Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1997

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, the FFMC board is compromised of an appointed president and four appointed members by the government, along with five elected members by fishermen. These elected members and fishermen in the boats are coming to me expressing concern about the appointment and the qualifications of the appointee.

Problems have been brought to the attention of the provincial government of Manitoba. I understand one of its minister has been in contact with the federal fisheries minister. I have not spoken to the provincial minister, but it is my understanding that he too is expressing concern about the appointment and the negative impact it will have on the management of the corporation.

We could end up in a situation with two presidents in effect arguing with each other. Being a smaller fishery there is not the money for the kind of waste that will be created by the appointment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the opposition motion on the lamentable failure of the federal groundfish strategy.

I take the liberty of pointing out that this is nothing new for me. A few years ago I wrote a document on the fact that eastern Quebec was the laboratory for the failure of federalism and the symbol of the results of the inefficient intervention of the federal government and other levels of government. I feel today that I am living a similar nightmare, since now all of the Atlantic provinces and the entire eastern region of Quebec and the North Shore are in the same situation.

The motion asks us to “recognize the urgent need for action to address the serious problems in Canadian fisheries” and also criticizes the lack of a national policy. I think everyone is quite aware of this, and the amendment proposed by the Liberal majority is totally unacceptable. They want us to say that the government will maintain the same approach.

This reminds me of the time when Réal Caouette, the Créditiste leader, said that we were on the edge of a precipice and that the Créditistes would move us forward. The Liberals have much the same attitude today. The auditor general himself and not the opposition said that the Atlantic groundfish strategy was poorly designed and poorly managed.

The auditor general added that there had been a kerfuffle between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Human Resources Development, a lack of rigour on the part of the departments involved and a poor estimate of most of the parameters used in developing the program.

In other words, the government struck out on all fronts. It did not properly assess the number of people that would be covered by the plan and then it did not ensure compliance with the criteria that were set. A lot of clarification is needed.

The auditor general was doing his job when he said that the program that had been defined had not been followed. Instead of acknowledging this, the Liberals accused the auditor general of being inhuman, because the program had provided subsistence for the people of the region.

The problem is that the government is not there to provide a subsistence living for people, but to ensure that economic development allows the regions to become self-sufficient. When a program that changes and diversifies regional economies is set up, it must be followed through and the desired results obtained.

If the program became a means of survival, it is not the fault of the communities in Atlantic Canada, eastern Quebec or Quebec's North Shore region. It is the government's fault. The auditor general is condemning the fact that the program was not properly managed and does not achieve the desired results.

After several years of involvement in a critical sector for which it is responsible under the Constitution, the federal government has failed miserably. All that is left is what I saw in Gander, Newfoundland, when the human resources development committee travelled to that region.

I expected to find in employment centres documentation on how to develop our economy or how to exploit our local assets. I did not see any of that. What I found in the display stand of the employment centre was a nice prospectus explaining how to find a job in western Canada. This, I think, accurately illustrates the current problem in Canada. The government has been using a strategy whereby people are expected to go where the jobs are, instead of promoting local opportunities.

It should be noted that at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, eastern Canada, and particularly the maritimes, was totally self-sufficient from an economic point of view. The region was then producing what it needed, and was playing an active role in North America's economy. However, the federal government, particularly during the Trudeau era, came up with a terrible deal for the country: to concentrate production and processing activities in Ontario and give transfer payments to eastern Canada and Quebec. For 20 years they have been telling us: “Federalism works very well. We give just as much money to the poorer provinces, and it comes from the rich provinces”.

What most people, including senior federal officials, have not understood, is that people do not want subsistence policies. Of course, they want to survive, be able to eat three meals a day, have their children attend school, but what they want most of all is programs that will make it possible to create strong regional economies.

What the auditor general is telling us is that, in order to improve matters in the fishery, steps should have been taken to reduce the number of people involved in this sector and to assign them to other functions, so as to diversify regional entrepreneurship. Today we are looking at a terrible failure.

I hope that both government members and the public will understand the difference in the present situation. There is no point in criticizing the auditor general for having done his job. There is no point in blaming local communities and citizens who are trying to survive. What we must do in the present situation is ask ourselves whether the federal government handled the fisheries issue properly.

I think that the answer is a resounding “no” on every count. I would go so far as to say that one of the fundamental reasons for this state of affairs is that, for some time now, the federal government has managed the fisheries from Ottawa, rather than from the regions by means of a truly decentralized approach directed at the regions' individual needs.

For eastern Quebec, the Gaspé, the North Shore, and the Magdalen Islands, fishing is very important. It represents a relative percentage of the Quebec economy as a whole, but for the regions, it is very important. What is required is a targeted approach, unlike the approach that might work for the other Atlantic provinces or the western provinces.

The federal government has never managed to achieve this degree of fine-tuning. If ever there were to be a so-called national fisheries strategy in Canada, the first component would have to be complete decentralization to the provinces, who want to assume responsibility for this sector in order to avoid results like those we are now seeing.

Three years ago, people noticed that there were no longer any fish in the Atlantic. Since then, the government has told fishers they should find something else to do and promote entrepreneurship. But three years have gone by and nothing has been done. There is no evidence today that the result will be a transformation of regional economies. The only result we see is that the subsistence program will have to be extended. People cannot be allowed to starve to death. We will, however, also have to make sure that things are back under control.

We are faced with an example very much like what happened in the 1980s, which led to a ghastly deficit. Today, in the fisheries sector we are faced with the same failure.

I believe it is important for the House to understand clearly that, all partisan politics aside, there are some interesting elements in the motion, statements which must be taken into consideration, but what is the most important is that the amendment proposed by the Liberals must absolutely not be accepted.

The Liberals are asking us to continue along the same path, while the auditor general has just said that the entire strategy was badly thought out and badly administered. They tell us that the financial support ought to represent 36% of the budget over five years, while the auditor general indicates that it will represent close to 76%. Do you think their evaluation was wrong?

The last federal election sent a message. Some regions of Canada sent a clear message to the government. I believe it ought to assume the responsible attitude of accepting major changes in its approach, and particularly ought to give local communities the necessary tools for development instead of sticking to the principle of providing mere subsistence to regions that may experience regional economic development problems. They must be given all of the tools they need to develop, instead.

The Liberal government cannot use the Conservative government as an excuse. They have been in power for three and a half years, soon coming up to four, and I believe they must be judged severely. The population of the Atlantic provinces has judged them, and the government must acknowledge this. The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy is the symbol par excellence of this at the present time.

I hope that the government's amendment will not gain the support of the Liberal MPs for the maritimes, for if it does they will be contradicting themselves. They have already done so on employment insurance reform, and we have seen the results of that in the last election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with some of the remarks of the hon. member. He is trying to leave the impression that the federal government believe subsistence is sufficient for fishing communities in the province he comes from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us look at the number of programs that he talked about in terms of the Atlantic groundfish strategy and the partnership agreements we are moving forward with.

He sat on the committee in the last parliament where we ensured there would be employment insurance for communities in seasonal industries to protect the livelihoods of those people in the off seasons. So we are moving forward.

The member basically made allegations that we are not taking the region into consideration. The minister of fisheries held a bilateral meeting with his Quebec counterpart to discuss a number of issues of concern to Quebec on October 5 and 6.

At that meeting there was an agreement on the importance of quickly passing a modernized fisheries act which will deal with these fishers and communities that are affected. There was an agreement on the need for the federal minister to consult with provincial and territorial colleagues prior to the introduction of the legislation. That will happen.

There was an agreement to reconvene the meeting of ministers in six months time to review progress. There was also agreement with the Quebec minister to support the need for an ocean strategy. There is all kinds of discussion. It shows that federalism is working and that we have a strong national government in consultation with the various provincial ministers, recognizing the concerns of the regions and the concerns of communities and coming up with the appropriate policies to address them. We are on track for the future.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the question of my colleague opposite and I will let the people judge.

He says we are accusing the government of failing to allow local communities to develop. I would remind him of certain things, however. In Quebec alone, the situation affects 4,000 people. Problems with funding shortened the program by a year so the $1.9 billion budget would not be exceeded. So, because money has not been spent in the right place, it will be available for less time. It was used for subsistence, but regional economies were not allowed to develop.

Then a serious error was made. The Canada manpower adjustment program was cut by $190 million. It was decided that there was not enough money for it and that the money would be given to people daily in order to keep them alive. In the case of young men and women who completed two or three years of high school and signed up for fishing or took related courses, it was decided that they would not complete their training, that they would not be given any option and that their entrepreneurial skills would not be developed.

This is why people find that the Liberals' amendment proposing to continue this policy is not a very good idea. The Liberals should at least acknowledge that errors were made and that significant corrections are necessary. However, the amendment proposed is to carry on as before. This means that they will continue to spend money on people's subsistence, that regional economies will not be developed and that things will go unchanged.

The licence retirement program was even cut to $30 million instead of $135 million. Under the policy, $135 million had been set aside to retire licences so that people could find other work. This amount was reduced to $30 million, and now nobody wants to give up their licence. A person keeps it, it is not usable and they subsist off the plan. This strikes me as a poor show.

For all these reasons, therefore, I am asking people to judge whether it has been effective, and if it is relevant, as the government is saying, to continue the policy as it stands. I think the answer is right there for all to see. A change in direction is absolutely vital.

Quebec had an administrative agreement with the federal government from 1922 and to sometime in the 1980s. This agreement provided for reasonable management. A certain fishing practice had been developed so that, for example, costal fishers with small boats would have a big enough catch.

The federal government cancelled the agreement with the provincial government, and I close on this point, at the very time it was discovered that the fish had disappeared. That fact is very clear. The federal government's action in recent years has been totally ineffective, and Parliament should never support this amendment, which would just have things go on as before.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Conservative motion. When I saw the motion from the leader of the Conservative Party I was very impressed.

It is obvious that my role in Parliament to work with other political parties to come up with political solutions to grave problems is working. I commend the leader of the Conservative Party and his caucus for the motion.

At the same time it is reprehensible that the Liberal government would try to amend the motion to satisfy its own needs. It is simply scandalous that it would try to do that.

I must say to the Conservative Party that I only wish that when its leader was in government for the nine years it had developed some kind of national policy back then. We might not be in the state we are in today. That is old history.

We have a new government that has been in power for over four years. I believe that it has to answer to the 20,000 fishers and their families in Atlantic Canada.

I wish the motion had also included not only the west coast but the Arctic and the inland fisheries as well. These are serious problems which we have and they intend to be ignored in the proper debate.

We support the national fisheries policy as long as the policy recognizes that harvesting the resource can only be sustainable through the use of small boat inshore fishers and not through the corporate trollers, and as long as there is an independent judicial inquiry into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its policies and practices in Atlantic Canada.

The reason I have been so adamant in calling for a judicial inquiry is that science has been literally ignored. There is evidence galore throughout history, at least since 1983 that I am aware of, that science has been ignored, ripped up and altered to satisfy the needs of the government of the day. Only through a judicial inquiry will the scientists from the Atlantic and west coasts be allowed to speak freely without the fear of job retribution or so-called gag orders which they are under right now.

I do not believe that the current management of the DFO has the intelligence and capability of instituting a national policy unless we have a judicial inquiry to find out exactly where things went wrong. I do not believe, according to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that it would a waste of time and money. I firmly believe that a judicial inquiry would go a long way in solving the problems of the current fisheries crisis.

Regarding the auditor general's report. He went a long way on the fiscal side of the TAGS program but he unfortunately left out the humane aspects of it. This is most unfortunate.

I look at Newfoundland. When it joined Confederation in 1949, unknown to it it also transferred its entire responsibility of the fishing industry, which survived well over 400 years, to the government of the day. In less than 50 years it is completely destroyed. This is completely unacceptable to the people in Newfoundland as well as the rest of Atlantic Canada.

It is the typical thing. This is why the west coast is so upset now. We have central Canadian views being forced on those in the west and those in the east. It simply does not work anymore. What needs to happen is complete consultation with the people within the industry; not just select groups that the government of the day chooses to speak to, but the people who work the resource in the small communities throughout Atlantic Canada and the west coast.

This is why I have constantly asked for the inquiry. I would hope that in my constant asking for it more groups will join and ask for it as well.

A report commissioned by the fisheries department director of Newfoundland stated that department scientists were routinely silenced while ill informed spokespersons conveyed false information to the public by inflating stock estimates to defend high quotas and by emphasizing the role of seals and cold water in the cod collapse instead of overfishing.

I could give example after example of what has been going on with these people. What has happened now is that 35,000 Atlantic Canadians are literally out of work and on an income support program. I find it reprehensible that the government would promise in 1994 the TAGS program for five years; not four but five. There are many thousands of people who made their financial commitments based on the fact that the TAGS program would run out in May of 1999, not May of 1998.

In question period and in other areas I have been given the answer that the government has consulted people within the industry to say “yes, we are the ones who consulted the cabinet to make the decision to cut the program from five to four years”.

I can hardly stand in this House of Commons and honestly believe that the government would go to fishers in Atlantic Canada and say “would you like your income support dropped off by a year?” and getting an overwhelming yes to that response. I find it very difficult if that happens.

Again, an inquiry of that nature would get down to the truth, to exactly what happened and who cut that program off. I am of the firm belief that the finance department made that decision, not the fishers of Atlantic Canada and of Quebec.

We go on and on with this. It gets almost to the sound of a broken record. This government does not have the capability of instituting a national policy on its own. It must institute a national policy with comprehensive consultation with not only the fishing groups but other political parties as well. Only then will we have the solutions to a long term sustainable fishery.

I honestly believe that there are many thousands of people fishing in the industry who can still be fishing 10 years from now if we just come up with a comprehensive plan in order for them to do it.

As members know, if people go out to the outlying areas of Canada and speak to the fishermen and fisher women of Atlantic Canada and the west coast, fishing is in their blood. In most cases many of these people are under educated in terms of academics. What they know is fishing.

Here we are in the government, in the House of Commons, saying to many of them they will no longer be able to have that way of life. To me it is completely unacceptable to say that to them because it is not the fault of the fishermen and fisher women of Atlantic Canada for the collapse of the ground stock. It is government policy. It is mislead information from the scientists, overcapacity by the huge trawlers that are out there now. We have trawlers out there now that are still dumping by-catch. We still have fish being dumped over the side as we speak today.

We have Cuban trawlers inside the 200 mile limit fishing our stock, but we have fishermen and fisher women sitting at home collecting TAGS program. It is simply unacceptable that we would do that. I would love the government to be able to respond to that at a later time, during question period.

One fisherman from the Sambro area who had a grade 5 education said to me “Peter, it is like this. You can have one fisherman making $200,000 a year or you can have seven of us making $30,000 a year. Make your choice”.

I think the choice is quite clear, to be able to put as many of these people back into the fishing industry which they so desire. I am not saying that every single person will get back into the fishing industry. Obviously there has to be reallocation of some of these folks to other areas.

That can be done through an attrition process, through either retirement of the licences when they reach the ages of 50 or 55, retiring these people completely so that they can retire with dignity and with respect, as well as going out of the ITQ systems, the corporate individual transfer quotas, and move back to the way it used to be on a community based allocation. I believe that would be a firm response and a positive method on the way to go.

I again compliment the leader of the Conservative Party for his motion. I can assure him that the New Democratic Party caucus will be supporting him in every way we can.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly nice to see you in the chair. I think this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak while you are in the chair. I want to make a few comments, most of them with regard to the fishing industry in my riding of Charlotte. Of course, that is the one I am concerned about.

What really appalls me are the licensing fees and the changes this government has brought in in the last number of years. There are lobster fishermen in my riding whose licensing fees have gone from $17 to $3,000 in a single year.

How could any fisherman in any jurisdiction in any country in this hemisphere survive those kinds of charges? Nobody can. It is forcing individual fishermen out of the business.

They have done the same thing with our scallop fishermen. Small fishermen now are being required in the riding of Charlotte to put monitors on board. In some cases it costs up to $350 a day to put a monitor on board just so matters can be checked. It is like the big eye of government looking down on a small fishermen who can hardly afford to put fuel in his boat.

The most discouraging thing is that the laws, the rules and the regulations for these fishermen are applied differently, depending on what side of the bay they live on. Some of the restrictions do not apply to fishermen, for example, that are lucky enough to live in some parts of Nova Scotia. It is ridiculous. I have no quarrel with fishermen in Nova Scotia, but if the government is going to apply a policy to fishermen it should be applied evenly across the board. The government is putting fishermen in my riding at a tremendous disadvantage to people 40 miles across the water. It is absolutely insane.

The same applies to wharves and the reconstruction of wharves. New Brunswick does not have enough money in the budget, for goodness sakes, to buy 50 pounds of spikes for the number of wharves that are in the riding. This is absolutely ridiculous.

We pretend we have a multimillion dollar fishery, and we do, but how can fishermen survive? The government is actually forcing fishermen who are making the meagrest of all livings, to take money out of their back pocket at the end of the day to repair the very wharves for which the Government of Canada should be responsible. How in the name of goodness can the fishermen, under those set of circumstances, survive? The answer is very clear. They cannot survive under those kinds of circumstances.

That is not the end of it. The fisheries department entered into agreements with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to bring natives into the fishery, which is fine. We want to see that happen. However, there is no co-ordination between the two departments. Neither department knows what is going on. They have no long term strategy. Again, it is throwing money at a problem with no vision for the future.

People are at a tremendous disadvantage now because of that lack of co-ordination. Fishermen in my riding are being sacrificed because neither of those two departments, fisheries nor Indian and northern affairs, want to take responsibility for their actions. We cannot continue. The fisheries in Atlantic Canada are on the rails and this government wants to simply abdicate its responsibilities.

This type of motion should be on the floor of the House every single day for the next year so that Canadians can get the message that the fisheries are in tough shape. It is time that the government took responsibility for the very fishermen who it is supposed to be representing.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, again we can hear the frustration in the voice of the hon. member from the Conservative Party.

I would like to advise him that this is the typical divide and conquer attitude that the current government is displaying with our fisher people in Atlantic Canada, not only between the fishers but as well as the First Nation fishers, not only between New Brunswick but also P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It is the old divide and conquer with its quota systems that do not work. It is unfortunate because there is a lot of infighting among the fisheries. I expressed the same frustration that the member is speaking about.

This is the last time I will call for this today because I am being cut off. We have a judicial inquiry into the practices of DFO. I think we can come to a reasonable solution and solve some problems in the Atlantic fishery.

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

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.

[An hon. member]

No, you don't. You are sharing your time with me, so if you want to continue—

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

Is that all right, Madam Speaker?

[An hon. member]

We can go for 20 minutes, can't we?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

If the House agrees, I have no problem with it. Are we in agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

No.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Let the man speak.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the normal course the member can speak for the full 20 members, but he is splitting his time. But if they are not splitting their time and they want to somehow reconfigure their speeches to 20 minutes from 10, that would certainly meet with our approval.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

That is exactly what the hon. member has been requesting so we shall proceed.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their concurrence. Now I have forgotten where I was. I know where I am, but I have forgotten where I was.

[An hon. member]

You are here in Ottawa.

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

Yes, I say to the hon. member from the Reform Party, I am here in Ottawa. But my life is not dictated to by Ottawa, I say to him and others. My life is dictated to by the people I was sent here to represent and they are in Atlantic Canada.

If there was a legitimate need in the west which there is in British Columbia, I can say to members I will stand here, highlight it and support it. I will support the people of British Columbia because there is an identified problem.

I only ask that those immediately to my left would recognize and identify the legitimate problem in the east that was not created by the people in the east. It was created by people who sat here in successive governments—

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

From the west?

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

Yes, and people from the west who happened to be in the cabinet who did not know a fish from that mace—

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

How about John Crosbie, did he know anything?

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

Yes he did and he still knows a lot. John Crosbie knows more than the whole 60 of them put together not only about fish but about anything else I say to hon. members.

There is one thing I can stand in this House and say about John Crosbie. I am not shy about defending John Crosbie. John Crosbie would not expect me to stand here today and say that everything he did was right. John Crosbie was always a man who if he made a mistake he admitted it. The first clue to success and the first way to be successful is to recognize when one is wrong.

I guess today we are asking the government to recognize that there are things that have been done wrong over the years which are really impacting upon our people today. And TAGS is a part of it.

Having said that, TAGS was necessary. If it was not for TAGS the Reform wish of Atlantic Canada disappearing may have already been realized. I say that quite sincerely. It may have already been over but the question is now what will come after TAGS. We are hearing many suggestions. We are preoccupied with it these days in Atlantic Canada. Many people there have very good suggestions.

When Mr. Harrigan and others go around this country I hope they talk to the people who are really involved in the industry, the people who have had to try to stay alive for the last four or five years on a meagre income. There is a perception that has been portrayed throughout this country by certain groups that this has been a total waste and this dependence has to end. I am sure people to my right know who I am talking about.

These people have been only kept alive. They have not been able to live in mansions. They have not been able to drive new cars. They have not been able to pay for their children's tuition for post-secondary education. They have only been kept alive.

What was wrong is that successive governments of Canada mismanaged the fishery to a degree that those people could no longer earn a living from that resource, a common resource, a people's resource. What was wrong with the government recognizing its mistakes and the problem it has created?

What is wrong now when we ask as a party and other parties in this House ask for solutions to the problem and to help those people in Atlantic Canada after May 1998? We must not forget that this program was designed to continue to May 1999. The federal government has cut a year off that program.

Why has there been a year cut off the program? Because there were 52% more take up on the income support component than was anticipated. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to think about that. How could anyone underestimate by 52% the take up on income support of a program that followed NCARP, the previous program? All the government had to do was transfer the files from NCARP to TAGS, from DFO to HRD but can you imagine that they underestimated the income support take up by 52%.

So people wonder why I am here today and why I am so frustrated and why I behave and speak the way I do. I want members to listen to this. It is because my worst fear is that after NCARP and TAGS it is most conceivable that if there is something after TAGS, we could even make it worse.

There should be no lessons left to be learned about TAGS. We should already know the answers, we should know what will follow. There are certain components that are going to be compulsory. There is going to have to be early retirement. There is going to have to be effective licence buy-out if we are going to reduce the harvesting capacity.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this time not to just buy the licence out from the fisher person and pay him the $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000 and allow his boat and gear to remain fishing. If we are really sincere about reducing harvesting capacity, it should come out of the industry. That is where there has been a big failure.

Last week when the House was not sitting, I met with fisher groups in two areas of my riding. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to members that today there are more people fishing in those areas, more boats, more vessels fishing than there were before the moratorium. And there is a reflection cast upon Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadians that they seem to be the problem. Can you blame us for wanting to make a living, for trying to stay alive?

The government program has failed and I have to say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans since he is listening that this is a very complex problem that has taken a number of years to get to this point. I have to very seriously question whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the ability or the competence to straighten out the Atlantic fishing problems. I am not saying that just for the sake of saying it. But I question the department. I have to ask if it is really capable of dealing with the complex problems in the east and the west. I do not take great comfort that it has the ability to deal with it.

I guess I am running out of time but I want to repeat the problems in the west for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I plead with the minister and the government to get more involved than they have already been in the Pacific salmon issue. There is a direct parallel, an identical situation brewing in British Columbia as is now taking place in the east. If the minister and the Prime Minister do not roll up their sleeves and get more involved in the issue, we will be here in the not too distant future talking about the Pacific salmon crisis and the people affected just as we are talking about Atlantic Canada and TAGS.

It does no good just to pay lip service. Why is the Prime Minister not more involved in the issue in the west? Why is the federal government more preoccupied with attacking Premier Glen Clark? Why have Glen Clark and British Columbians become the enemies? The Americans, the Alaskans are the problem. They are the ones who have consistently overfished. The Alaskans are still fishing at pre-1994 catch rates, yet the British Columbians are targeted as the bad guys.

I say to the minister that if he had gone to the troubled areas of British Columbia we would not have had that altercation with the blockade of the ferry. If he had gone there and talked to those people, we would not have had the problem. We would not have had the blockade.