabled today and he does not know how his party will pronounce. He is from British Columbia and he does not know what his critic's position is on this.

One would think that being from British Columbia where this is one of the main issues discussed over the last few months the member for Kootenay—Columbia would have a position. I am disappointed he does not. I imagine his constituents will be equally disappointed that he did not take the time to make out his position.

What we got instead, I do not want to comment on it. We have heard it a thousand times. It is the grandstanding. Notice the style, pointing the finger and saying it is the Tories' fault or the Liberals' fault. I can only imagine that the people who are affected by all these decisions today cannot be feeling very good. I do not understand what that does for them. For any unemployed British Columbian today, the member has offered zero in terms of any kind of hope for the future.

Instead, I would like to speak of what I would like to see the government do, contrary maybe to their approach. Who knows, maybe the Reformers during the day will give us come concrete ideas of what the future should be about.

First, in the case of the Pacific salmon fishery, what I think is important is that the government and the Prime Minister give very real instructions, strict instructions to his ministers to raise this issue at every opportunity with their American counterparts.

When I was Minister of the Environment, every time we met with a minister of another government we systematically, no matter what the issue was, no matter what the responsibility of the minister may have been, whether it was trade or transport, would raise the issue with our counterpart of the other country. Why? Because we wanted to drive home the point that this was a very important issue for Canada. By forcing that issue and by raising it at every opportunity we were successful in doing exactly that.

I would like the government today to make a commitment to do that and to have every minister of the crown opposite raise the issue with every American counterpart. No matter what the circumstance or the issue of the day is they should take that opportunity to raise the issue. That would be the first thing to do. In other words keep the issue on the table.

Second is the matter of the treaty. This is a treaty which our government signed in 1985. No treaties are perfect. The member was alluding to what had been done. In 1985 the government of the day was able to secure this treaty. In the years that followed there was a management plan. It has only been in the last four years that there has not been a management plan. That is even more important.

The principle of equity that is found within the treaty is extremely important. We need to secure that principle, to press it. We need to keep it front and centre in everything we do to ensure that as we move forward with our American counterparts that the principle of equity will be front and centre with respect to any agreements we make in the future.

The third thing we need and which is sorely lacking is an industrial adjustment strategy. I regret that the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia did not speak about that because it actually affects the people of British Columbia. What about the men and women who do not care about Liberal, Tory, same old story, and the huff and puff of the House of Commons? They have kids in school. They have bills to pay. They would like some help. This government should have an adjustment strategy which would allow them to make the transition into new jobs and give them some training. Some money should be put toward that end.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Sherbrooke. It is true that he is not all that bothered because things did not go any better for the fishers of Gaspé when his party was in power. The fishers tell us now it was a fiasco. It started in their time but it seems that the hon. member is repenting a bit, and that is all for the better. He wants to help the government, but he ought to have helped his own at that time.

I, however, agree with him on two points. When he says decisions are made in Ottawa, that is true. In my former riding we had the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, whose opinion is respected throughout the world. Its highly competent researchers have carried out studies in the Gaspé, the St. Lawrence, the Atlantic Ocean. The federal public servants have now come up with another study, and of course the study by the federal public servants takes precedence over the one by our own public servants, who are independent.

I would ask my colleague from Sherbrooke what he himself would do, if he were the government, for these little fishers in Gaspé who will go on unemployment this winter, if they have enough “stamps”. Yet these fishers are hard-working and want to work but, because of their profession—nearly all the cod quotas have been cut—they end up with nothing, or next to nothing. What would he do?

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I travelled extensively in the Gaspé area. Actually, I worked very closely with someone he knows well and a very respected person in the Gaspé, namely Dr. Charles-Eugène Marin, a former member for Gaspé. I can see the hon. member nodding his head in agreement. I think that Dr. Marin has made extraordinary efforts for fishers in the Gaspé.

I think that one of the changes made and imposed by the federal government that have affected them the most and hurt them the most—and I am sure my hon. colleague will agree with me on that—is the unemployment insurance reform, including the fact that their benefits were cut by $33 million. That is what I was talking about earlier.

My colleague, the hon. member for Saint John, New Brunswick, circulated a petition asking that a debate be held in this place on this issue. I think that approximately 40 signatures were needed. She was unable to get a single member of the Liberal Party of Canada from the Atlantic region to sign. This explains in part this government's arrogance and contempt for these men and women.

Seasonal workers depend not only on fisheries but also on forestry. Let us not forget the Eastern Plan, which was important to our region as it created jobs. Forestry is also important in the Gaspé region.

The federal government may cut left and right but try as it might, it cannot cut seasons. They can certainly not make winter disappear and privatize seasons in Canada. And unless they can cut one season, we will continue to live in a seasonal economy where these needs must be recognized. Our party, which, I hope, will form the next government, is committed to ensuring through the employment insurance legislation that these realities are recognized so that these people can earn an honest living.

I will finish with a little word of poetry. There is no position coming from the Reform Party. I will quote for Reformers the official position of their party in regard to the fishery. This is a direct quote from their leader in response to a question about TAGS. He repeatedly said that displaced fishermen and their families in the TAGS program were receiving “the last big social megaproject engineering thing to come out of Ottawa”. I quote the Leader of the Opposition's plan for the future of the resource, “All you can do is say it is over”. There is the plan of the Reform Party for the fishery of Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the leader of the fifth party has recognized this serious crisis did not happen overnight.

We on this side of the House welcome this debate which will allow us to put on the record the many ways we are moving as a government to address this crisis. The member for Sherbrooke criticized that there is not a plan for the future. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will show today where we are at in moving forward with a plan for the future to protect the resources and to protect the communities and the fisheries. As members opposite try to do in question period, I will put a few things in perspective.

As has been indicated this issue did not happen overnight. Where was the member for Sherbrooke in 1984 when the collapse of the groundfish stocks really took place? Where was he when the former fisheries ministers in the Mulroney government basically ignored the scientific reports of the day? The individual who just spoke, the leader of the fifth party, is none other than the same individual who served as the Minister of the Environment in the Mulroney government while foreign fleets were allowed to destroy the northern cod and the Grand Banks stocks.

We took on that issue when we formed the government in the last term. We challenged the issue and got some agreement. We are doing what we can with what is left. It is hard to conserve a stock that has been left in the kind of condition that the previous government left it in, but as a government we are showing every day that we are willing to take up that challenge.

The mover of the motion, the leader of the fifth party, is the very same individual who outlined under the so-called Charest platform a plan that would make the Department of Fisheries and Oceans disappear. Under the Charest platform the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would disappear and would be lumped into a department of sustainable development with several other departments. The voice for the fisheries at the cabinet table would disappear along with it. That is the kind of background the individual comes from.

The current minister has been speaking out at cabinet, standing up for fisheries issues across the country and around the world. The minister has made it very clear that the objective of the Government of Canada is the conservation and protection of Canada's fisheries resource and the achievement of a sustainable fishery and fishing industry, building a future for our resources and our people.

We know the outlook for the next two years will prove to be very challenging but we are moving forward. This will involve several role changes for stakeholders for the delivery and funding of programs. Contrary to what the leader of the fifth party states, we have identified several priorities to advance industry and program renewal. One such area is fisheries management itself.

We are moving forward on the implementation for the renewal of the fishing industry, the necessary reform of the government in Canada's fisheries management programs and achieving fundamental changes in relationships with fisheries and other client groups.

We are rapidly moving ahead with the establishment of integrated fisheries management plans for all the major and most sensitive fisheries and eventually extending this approach to all fishers.

We are developing with stakeholders in individual fisheries additional co-operative management arrangements which will form the basis for future partnering agreements. We are establishing other institutional mechanisms which will establish arm's length licence sanction tribunals for the decriminalization of many fisher violations and allow greater responsibility in allocation and management of decision making.

Another priority is Atlantic reform. On the domestic front industry restructuring has been initiated to build a fishery that is ecologically sustainable and commercially viable. The long term strategy for change is based on establishing a balance between resource supply and industry capacity, including a smaller more self-reliant industry, a core of professional full time fishers, controlled access to the resource and a co-operative management approach between government and industry for management of the fisheries resource.

We are also moving forward in Pacific reform, another area that the leader of the fifth party mentioned. Like the Atlantic, Pacific stock conservation is a growing public concern. Allocation conflict prevails and the economic viability of the salmon fishery has been jeopardized by cyclical declines in abundance, by low market prices and high fishing costs.

Following much consultation and independent review, recommendations have been produced on intersectoral salmon allocations involving the commercial, recreational and aboriginal sectors. Decisions on these recommendations will be required and are likely to be contentious.

Reforms designed to reduce capacity and participation and promote economic and ecological sustainability have been implemented. However, we recognize that these changes have been and will continue to be controversial. Staying the course on industry reform will be a continuing challenge but the minister and this government are certainly up to that challenge, as we have already shown.

The recently signed Canada-B.C. fisheries agreement on federal and provincial roles and responsibilities in the management of the west coast salmon fishery has major implications on the way the government of Canada will carry out its salmon conservation and fisheries management mandate in the future.

The challenge will be to find ways to cultivate constructive provincial involvement in departmental programs and processes through such institutional mechanisms as the new council of ministers, the Pacific fisheries resource conservation council, which will be in place for 1998, the Pacific stock assessment review committee and the proposed licensing and allocations board.

Arctic fisheries are also a priority of this government. These fisheries play an integral role in the lives of northern Canadians. Harvesting of fish and marine mammals provides a considerable portion of the food requirements and one of the few sources of income and employment in northern communities.

Pressure on Arctic fishery resources is increasing because of rapid human population growth and because protein, self-sufficiency and fishery development especially off Baffin Island are priorities of aboriginal groups and the territorial government. The focus of fishery management will continue to be on conservation for sustainable utilization through close co-operation with the legislative co-management boards.

Jointly, the government of Canada and the boards will establish fishery co-operative management plans and will fulfill their responsibilities under these plans. The negotiation and expected settlement of additional land claims would produce the formation of other co-operative management boards with fisheries management responsibilities.

There is a growing global concern about the health of oceans and the sustainability of the world's fishery stocks. Governments around the world are being increasingly challenged to demonstrate that their fisheries, as well as those managed through international arrangements, are environmentally sustainable. Working in partnership with the fishing industries we will move forward in those areas of creating international agreements to benefit Canada and the fisheries resource around the world. We are showing leadership in dealing with difficult choices.

I would like to propose an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word “establish” and by substituting therefor the words “continue the implementation of”.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I get tired when I am in the House of Commons and listen to members turning around and always talking about the past.

We have people who are hurting today. I cannot help what happened in the past. I want to change things around today for the future.

I had fishermen in my area come in to see me on Monday this week. One man sat there with tears in his eyes. He had his wife with him. They said: “We were loosing everything. We have lost our home and we are loosing the boat. We have no way to earn our living anymore”.

I want to say to the hon. member from P.E.I. that I realize that he has fishermen in P.E.I. as well, but we want to know why the playing field is not equal. The people in my area, district 36, earn only $17,000. That is it. Yet in district 35 they earn $50,000 because they have a longer period of time for lobster fishing. The people in the other districts have longer periods. All they are asking is that DFO please treat them fairly. Will it please look at it, change it around? They want their dignity. I am sure that the hon. member from P.E.I. wants them to have their dignity as well.

I am so tired that every time it gets up in the House the opposition talks of the past. Let us deal with the present and the future.

I ask my hon. friend from P.E.I. will he help us with DFO to straighten this matter out.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I mentioned the past is so we do not continue to make those mistakes.

We recognize there is an over harvesting capacity. We have to reduce that capacity. The government is trying not to do what was done in the past, which was to ignore the scientific advice, continue harvesting and let people believe the resources were endless and abundant. We know they are not.

The leader of the fifth party stood up and condemned the TAGS program. One reason the Atlantic groundfish strategy was put in place was to deal with the families we knew would be in crisis.

The Reform Party will talk about the money that went into TAGS being a waste of money. It was no such thing. Yes, it may have been spent better and yes, we may have been able to achieve better progress in terms of reducing the harvesting ability. However, the fact is it helped people and communities to live and put bread on the table.

We have learned from the auditor general's report and we have seen some of the errors that are being made and we are moving forward with plans for the future in terms of retaining this resource for future communities and people.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the amendment of continued planning. I will explain the kind of continued planning we have had, at least in my region where there are fishermen.

All connections have been cut off to the wharfs and fishermen are stuck paying for it, the same fishermen seeing cuts everywhere. Licences have been increased by 1000% which again is an attack on fishermen. Conservation does not exist when it comes to fishing. Fishermen are now speaking on lobster because the cod is gone. They are now speaking out about the conservation of lobster, but no one is listening. There are no consultations. The EI program is attacking the fishermen. If this is called continued planning, I would not want them to admit they were planning something.

How can they explain cutting off all funds to the wharfs, some of which are closing because people cannot afford them? There is only so much volunteer work that can be done. People have no money to give. How are they going to make sure that the lobster will still be there? People in Ottawa love to eat lobster, but the way our seasonal industry is being attacked they will not be there in five years.

Could the member please explain to me how they are going to make sure our fishing industry will survive all this.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine the member saying there is no consultation.

The fisheries resource conservation council and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through its personnel hold all kinds of consultations with people in fishing communities. We are taking those recommendations of the fisheries resource conservation council seriously. We are looking at the stocks and trying to move forward in a way which will conserve and build those stocks so that they are sustainable in the future for the fishers and the fishing communities. We are working in partnership with fishermen for the future.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

The member's motion refers to the urgent need for action to address the serious problems in Canadian fisheries on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Fishermen on the east coast say they identified the problems to the government of the day in the early 1980s.

The hon. member from Sherbrooke assumes in his motion that there are no problems in Canada's third commercial fishery located inland. I will return to this fishery in a moment, but first let me make an observation.

In my 50 years of living on the prairies I have seen so many times occasions when the previous Progressive Conservative governments and the previous and current Liberal governments ignored the aspirations and problems of the citizens living in northwest Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

There have been many acts, errors and omissions by both these governments over the years, like the goods and services tax, the firearms act, the reduction in health care transfer payments, and I could go on and on.

The point is that once again in dealing with the problems in Canada's fisheries, the hon. member and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, which aspires to become a national party, has ignored important parts of Canada. The parts of Canada I previously referred to I would like to name again because some members in this House seem to forget they are part of Canada also. They are northwest Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

What do these Canadians have to do with commercial fishing, many are possibly wondering. Would it surprise anyone in this House to know that there is a multimillion dollar freshwater fishery in these areas sometimes referred to by politicians from central Canada as the hinterlands.

We in the Reform Party recognize that when national problems are addressed, such as the Canadian fishery, we should always consider all of the problems along with solutions for all of the Canadian people affected. This freshwater fishery has problems and it is just as important that they are addressed along with those on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

I would like to point out to members of this House and to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he is responsible for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which has its headquarters in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It also has its fish plant located there. It is from these facilities that tens of millions of dollars of fish products are shipped across Canada and exported to places like Europe and the U.S.A.

I will get to the problems in this fishery in a moment, however due to the apparent lack of knowledge or lack of concern by the hon. member for Sherbrooke and possibly others in the House, I feel it necessary to describe this fishery, the people, the employment it creates and the hardships that will ensue if our problems are not dealt with as part of an overall solution to the problems identified in the motion.

The commercial fishermen who sell their fish through the FFMC include both aboriginal and non-aboriginal men and women. To many of the aboriginal fishermen there is little or no alternative to fishing as a way to be self-sustaining contributors to Canadian society. Would the government or the leader of the Progressive Conservatives have them go on welfare because there is no employment as a result of failing to deal with problems in the FFMC? For those with the possibility of other employment, why should they lose their business and way of life just because their problems are not being addressed?

I would now like to discuss the problems. I assure members I will relate how the fishermen's problems in the FFMC district are caused by the Liberal government and by motions that if supported by this House do not take into account the Canadian national fishery big picture.

The FFMC fishermen have problems with high water levels in many of our lakes and spawning streams reducing the number of fish. High input costs for items like fuel, boats, electronics, marketing and processing the catch are of great concern. There are concerns with high taxes, high employment insurance premiums, reduced employment insurance benefits and many others.

One could argue that some of the problems are the responsibility of the provinces, such as in Manitoba where our major lake water levels are subject to control by Manitoba Hydro for hydroelectricity production.

The major threat to the inland fishery at this time involves the blatant, outrageous, pork-barrelling patronage appointment of all time in Manitoba. I refer to the announcement of the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on October 16, 1997 that ex-Liberal member of Parliament Ron Fewchuk has been appointed president of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation effective November 28, 1997.

We all remember that Ron Fewchuk was elected in 1993 and when the 1997 election was imminent, he declined to contest the Liberal nomination. The major portion of his old riding was Selkirk—Interlake where Jon Gerrard ran unsuccessfully. What did it take to get him not to run? I think we all know now.

This patronage appointment will have an immense negative impact on the profitability of the FFMC because, in essence, the FFMC will now be paying two president equivalent salaries, one to the former president, Thomas Dunn who I understand is staying on at his president's salary, and one to the new president. The salary range is from $88,000 to $103,000. Remember that the FFMC gets no government moneys. Therefore, as the actions of this government drive up FFMC administrative costs, the lowly fishermen will make less if any profit.

Mr. Dunn, an accountant and FFMC president for many years, saved the corporation from bankruptcy and was an outstanding president. Why did Mr. Fewchuk have to be appointed? Sadly the only conclusion I can come to, and I am sure a majority of Canadians across this great country will do likewise, is Liberal patronage.

I have spoken to members of the elected board of the FFMC and to fishermen, all of whom oppose Fewchuk's appointment because they have no faith in his capabilities to run the day to day operation that management of the FFMC requires. This kind of administration and policy making is a big reason why there are few fish on the east coast and the B.C. and FFMC fisheries are under financial threat.

In conclusion, the major problem in the Canadian fisheries today, as it has been under successive Liberal governments, is the total ineptness of the ministers of fisheries and oceans. We must take action now to ensure the survival of the remaining fisheries and restore the east coast fishery.

The minister can take an important first step by rescinding the appointment of Ron Fewchuk and restore Mr. Dunn to the presidency.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “continue the implementation of” and substituting the following therefor: “implement”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has very great reservations about the admissibility of this amendment. It appears that the subamendment appears to change the intent of the amendment back to what the motion originally stated. Accordingly, since it appears to be contrary to what the amendment intended to do, I must rule the subamendment out of order.

The hon. member for Elk Island may have a submission on the point before I make a final ruling and I will hear him.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of distress to us that when a member of the opposition puts forward a motion of the day, as the Conservatives have done today, the government can hijack the purpose of that motion that we are debating by basically negating it. We have had such absurd cases where the government has actually moved an amendment as to say “delete all the words after the word `that' and substitute therefor”.

According to Beauchesne's citation 567, “the object of an amendment”—and this would certainly apply to a subamendment—“may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability—to the House”. I am just citing parts of it. What we are doing here is we are talking about increasing the acceptability of this particular motion to the House, the government's amendment having hijacked the thing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hear what the hon. member is saying, but I think the point is that when the government or any member moves an amendment to a motion, its admissibility is determined on the basis of whether it is acceptable as an amendment to the motion.

What I am suggesting to the hon. member is that the subamendment negates the original amendment's intent, which was to change the first motion. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member may disagree with the amendment. I do not think that is the point in issue. The question is can a subamendment change an amendment by in effect negating the amendment. I suggest that it cannot. Therefore, I must rule it out of order.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before you make your final ruling, may I ask you, sir, if the intent of the amendment to the amendment is any different than that of the amendment to the original motion, it does change the character of the motion, but that was also the position of the government in the amendment which it brought to the original motion.

I would ask you to consider that, sir.

[The Deputy Speaker]

With great respect, I have considered the matter. My recollection is that the original motion said that the government should establish something and the amendment said that it should continue the implementation of something. That is a change from the original motion. It is a change which in the Chair's view is in order because any member is entitled to move an amendment that changes what is alleged to be a statement of fact in the first motion and turn it into something else. It did that.

The subamendment sought to move that back in effect to the original position. That is what is out of order. That is what I am ruling out of order. I think we should move on.

There may be questions or comments on the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member is rising on the same point of order, I have heard him once and I have heard the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin. I am not disposed to hear more argument on this point. If it is a different point I will hear him.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly additional and relevant information and it was just pointed out to me.

Citation 923 deals specifically with allotted days. Citation 923(3) states:

The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.

That is why we are seeking to undo what the government has done in violation of this principle of Beauchesne.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hear the hon. member for Elk Island. I want to stress to him that in making a ruling in respect of an amendment or subamendment, the Chair is bound to have regard to what has previously transpired.

When an amendment is moved, the amendment must be to the main motion. It is constrained. It can only seek to amend the main motion. A subamendment must amend only the amendment. That fact restricts the scope for amendment on a subamendment because it must follow in as part of the amendment itself.

In this case the subamendment is negating the amendment. The amendment is not negating the main motion. Accordingly—

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is a matter for interpretation by hon. members. As I say, I think the amendment is in order and I think the subamendment in this particular case with these words is not and I so rule.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake deals with freshwater marketing.

Being from that part of the country, I know that the appointment which has been announced and has not yet been tabled in the House has created great consternation among many of the people involved in the fishery. I wonder if the member would like to elaborate somewhat on some of the real concerns which have been expressed by the people and how widespread those concerns are about this appointment.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Problems have arisen out of this appointment. I refer to a comment made by the hon. member for Malpeque who stated that bread and butter on the table was the important part for fishermen. Mr. Fewchuk will be receiving a president's salary. Mr. Dunn will not work for less than the salary he was already receiving, no no doubt in the hundred thousand dollar range. We will have the FFMC, an unsubsidized corporation, paying two salaries out of the profits of fishermen on the lake.

These fishermen are not wealthy by any means. Native fishermen on the lake have no alternative employment. The problems we are talking about transfer to their families. It is actually a matter of sustenance and living an acceptable lifestyle.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are also political levels and other jurisdictions than fishermen that are expressing great concern over the appointment.

I am not sure how free the hon. member is to elaborate on this point, but we do not have the full breadth of concern about the issue or what a terrible precedent it sets.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

A precedent in this government?

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

It is only a precedent for the FFMC. We have certainly seen it in most other aspects of patronage emanating from this administration.