Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-98 today. Some of the things in the bill bring back a lot of memories from watching politics over the years as to whether the bill will be a success or failure in future years. One never knows but I trust the minister is going in the right direction on the issue. We will speak to a few things on that in a moment. I want to talk about the minister's introductory comments on the bill in general. I want to spend some time on the fees issue which he seemed to disregard in this comments.
First there is something amiss about planning in the department of fisheries over the last two decades particularly. I can recall about a year and a half ago talking to the previous deputy minister of that department. It took me so long to get out of this fellow exactly how many years the department of fisheries undertakes its strategic planning activities. He really did not want to answer but I badgered him until he did. The answer was three years of strategic planning within that department.
The reason I was asking that question was that if there is a three-year planning cycle in the department of fisheries why then did the previous Conservative government come out with a five-year moratorium plan in fisheries and this current government came out with the five-year TAGS plan?
First of all if there is a three-year strategic planning session, it is beyond me how the department can come out with a five-year plan not really knowing what the end results will be. It seems to me the reason the five-year plan came out was it had a lot to do with when the next election was and a lot less to do with the planning, the conservation value and qualities of fish. That is truly unfortunate.
This government, as was the previous government, is intent on passing money out to unemployed fishermen. That is a subject of discussion in itself, whether it is good or bad or how indeed it is going to deal with the conservation of fish. One thing in Bill C-98 that I heard here this morning is the area set aside for conservation. I think it is good but there is a non-commitment in that aspect of it which I shall address very shortly.
We have a department with three-year plans. The minister would be well advised to have that department look at longer term plans as they do in certain forest industries. The business cycle in some forest industries is as long as the life of a tree, from start to productive cutting. Perhaps the length of planning in the department of fisheries should relate to the cycle of the fish. It would not be a bad idea.
I want to mention some of the comments from the separatist member who talked about some convoluted exercise. He mixed it in somehow with the fact that the minister wants to create a certain amount of sovereignty over our waters. He has it mixed up a bit as to what is right and what is wrong about sovereignty in this country.
The very fact that the government is trying to make the waters surrounding our country a part of our sovereign nation is certainly not only for Newfoundland, British Columbia or P.E.I.; it is for all provinces, including Quebec. Why the member would have a disagreement with that just baffles me.
As much as the government may complain about comments from the separatists, as a member of the parliamentary committee on fisheries I find it hard to understand how government members can unanimously endorse that committee's vice-chairman from the Bloc. On the one hand they complain about the comments about sovereignty and so on but on the other hand they allow that to happen. Do the Bloc members actually represent interests of Newfoundlanders, people in P.E.I., people in British Columbia? I have not heard it in this House if that is the case. What is the mind set for that kind of move? I suspect it is appeasement, once again, and that is unfortunate.
The minister talked about the pride we have in our forefathers, the founders of the nation, people like John Cabot who at times had difficulty steering through the waters off the Grand Banks because of the amount of cod. I wonder what John Cabot would say today after 20 to 30 years of government bungling. He would have probably said: "It is a darn good thing we do not have government or an overbureaucratic organization. At least I was allowed over here. There are lots of fish, but what have you people done?" The question on the minds of most Canadians today is: What have politicians done to the fishery?
I am aware that something like 14 formal reports have gone through the House of Commons on the east coast fishery, most of which were ignored. What do we have today? I have family members on TAGS and they are not proud of it. Their boats are sitting on the slip, never to go back in the water again. They are wishing for work. They are hoping some day that there may be work in the fishery. However it does not look good.
Canadians are wondering what we allow government to present in the House of Commons. How bad will this hurt them? There are so many unknowns and so many people out there saying they have been hurt time and time again and asking if this will help that one never knows.
The minister talked about several happenings in the recent affairs of fisheries. In 1958, 1967 and 1993 there were UN conventions. There was a new binding convention to protect ocean resources. I wish just for once the government would stop talking and start doing. I cannot blame the minister. He has to try to improve operations and bring in organizations, but there is no confidence left that good will come of the legislation.
The bill will formally assert Canada's jurisdiction over its coastal waters. However there was no mention about the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks with respect to fish.