Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1997

Supply

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is at liberty to make me aware of the particulars of the young rancher's case, which I do not know, or the issue with respect to the beaver dam on somebody's property in British Columbia. Again I am unaware of the details of that.

I would suggest to the hon. member that the measures taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are not the only measures sometimes taken with respect to water courses. The department of agriculture and the ministry of agriculture for the province of British Columbia are involved as well. Enforcement may not be by DFO officials. It may be by members of the fish and game branch of the province of British Columbia. I simply do not have the details. If the hon. member will give me those details I am willing to look into those cases.

The hon. member spoke about hatcheries. They do have remarkably successful results in some instances but not all. It depends on what type of salmon the hatchery is designed to produce, whether it is chum, sockeye, chinook, coho or indeed whether it is steelhead.

I am happy to look into the issue for him to find that out but the assumption that every hatchery is an improvement is not entirely correct in all instances. I have to point out to him and his colleague who is sitting next to him that there are major genetic problems with taking a small group of fish and flooding the entire gene pool of a particular species of salmon. Genetics is a problem that we are facing with hatcheries around the country. It is a worldwide problem and if that is the situation I certainly will be in touch with him.

On the Horsefly sockeye channel I simply do not know why that would be the case. If the hon. member will discuss it with me later I will get him the details. Sometimes we have closed artificial spawning channels when the optimum number of fish have spawned. That is appropriate because any extra fish simply stir up the gravel and do not increase the production of fish. I will have to check on that. I am happy to do it on the member's behalf.

[The Deputy Speaker]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to rise on a point of order, but I feel compelled to do so. I wish to say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that unknowingly he referred to me on six occasions as a former minister of fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on the record and I want to correct it and inform the minister, speaking on a need for money for—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not believe this is a point of order. The hon. member may get an opportunity in debate subsequently to refute a point but I do not hear a point of order in anything the hon. member is saying at this stage, but I will listen further.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to do this, but if something has been put on the record of this House that is incorrect and untrue, then certainly the member who was referred to should have a chance to stand and correct the record. If that is not a point of order I do not know what a point of order is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A point of order is an argument about the rules of the House and whether they are being correctly applied. The hon. member cannot use a point of order to refute arguments that are made in debate.

[An hon. member]

It is the only time you will recognize me, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A point of order is for a specific purpose and the Chair is not going to let it be used for other things. I am sure the hon. member will get an opportunity or will have one of his colleagues make an intervention in the debate to correct the minister's error if such is made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the statement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I will do my best to keep it short as I believe we only have 10 minutes for questions and comments. The minister listed four principles that should, in his opinion and according to the amendment, continue to improve the overall policy. One of the four stated principles is emphasis on sustainability versus prudent harvesting. He wants to balance the harvesting capacity with the biomass production capacity. He wants the fisheries to become more self-reliant through joint management. His ultimate goal is preservation.

I could perhaps agree with him on the last of the four principles, but I have serious concerns about the others. I encourage the minister to listen to my speech this afternoon. But what about the minister, who this morning talked about balancing the harvesting capacity with the biomass? What does his department have in mind? How do they think this can be done when, according to the auditor general's report, nothing has been done to even begin rationalizing fisheries? I wonder how they can talk about improving something when the machine is stuck in neutral.

I would like the minister to explain to us how he intends to start balancing all that. I know that the minister has not been fisheries minister for long, but I would like to give him food for thought. He may want to consult his predecessors. I understand that a major problem is precisely that the provinces were largely left out of the process. Perhaps the federal government did not co-operate enough with the provinces.

Why do I make this point? Some will say: “Sure, you Bloc Quebecois people are only interested in achieving sovereignty”. But before achieving sovereignty, we would like to leave a legacy of good management to Canadians. Why is it important to talk with the provinces? It is the provinces that finance the boats and issue the processing permits. Did the minister think about offering quotas to his provincial partners in order to reassure them so he could achieve some form of rationalization?

My second point to the minister is that when he talks about making fisheries somewhat more self-reliant, he is in fact talking about co-management. But I hope he is not referring to the same type of co-management as that provided in the bill introduced during the last Parliament. The reason is very simple: fishers are tired of having to pay the bills. Co-management means “you will help me pay operating costs”. I have yet to see any place where fishers are allowed to manage or enjoy profits, and particularly to take advantage of the options available. There was a clause in the former bill to the effect that it is up to the minister to invite this or that group. That is why fishers' associations feel their rights are being infringed upon.

So, here are my two questions: First, how does the minister intend to balance the harvesting capacity—what does he do with the provinces? —and second, does co-management simply mean to him that costs should be shared with the fishers?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the hon. member has asked these questions. First of all, I want to tell him that I am anxiously awaiting his speech and will listen carefully to the first points he will raise. I will read his speech afterwards, and perhaps we can have lunch together and discuss some of the points on which we are not in complete agreement.

As for his first question on co-operation with the provinces, I met with Quebec's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Saint-Jean a few weeks ago. Our discussions were very constructive. He was very nice, and in the interviews he gave after our meetings, he mentioned that we had got along well together and that we will continue to hold discussions regarding close co-operation.

The hon. member has put his finger on a specific problem. Without this co-operation at the provincial level, there may be an increase in the capacity of fleets at the same time as the federal government wants to, and must, reduce the size of the catch.

As for his second question, it will be in the new legislation, but I think that the rules do not allow me to speak about it before the bill is tabled in the House. We can also get together to discuss the changes sought by the hon. member. Like his colleague who used to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, he is well aware that I am very favourable to suggestions from the opposition regarding bills.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to the minister's attention that he was dead wrong in his facts when he was referring to the hon. member for Burin—St. George's as a former minister. He was never ever a former—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member will recognize that that is not a point of order.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have mis-described him, but I understand that he was on the resource policy committee of cabinet which included oversight of the department of fisheries—

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are getting into debate rather than a point of order, as I suspected we might. We will move on.

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

Mr. Speaker, whenever I take part in something like this I am most unhappy with the fact that we finally have everybody in the room, we can ask some really good questions and get answers and comments, but there is never enough time for it to happen. There is something inappropriate about the way this place works because that is inevitably the result.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

It is called democracy.

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

It is called democracy, but there are some democratic reforms which are necessary.

The federal government has prime responsibility for one natural resource and that is fish. Without a doubt, it is the worst managed resource in Canada. It has a terrible track record.

To quote my Liberal colleague from Huron—Bruce this week at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, if fisheries were agriculture they would be managed properly.

The Canadian fisheries have sustained a tremendous number of Canadians for a long time in every region of the country, but there has been a betrayal of the entire fishery through mismanagement, lack of serious consideration of legitimate scientific research, and betrayal of the fishermen dependent on good management by both this Liberal administration and the previous Tory administration.

The taxpayer pays taxes in good faith, expecting that money spent for accurate scientific data will be put to its best use and the data collected will be used to make wise management decisions, not ignored or altered for political expediency.

The open politicization of fisheries management was demonstrated very clearly by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake in his speech earlier today when he indicated how the minister is using his appointment powers at the expense of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to tidy up Liberal patronage for an MP from the previous Parliament who did not qualify for the MP pension scheme.

The politicization of the fisheries puts the resource at risk. When the resource is at risk the fish stocks suffer, the fishermen suffer and the communities which depend on fishing suffer, not the politicians.

Newfoundland and Labrador lost 25,000 people in the last year. That is sad. No one has ever apologized for the largest layoff in Canadian history. No one seems to be accountable.

There has been an ongoing front page dispute that has revolved around the Pacific salmon treaty with the United States all summer long and it continues to this day. The Pacific salmon treaty was a rushed document produced during the Mulroney era in 1985. It was rushed to completion to meet a signing ceremony for the shamrock summit between Reagan and Mulroney.

One of the major architects of the treaty told me earlier this year that much to his dismay the treaty as it currently exists is unworkable, that it is a failure. There has been no fishing plan attached to this treaty since 1993 when this government came into power and prior to this year there has been no priority on paying attention to the Pacific salmon treaty. Even now the commitment from our foreign affairs department as to the priority of resolving issues around Pacific salmon with the United States is questioned by many. Our federal fisheries minister has failed to demonstrate that resolution of the treaty is his number one priority. People involved—

[An hon. member]

Rubbish.

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

Well if it is true I would like to have that on the record. If that is the minister's number one priority I would be absolutely delighted to have him put that on the record. We have a window of four or five months this winter to get that resolved. Is the minister of fisheries the one who is primarily accountable or is it the minister of foreign affairs? We do not know right now. People are questioning who is the accountable party.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

We both work on it. So does the Prime Minister.

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

That is not clear responsibility. Somebody has to take the lead. In the absence of hearing anything clearly I would have to assume that the minister of fisheries will wear it if it is not resolved.

People involved with the west coast fisheries know one thing clearly. Without a working treaty the salmon resource on the west coast is at great risk. In September I wrote to the Canadian envoy, Mr. Strangway, who is dealing with the Pacific salmon treaty. I asked him to act as a catalyst for a Pacific salmon symposium where we can get scientists from both Canada and the U.S. to put fisheries science on the table with respect to the migratory salmon on the west coast. This could be a possible turning point in educating the public and could bring political resolve to fix this intolerable dispute.

A week after I sent the letter, I received endorsement of this concept from American federal politicians from Alaska and Washington. We are looking for a commitment from the minister to endorse this concept so we can expedite this symposium. I would like to hear that too.

The science from both sides of the border needs to be in the public domain at the same time and needs to be subject to peer review. We need a commitment from the minister that DFO scientists will be allowed to attend this symposium and to speak publicly about the state of fish stocks without a muzzle.

The auditor general makes a very strong statement in last week's report about sustainability in the fisheries. The department has stated that its mandate is conservation of the fisheries resource base and that is implied in current legislation. Nevertheless the auditor general found no clearly stated national policy for sustainable fisheries. How does the minister reconcile his claim that conservation is his priority when his policy on the west coast this summer was to ignore conservation principles?

On July 27 the minister said “Conservation is my first, second and third priority. Glen Clark has asked me to fish aggressively and jeopardize conservation of the stocks. I have refused”. Three days later the minister gave fishermen the order to “fish aggressively to overwhelm the efforts of the smaller U.S. fleet intercepting Fraser bound fish”.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

That is wrong. I never used that word. Vigorously is the word I used.

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

That is a quote.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

It is wrong.

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

On the east coast we had a collapse of the cod fishery which essentially occurred as a result of the actions of the previous Tory administration and the fallout from this collapse has been exacerbated by the Liberals. We know the Tory government knew for at least five years before the 1992 moratorium that cod stocks were seriously declining. The then environment minister and now leader of the Progressive Conservatives, the member for Sherbrooke, could have used this information to save dwindling cod stocks while there was still hope.

Scientific studies said cod stocks would not recover until the end of the decade. Why was the moratorium put in place for two years only? They hoped the problem would go away. Rather than address the problem, the former government decided to experiment on fishermen. They wanted this program to get them past the next election. The Liberals then put in a five year program to get them past the next election again. This would take it to May 1999, but now that we have had the election early, they want to cancel the program early. Politics is rampant.

In April of this year the minister of fisheries announced he would re-open three areas of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada without any support from fisheries scientists anywhere. With many fisheries scientists actually condemning the act, how could the minister have even contemplated such a move given the disastrous state of the Atlantic cod stocks? Now we have one set of information and two opinions. The former minister, Brian Tobin, recently stated that Atlantic cod are being “fished to the point of extinction”.

This is not a happy story. We have fleet overcapacity on both coasts. We end up with these gigantic social upheavals, fleet restructuring, displaced fishermen and communities marginalized. DFO has proven itself to be inept in handling these circumstances.

One more example of political incompetence, this morning in the Globe the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated that he wished the United States would live up to its obligations under the Pacific salmon treaty. I agree.

I also think that Canada should live up to its obligations under the international treaty which since 1955 allows the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission to run a very successful sea lamprey program. It has run successfully for 40 years and is the backbone of the Great Lakes commercial and recreational fisheries. Two years ago it was put at risk by the Liberal government. The government is currently $200,000 in arrears and has not responded to requests for budget allocations at least since July 2 of this year.

We went through the auditor general's report last week which condemned the government for turning the Atlantic groundfish strategy from what was supposed to be a fleet restructuring to primarily a poorly managed income support program and seriously criticized the lack of conservation focus on the government.

On the west coast the combination of restructuring the industry and low prices has resulted in the displacement of fishermen, associated workers, their families and communities. The minister announced in November and again in January an aid package for B.C. that consisted of a $7.7 million retirement program which has come to nothing, and a $30 million transition program. With this $30 million program we have seen a lack of strong commitment from the minister and the affected parties are very concerned that the government will renege on this commitment as well.

The minister this past winter went further and said they would spend whatever it takes. I can tell the minister that federal commitments are much less than $30 million and there are demonstrated transition proposals. What is he waiting for?

Why should any fisherman believe the government when it is reneging on TAGS and failing to deliver on its retirement and transition programs in B.C.? Why make announcements, raise expectations and affect personal plans and then renege? This is not fair to fishermen or their families.

Obviously a primary alternative employment for displaced traditional fishery workers is in alternate fisheries. We have heard many examples of DFO foot dragging in terms of responding to enlightened proposals to deal with putting people to work but still in fisheries related work.

I have correspondence on abalone on the west coast, sealing proposals on the east coast. Why is the government still sitting on the Liberal task force report on aquaculture which has been in the hands of the government since November 1996? We understand that there are some enlightened proposals in there.

We need a vision for the fishery. There is a need for more room at the table for fisheries managers from the provinces and communities because they are the most directly affected and are most directly accountable.

There is a better way. We need to depoliticize the licensing process. We need to separate scientific research from political control within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I agree with the minister that the scientists we have in Canada are among the very best in the world and in many cases are the best in the world. But we also have many documented cases this year of these very scientists complaining about the political interference and manipulation under which they suffer. The Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences ran a major article on this.

We had many scientists sign on. We had our previous fisheries critic for the east coast make appointments to visit fisheries scientists working for the department in the Atlantic provinces. When he arrived he was told he had no business going to visit scientists, that he must talk to the assistant deputy minister of science in Ottawa. This is total politicization and it is unacceptable.

We have some proposals that I think would work across the country in terms of helping fishermen, helping their families. We know that disposable income is an important concept. A family of four with one income of $30,000 would see 89% shaved off their tax bill with our proposals.

By cutting unemployment insurance premiums, what we have is a circumstance whereby employers will begin to add to their payrolls rather than lay off workers because Liberals and Tories put a tax on jobs.

We believe that the long term solution relies more on the people in the affected fisheries than on programs and plans designed by the federal government and operated out of Ottawa.

As a transition measure we are convinced that money currently devoted to regional development and a program such as TAGS should be given directly to municipalities or provincial governments. It would be money delivered in a much more focused and much less wasteful fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have three and a half minutes left. I would like to use that time for questions and comments. I would particularly like to have a discourse with the minister, but of course that is dependent on his co-operativeness in this regard.