Is that all right, Madam Speaker?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Supply October 23rd, 1997
Is that all right, Madam Speaker?
Supply October 23rd, 1997
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time. I guess there is not enough time today to talk about this motion and the situation in the fisheries on the west and east coasts of our country.
This morning I was at the parliamentary committee on fisheries and oceans listening to three inshore fishermen from Newfoundland and Labrador. Yesterday I travelled to the riding of Burin—St. George's to two isolated communities, Burgeo and Ramea where the fish plants have been closed for approximately five years. I witnessed firsthand the frustration of the inshore fishermen this morning and of the people in those communities yesterday, whose futures are so uncertain.
Out migration is a terrible problem. The youngest and brightest people who could be the most productive members of those communities are leaving. People do not know if they will be able to keep the very social fabric of those communities together. Town councils are trying to run the municipalities with a shrinking tax base. They do not know if they will be able to provide the services. On and on the problem goes throughout Atlantic Canada.
A parallel crisis is looming on the west coast with the Pacific salmon situation. If government does not react very quickly it will have an identical situation on the west coast to what is now being experienced on the east coast. Somehow government likes to pretend things are going well, that it is making the right decisions. There is no doubt in this case that it is the great pretender.
A lot of people on the west coast of the country have already experienced bankruptcy or are about to experience bankruptcy because they cannot make a living from where they traditionally fish. The Mifflin plan and other federal Liberal government plans have not worked in British Columbia.
For the last four years the government has failed to enter into a fish plan, agreement or arrangement with the U.S. There is talk now that the U.S. may even abandon the treaty. What will that do to salmon stocks on the west coast? They will be obliterated, wiped out. Yet the government seems to think everything is moving along okay, it has lots of time and the real enemies in this situation are British Columbians and Premier Glen Clark.
I say to this government and to the parliamentary secretary who sits there listening and taking his notes that they should pressure the minister of fisheries, pressure the Minister of Foreign Affairs, pressure the Prime Minister to recognize this very serious crisis on the west coast before the government finds itself in the same situation we have with Atlantic Canada. That is what I ask of the government.
These people are now starting to talk about the need for some kind of compensation and financial relief because they are losing their enterprises, because they cannot feed their families, because they are about to lose their homes. It is just not good enough that this sort of situation is allowed.
Solutions were suggested to the former minister of fisheries and to the current minister of fisheries who is from British Columbia. Changes need to be made to the area licensing management plan off British Columbia. It is too restrictive. Fishers cannot make a living under that system. Why does government not look at the suggestions that have been made? Why does it not consider these suggestions? Why is it so stubborn?
The Liberals get so inwardly drawn and are so stubborn about issues that they will not listen to the people concerned, the real people affected. The real people who understand the situation better than anyone else in this country and in this government are the fishers on the west and east coasts. These people know best. These people have made their livings for 20 or 30 years from those fisheries.
The government pretends it knows best. It completely ignores the fishers. No wonder the people in British Columbia say that the minister of fisheries is more interested in the steelhead than he is in the fishermen. Maybe it is because he has a steel head. Maybe it is because he is that hardheaded they compare him to a steelhead. I do not know, but something has to happen and happen fast.
We all know the situation on the east coast. Our east coast is in crisis. It is not only those people who have been TAGS recipients. I want to say this today because I feel so strongly about it. What we are trying to deal with in Atlantic Canada is not just for TAGS recipients but for the entire economy of Atlantic Canada. It is for every retail business in Atlantic Canada, for every wholesale business in Atlantic Canada, for every car salesman, every clothing salesperson.
If something is not done in Atlantic Canada after May 1998, there will be a lot more out migration, many more jobs lost. That will happen if the government takes those millions of dollars out of Atlantic Canada. What choice is there? The government is saying to them “Get out or go on welfare”. That is the question the government has to answer.
It was interesting to listen to members of the fisheries and oceans committee this morning, but it was more interesting to listen to the fisher people who were there. They are trying to stay and live in their communities in Atlantic Canada. They had good suggestions to make. They know what has caused the problems and they want to be part of the solution.
They were not listened to when they suggested for years that our fish stocks were going down the tube. Now that there is some regeneration of those fish stocks in certain areas, those same fisher people are being ignored and neglected again.
Those fisher people know better than the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. They know better than the officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They know the real science. Why is the government not listening to them? Because they believe there is a scheme to get rid of them; to get them out.
I would like to direct a comment to members of the Reform Party. They have to make up their minds whether they are an ally to Atlantic Canada or an enemy. Every second day they change their message. They have to make up their minds. Do they believe there is a future for Atlantic Canada or do they believe that Canada should end at Ontario and go no farther east? That is the choice they have to make.
As an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, I find some of the statements which these people make revolting. They do not understand the issues of Atlantic Canada. How can they understand the issues of Atlantic Canada any more than I can understand the issues of the west?
Having said that, I feel today that I understand the problems and the issues in the Pacific salmon fishery better than they do. That is because I am sincerely interested in it. I bring passion to the issue. I am not here for the sake of talking about this issue, I want to talk about this issue.
I grew up with this issue. I have family in the industry. I have friends in the industry. I worked in the industry to help put myself through school. It gets annoying when people who have no feeling for or understanding of Atlantic Canada make statements and try to influence the government of the day as to what it should do. They try to influence the government as if they know what the solutions are for Atlantic Canada. They do not have a clue what the solutions are for Atlantic Canada. They really do not.
I am sorry I have to stand here today to say this, but I could not live with myself if I did not say exactly what I am saying to them. I hope that they come around and realize that this country is diverse and different. We need special attention in Atlantic Canada, not because of a problem which we created, but because of mismanagement by successive governments.
I say to Reform members that if someone in the Progressive Conservative governments of the past made a mistake, so be it. It was a mistake. It was wrong. Just as it is a mistake and is wrong today. Let us rise above that. We could live in the past forever. It is what will happen in Atlantic Canada after next May that I am worried about.
Madam Speaker, I guess I have to sit down.
Request For Emergency Debate October 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for leave to put forward a motion for a special debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52, to discuss the critical situation facing the fishing industry on the Pacific coast and in Atlantic Canada and recent events which are causing the government to revise its policies.
Just yesterday the auditor general reported his findings to the House. He drew attention to the fact that he could not find anywhere a clearly defined national fisheries policy on sustainable fisheries.
Furthermore, in the past few weeks there have been suggestions and allegations of interference with DFO science, the twisting and manipulation of scientific data. The ability of the department has been called into question as to whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can effectively manage the fisheries resource. Of course, that is a matter of debate right across the country.
The government's handling and its management of the fishery has given rise to confrontation and civil disorder in British Columbia. Relationships between the federal government and the Government of British Columbia have reached such a stage of disharmony that other federal-provincial matters are threatened and the federal-provincial relationship between Ottawa and British Columbia is at an all-time low.
As well, the auditor general stated the obvious yesterday when he said that fish stocks in Atlantic Canada are not regenerating. There are not enough fish in the water to sustain a viable fishing industry. He also stated the very obvious, in particular to those of us from Atlantic Canada, that there are very few jobs and employment opportunities in the hundreds of rural communities in Atlantic Canada.
What is more compelling is that even since the moratorium was announced in July 1992, this government, being in power now for four years, has not developed or implemented a strategy or a plan to deal with 35,000 to 40,000 Atlantic Canadians after May 1998.
We have had an historic day today. My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that if we as elected members of Parliament to this House of Commons are going to have ample opportunity to debate the fisheries crisis on both coasts of our country, we are going to need to do it soon. It is a matter of urgent public interest.
Before the anticipated, hopefully, national policy on fisheries I think every member of this House should have an opportunity to debate the present fisheries crisis on the west and east coasts. They should be heard. The government can undertake to listen to all members and to hopefully consider and incorporate some of the ideas that might flow from my proposed debate into a national fisheries policy, especially as it pertains to sustainable fisheries and the difficulties that are being faced by fishers on the west coast, in particular because of the salmon dispute and in the Atlantic because of the decline in our fish stocks.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to you that this matter in my estimation is very urgent and is of great public significance and importance.
Fisheries October 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister attaches a little more importance to this, which I am sure he does.
As well, in his report today, the auditor general stated the obvious. Ground stocks in Atlantic Canada are not regenerating. There are very few job opportunities in those rural communities in Atlantic Canada and the Atlantic groundfish strategy expires a year early in May 1998.
What can Atlantic Canadians expect from the Prime Minister and his government after May 1998?
Fisheries October 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The auditor general today stated in his report that he could find no clearly stated national policy for sustainable fisheries.
In light of the very serious problems being experienced on the west coast and the east coast of the country with fisheries and after being in office now for four years, when can we expect a national policy on sustainable fisheries?
Points Of Order October 2nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today flowing out of question period dealing with the Minister of Human Resources Development when in answering a question he referred to and quoted from a letter in response to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should be required through you to table the letter that he quoted from and referred to. While it is most unlikely that any member in this House of Commons or in any legislature or jurisdiction would stand in his place with a piece of paper and quote from a piece of paper on which there is nothing written, it has happened in the past.
Therefore, I would like to say to you, Your Honour, that the Minister of Human Resources Development should be required to table the letter that he referred to and quoted from in question period.
Fisheries October 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister missed the question.
My question was pertaining to the area licensing system that is so restrictive to B.C. salmon harvesters that they cannot make a living.
I ask the minister a supplementary question. Will he immediately grant the flexibility that he and the former minister had promised so that British Columbia salmon fishermen can achieve financial viability with their enterprises?
Fisheries October 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, many of the problems being experienced with the British Columbia salmon fishery have been caused by the present minister of fisheries and this government.
As the present minister and the former minister know, fishers in B.C. were promised flexibility in the expense of an income restrictive area management licensing system.
Will the minister immediately provide that flexibility to the system so that British Columbia salmon harvesters can achieve financial viability and at the same time protect stock sustainability?
Speech From The Throne September 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
If she is disturbed with a couple of the promises that we made in our election platform, can she imagine how disturbed we are with most that they made in theirs? If she can only take exception with a couple of ours, I can assure her we can take exception with dozens of hers.
I know her question is a serious one on agriculture. She has the same concern with agriculture as I have about fish. I can only go on record and say in this Chamber what I have said publicly, that I personally did not support a proposal in the policy platform for a department of sustainable development. I supported it at the time and said publicly during the election campaign that my preference was for a separate truly Department of Fisheries and Oceans and I still stand by that. I am sure she probably feels the same about agriculture.
I can only answer here what I said in the campaign. I will not say one thing in the campaign and then come here and say something different, as many on the other side cannot stand in their place and say.
Speech From The Throne September 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
I remember Meech Lake very well. I remember Clyde Wells very well, sometimes with pride and sometimes with not so much pride. I sat in the provincial legislature with the former premier for a number of years.
My thoughts on Meech Lake are well known. We took opposing positions in the Meech Lake debate. We had a very thorough debate in the Newfoundland legislature at the time, as did most if not all legislatures across the country. To me the result was devastating. We are still reeling from the effects of the demise of Meech Lake throughout the country. I really believe that.
The hon. member asks a question about unique character and distinct society. I have listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a number of times through the media. My belief is if distinct society is the same as unique character, then why are we changing the wording? That is the question I ask myself. If both are the same, then why are we changing the wording? That is my own personal thoughts on it. I thank the hon. member for his question and that is my answer.
As I reflected and watched the hon. minister on the news a number of times that was my first question. Why are we changing it to unique character from distinct society if both mean the same thing?