The member opposite is asking “Who”. Premier Tobin is well known. I believe he was called Captain Canada at one time when on behalf of the government he ensured that we put the run to the foreigners at one point in time. He ensured that the fishery would move ahead for Canadian fishermen.
In his remarks Premier Tobin made very clear that although many people in Canada think the fisheries is a basket case that is not the case at all. The main reason the Newfoundland economy is predicted to do so well this year is because of the fishery. It has improved and is healthy. There are problems in terms of the Atlantic cod fishery but the fishery is improving. The value of landings has improved. I believe in the province of Quebec the value of landings has improved 39% since about 1982.
One of the most important points I want to make is that conservation is the government's top priority when it comes to managing Canada's fisheries resources. In the case of the fisheries this means conservation comes before other priorities, as worthy as they may be, such as job creation and economic development.
Although members opposite very seldom admit it, we are working on job creation and economic development through the rural initiatives of the Government of Canada rather than just fisheries policy in and of itself. We are doing what we can with fisheries policies.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made the point many times in terms of conservation that the fish must come first. It must be obvious by now why this is so. Discussion on fisheries policy would be much more productive if everyone would realize that the old ways must change, both the old ways of thinking and the old ways of fishing. We need to acknowledge that things have changed and that current conditions demand both drastic short term measures, many of which we have taken, and the long term will to change.
If we need to mark anything, it is the passing of the old fishery and the birth of a new conservation based fishery. Its design and development is still unfolding. Many members of the House are members of the fisheries committee. It is an integral part and hears what fishermen in the fishing communities have to say. It listens to them and brings reports, even when they are critical of DFO, to the House to add to the debate so that we develop a fisheries for the future which keeps communities in mind. The design and development of a conservation based fishery are unfolding day by day and aggressively under the minister of fisheries.
The government's ultimate objective is to have a sustainable fishery. This means fisheries that are economically viable and ecologically sound, fisheries that can support communities and provide fishermen with good incomes within sustainable limits.
To accomplish this the government has taken steps to reduce the number of people who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods. These steps include temporary income assistance, early retirement incentives, licence buy-backs and other measures to assist communities to adapt to the changing fishery.
We also need—and the government is working on this as well—to reduce harvesting capacity. As always the government is open to suggestions in terms of how to do that best in maintaining and supporting communities.
Why has the government taken these important steps? The answer is simple: so that those who remain in the fishery can make a decent living without overfishing, as has happened in the past, and without relying on government subsidies.
Conservation is the top priority in fisheries management for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Practising conservation and enforcing conservation are the only things standing between us and the loss of our fish stocks. We cannot allow the mistakes of the past. We on this side of the House have learned from the mistakes of the past. We cannot allow mistakes of the past to be part of the fisheries of the future.
If people think a moratorium is painful, let us imagine living in a world without fish. That was clearly the road we were on until the government took the leadership to develop new policies and to take action to ensure there are fisheries for the future.
The issue is not as implied in the motion by the member opposite. The issue is not large scale fishing versus small scale fishing. That is not the issue at all. The issue is taking only as much fish as the resource can support and as much as a well managed environment can produce.
The fishery of the future needs a place for both the large scale and small scale fishery. Most integral to that are those communities which depend on fishing for their livelihood. These are the guiding principles the government follows.
The fishing industry has to be able to live within strict conservation guidelines without relying on government support. That means the industry has to be able to withstand the ups and downs of commerce, the price fluctuations, and the ebb and flow of demand and supply without subsidies. That means the industry has to change, which is why the government is talking about fewer licences, multi-species licensing and a professional industry.
I want to quote an editorial from the Fishing News by James Pugsley when he talked about the federal plan. He indicated that the federal plan, although not perfect, was the best bet at this time. He said the actions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to move a sustainable fisheries model allowing only a conservative fishing effort that will not threaten stocks comes after two decades of warnings from the department's own fisheries. In the editorial he said that was the way to go. We believe in action.