Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. colleague from the Reform Party had to say. This prompted me to take another look at my history of Quebec fisheries, and I would like to share with you these facts that bear a direct relation to the bill.
Between 1922 and 1980, in Quebec, fisheries were managed under an administrative delegation agreement whereby the federal government had transferred fisheries management to the Government of Quebec.
Therefore, during this time frame, we were able to develop a network now referred to as a sustainable development network, because small processing plants and refrigerating plants that pretty well met the needs of shore fishermen sprung up along the coast.
About 1980, following a fight-another one-between the federal minister, who has now become a senator, and his Quebec counterpart, this delegation of power was cancelled. After that-a coincidence perhaps-fish grew scarce and can no longer be found in our oceans.
I would draw a parallel between this and the remarks made by the hon. member because we are often told that big is beautiful. The larger the structure created, the larger the number of people involved and the better the chances it will work and be successful.
I tend to say that maybe the word is "small is beautiful" in this instance. Perhaps, if we had structures better suited to the people's needs, we would have a better chance of getting by. Take for example the fishermen of Rivière-au-Renard, Newport or the Lower North Shore. They keep running into problems with respect to fisheries management in Canada.
While fishing is a major economic activity in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Lower North Shore and the Magdalen Islands, Quebec fisheries are a very small part of the whole Canadian picture and we have always sought ways for our fishermen to have a greater weight in the balance by providing expertise, supporting them through the work of biologists, so that they can adequately argue their points.
The cod stocks were depleted in part because the politicians in charge had frequently given in to pressure. We now find ourselves with many endangered species because the policies did not reflect the reality in terms of the market and the fishing of the species. Some fishermen are forced to stay home because they cannot get the required service.
I will conclude by asking the Reform member if there is a way to ensure that fisheries management stays close to the people, in a concrete and daily fashion, while also taking into account the
opinion of fishermen, instead of having huge structures where the power ultimately rests with whoever has the largest number of biologists or provides the biggest report. Such a structure is of no help to users, namely the fishermen, who do not have enough of a say in the process.
Does the Reform member feel that this bill is headed the wrong way since it promotes a "Big is beautiful" instead of considering also a "Small is beautiful" approach?