Debates of Dec. 9th, 2004

Supply

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just stated that he had not heard a serious reason why there would be any question over Mr. Justice Williams and the review panel. Does the hon. member believe that someone can be appointed to a panel with 30 different stakeholders to work with and be expected to come up with a quick and concise review of any situation?

Time after time the complaints we heard from every sector in British Columbia, leaving any bias about Mr. Williams out of this totally, were that the panel was too large. There were too many stakeholders, too many players, and they would not have time to do a thorough review in the time allotted.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are three aspects to that: first, do a thorough analysis; second, all the stakeholders have to be dealt with; and third, and most important, solutions have to be out in time. If we adopt the solutions of the hon. member, they will not be out in a timely fashion. We are under the gun with respect to the fishery. We cannot allow what happened this year to happen next year. We want solutions and we want them implemented quickly.

All the groups that the member has talked about will not start de novo with their own ideas. They will come to panel and the justice with those solutions and the chief justice will put them together forthwith and do it in a way that will be useful and effective for the fishery.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first opportunity I have had to enter into debate in the House with you sitting in the chair, allow me to begin by saying congratulations and best wishes to you for however long this Parliament lasts. I know you will do a good job, as you have been doing to date.

I am standing here today in my capacity as the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I want to make my remarks in the capacity of chairman because I have great respect for the hon. member for Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission. He is a very hard-working member of our committee and has contributed to our deliberations. However, I have a real problem with this particular motion and the day upon which it has been presented. I want to give my perspective.

The official opposition brought the issue of the collapse of the 2004 Fraser River salmon fishery to the attention of the committee in a very timely fashion, and brought a motion asking that the committee travel to British Columbia to investigate the situation. That motion was supported unanimously, by all parties and by all members of the fisheries and oceans committee. That was done, I believe in early October, very shortly after the committee was formed. Because of all of the things that have to happen before a committee is allowed to travel, it took some time to get that in order, but eventually, the week before last, we were finally authorized by the House of Commons to travel to undertake a study on this issue.

The House should know, and people who are listening should know, that things like this do not come cheap. For our committee to travel to the west coast last week, with all of the logistics that go on with a House of Commons committee travelling, cost the Canadian taxpayers approximately $90,000.

We flew into Vancouver on Wednesday night and we began our hearings on Thursday. We had three fulsome days, well over 12 hours a day of evidence from all of the various stakeholders. Bear in mind that the committee was asked to investigate this issue and then, obviously, to report to the House of Commons and to the minister what our conclusions were.

Last Thursday, Friday and Saturday we heard evidence well into the evening hours, a lot of it interesting, a lot of it compelling. Ten of the 12 members of the committee were there at one time or another. We returned on Sunday.

Our first meeting was scheduled for today, because of other business on Tuesday, to begin to instruct our drafters to prepare a report. We wanted to do this report in a very timely fashion, bearing in mind that it was a week ago today that we began our hearings, but on a complex issue like this one, we cannot conjure a report out of the air in 30 seconds. Clearly it is going to take our researchers time to listen to the views of the committee members, get some direction, look up some of the information we need to have looked up, and then prepare a draft report for us that we can consider after the Christmas break when we return at the end of January. That is precisely what the agenda was and that is what was asked of us when we were asked to study this issue.

Last night we found out that there was going to be a votable motion, that the House was going to be asked to set up a judicial inquiry on this issue, thereby in my view totally kneecapping the work that our committee had been asked to do. If the House moves to have a judicial inquiry and the government follows it, then what is the point of our committee continuing with its deliberations since the focus is going to be on a judicial inquiry? Who knows how long that is going to take and how much money it is going to take?

I am very concerned that we in the committee are doing precisely what we were being asked to do, and in effect we are going to be kneecapped if this motion passes. It is totally inappropriate. We had 36 hours of evidence from every possible interest group that one could think of. Many of them expressed reservations about coming to the committee. They thought that their evidence and their time would be better spent elsewhere but they gave the committee another chance, only to find out that having given their evidence to a committee that had travelled there, for all intents and purposes, the work of the committee would be pre-empted by a motion of the House which would only have a limited amount of debate, one day, and then members would have to vote on it.

I do not think that is the way to proceed. I do not think it gives the issue the consideration and the time that it needs. There is no doubt, and I do not think anyone would dispute the fact, that this fishery is a very important fishery to the people of British Columbia on a variety of levels. I think it behooves the standing committee to do what it was asked to do, and that is to complete its study. It should do what it was asked to do by the official opposition, I might add, which was joined by the other parties and members of the committee.

Let us look at the actual words of the motion. Who can dispute that the maintenance of the sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River is crucial for conservation and for commercial, recreational and aboriginal users? I do not think there is anybody in the country who would disagree with that statement.

It is fair to say, and we have heard plenty of evidence in this regard, that over time the resource has been mismanaged. I am talking about a historical progression of mismanagement. It is sad to say that it is not the only fishery in Canada that has been mismanaged over a period of time. One cannot, realistically, argue that.

There is certainly also a dearth of proper science for a variety of reasons. Human beings really cannot know everything about every portion of what a species of animal does from the moment it is conceived until it dies. We do the best we can but with lack of money, there is less science. There is no question there has been a dearth of science and this has contributed to the problem.

However, I think it is premature to call on the House to ask the government to establish an independent judicial inquiry, when we have only now heard the evidence that we were asked to hear. On what basis is the House going to ask the government to have an independent judicial inquiry?

The House has not heard 36 hours' worth of testimony from witnesses, as our committee did. The House will hear perhaps five, six or ten members. I have not heard all the speeches, but one has to presume that some of them undoubtedly condemn the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO and the Liberal government because this is the place of political action and that is to be expected.

Our committee, we like to think, in the past four or five years has demonstrated that it works as apolitically as possible. Most of our reports have been unanimous reports, not all but most of them have been unanimous. We have tried our best to recommend things that are capable of being done.

We have not discussed yet the potential costs of a judicial inquiry, how long that judicial inquiry would take or whether a judicial inquiry would be completed before decisions have to be made for the 2005 Fraser River fishery. Of course it would not. I am aware of no inquiry that has been set up and completed in a matter of a couple of months.

Besides that, I wanted to say that not everyone in the industry--commercial, recreational and aboriginal--is in agreement that there be a judicial inquiry. There are those who agree that there should be one and there are those who feel that the money could be better spent on things like better scientific studies, better monitors and echo sounders to count the fish as they travel up the Fraser River.

Quite frankly, I think that the motion is ill-considered in that it would in effect kneecap the committee's work which I think is very important. It would do a disservice to those witnesses from all sectors who came to give us their testimony and asked us to recommend something to the House of Commons.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is the chair of the committee, but I could not disagree more with his comment that an inquiry would kneecap the work of the committee. This is something that could happen concurrently. If we actually want to get some results, some action, I would argue that this has to be done. It could be done at the same time that the committee is doing its work.

I was the fisheries critic and the vice chair of the committee as far back as 1998. I was reading through some of the old reports. Report after report after report of the fisheries committee talk about the mismanagement of the fishery time and time again. The vast majority of the reports contained all-party recommendations. There was no dissenting opinion. Five political parties had written the recommendations yet they were not implemented.

The Liberal government has not followed any of the recommendations. Maybe if we had done a judicial inquiry back then on the collapse of the east coast fisheries we would have seen different results today.

That is why it is important that we go down this road. This is a serious problem. Sometimes in this House it takes the work of the Auditor General, it takes a judicial inquiry, and it takes independent work by an all-party committee before we even begin to see any kind of action.

I would suggest to the member that this absolutely does not kneecap the committee's work. In fact it might bolster it.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If the House were to pass this motion today, and clearly, if the committee had come to the conclusion after considering all the evidence that we did not want to recommend a judicial inquiry, for example, what would be the point of that if the House had already passed a motion saying that a judicial inquiry should take place?

On the other hand, if the House pronounces today and decides that there should not be a judicial inquiry, does that not preclude or certainly handicap a discussion within our committee as to whether we should recommend a judicial inquiry when we know that the House has already disposed of the issue? What would be the point of spending all of that time and effort discussing whether we should have a judicial inquiry and the reasons therefor, if the House has already pronounced and said no, we are not going to have a judicial inquiry?

Likewise, if we wanted to allocate the moneys otherwise used for a judicial inquiry elsewhere and wanted to make those recommendations, if the House decided today that there would be one, that also would preclude us from making those recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attempts by the chair of the standing committee to express his concerns. However, what if we were users of the Fraser River and our livelihoods depended on that resource? If we saw what happened to that resource in 2004 and knew in our hearts, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands just said, that it did not matter what the fisheries committee recommended, that the department would probably ignore it, and we also knew that a lot of witnesses would only say what was really on their minds at a judicial inquiry, then we would be very impatient for a judicial inquiry.

The member also knows that we have a schedule in this place. We are debating our last supply day opposition motion probably until some time in February and by that time it will be too late to contemplate. I would suggest that we are not being premature at all in making this request. I understand that most of the witnesses on the weekend were supportive of a judicial inquiry, and very frustrated at a lesser opportunity.

It should come as no surprise that we put this motion forward. We were calling for the committee to go to the west coast and for a judicial inquiry quite some time ago. We held a press conference to say so. We said so publicly--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me, but we will have to get a quick response from the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has illustrated the problem. I do not think it is accurate to say that most of the witnesses were calling for a judicial inquiry. I would say that it is true that some of the witnesses were calling for a judicial inquiry, possibly close to a majority, but not most. One of the things the committee could help out with would be to identify in our report precisely who called for what.

May I make an alternative suggestion. If people do not believe that unanimous reports of the fisheries committee are going to be listened to, there is a procedure in the House to move to concur in the report of the committee. With respect to the fisheries committee, I invite my colleagues in the House of Commons the next time we table a unanimous report to move a motion to concur in that report.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Because of the brevity of time allowed, I will narrow my focus to a couple of very important historical points. We have had a lot of talk about the need or the lack of need for a judicial inquiry.

I would like to go back to the 1994 inquiry and the recommendations that came out of that inquiry and some of the pitfalls that I believe were suffered by that inquiry. Without the ability to swear witnesses and have people appear under oath, it is very difficult sometimes to actually get down to that little kernel of truth.

In 1994 we had a disastrous sockeye run on the Fraser River. This came the heels of a disastrous run in 1992. History will tell us that there are a number of things that influence the fish run. In 1914 there was a serious rock slide in Hell's Gate. It prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the spawning grounds. There are environmental factors. There are natural catastrophes. There is overfishing. There are a number of issues, such as warm water, that can prevent salmon from reaching the spawning grounds.

However, we do know that in 1994 the river was opened by the then fisheries minister, Brian Tobin. To prevent the Americans from catching too much of their quota, he allowed our Canadian fishermen to overfish the stocks and he came within hours, not days, not months, of forcing the extinction of the Adams River stock. It was done with a total denial of what was going wrong in the fishery and trying to use the fishery for political means.

Nobody on the Liberal side of this House needs to lecture anyone else in this House about using politics in the fishery. We have seen the results up close and personal on political use of the fishery.

This is not about politics. This is about conservation. This is about a resource that is important to British Columbia, to the commercial fishery, to the recreational fishery, and that is extremely important to the aboriginal fishery. Those three interest groups will not have anything to worry about if we do not make some changes to the way the fishery is managed, and will be managed, in British Columbia.

There are a number of stocks that are facing extinction. We have federal law under SARA, the Species at Risk Act, that is supposed to protect some of these stocks, and the flagrant abuse of enforcement and conservation practices. There are number of issues at stake here. There has been report after report. Unfortunately, those reports have not been listened to, they have not been followed up on, and, to a large degree, they have been disregarded, and sometimes for political reasons.

We do not have to go to 1994 or 1992 or 1914. We only have to go back to 2001 and look at the recommendations on the Fraser River salmon fishery.

The first recommendation was that DFO return to a single commercial fishery for all Canadians. That is a recommendation. It does not mean that it can be implemented. It does not mean that it takes into serious consideration all the needs and the special constitutional rights of first nations. However, it was a recommendation. I do not think it was ever looked at, thought about, or given two thoughts. I think it was just passed over by the government in power.

The second recommendation was that the government ensures that DFO respects the public's right to fish and that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reassert his authority to manage the fishery. We are still not seeing the fishery managed.

Recommendation number three dealt with pilot sales by first nations. There is an argument that would say pilot sales by first nations are legal. There is an argument that would say that pilot sales may be problematic. I would probably err on the side that said pilot sales are legal. Other members may disagree with me. However, should we look at the recommendation, thoroughly examine it, and try to come to some conclusion? Yes, absolutely.

Recommendations 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, all the way to number 10, and I do not have to read them all out, were largely ignored by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO and the House of Commons. We have a fishery again this year that is in serious trouble. We have a unique relationship between first nations fishery and the resource. We have third, fourth and fifth generation fishermen in the commercial fishery, the gillnetters, the seiners, and a number of groups that use this resource and there must be a way to allow them to access it and share it based on conservation.

One argument that I have yet to hear from the government side of the House is conservation. We have seen the results of socio-economic policy in the fishery on the east coast. We have seen it in two northern cod openings in the last decade under the Liberal government, both of them within eight months of an election.

Far be it from me to say for a moment that anyone would use politics and allow a stock of fish that has been there for 500 years to be annihilated. There are other circumstances. Is water temperature a factor? Absolutely. Is overfishing a factor? Absolutely. Is illegal fishing a factor? Absolutely. Is misreporting a factor? Absolutely. If we have a judicial inquiry, we can get to the bottom of the misreporting.

Had we had a judicial inquiry on cod fish on the east coast, we could have brought in the skippers. I can name a good many of them who fished in one area off the Grand Banks and reported their catch from another, as happens all across this nation.

The need for a judicial inquiry is not to point the finger at first nations, seiners or gillnetters. It is to recognize that we have a unique fishery. There is only one way of getting to the bottom of it, and that is to have people appear before us under oath, especially in wrap up, to allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials to tell us what they actually know about this fishery and about the mismanagement of it without the threat of being fired or losing their jobs.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the post-season review was a recommendation. Stakeholders have supported it because it is what they want.

There are problems with the member's call for a judicial inquiry. That is not going to occur in a timely fashion. The information that our fisheries groups need will not be made public in a timely fashion for the 2005 fishery. That is the major problem with the member's solution.

I want to ask the member a couple of questions on enforcement and the use of a terminal fishery. Would his party support, which is something I have advocated, the use of recall-like amendments where we could apprehend the resources of inveterate poachers, those assets would be sold, and the moneys would go into the fisheries to support enforcement and habitat reclamation rather than going to general revenue.

In other words, when inveterate poachers are found, they are tried, prosecuted, their assets apprehended, and those assets would be sold and the moneys would go to support our enforcement groups and habitat reclamation.

The second question I have deals with the use of a terminal fishery with respect to supporting hatcheries. If hatcheries were allowed to have first dibs in the terminal fishery, those fish sold and that money could then be put back into the hatcheries. Hatcheries would be a self-sustaining, self-fulfilling, and self-funding asset to our fisheries.

I would like to ask the member what he thinks about these two ideas and whether his party would support them.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think that both of those ideas have some merit, but also have certain flaws that are inherent.

First, I will talk about a terminal fishery to supply the hatcheries. What we have seen in the last three or four years in British Columbia and what we have seen in the last several years on the east coast is the deliberate divestiture on behalf of the federal government of the hatchery program.

We do not have any hatcheries any more on the east coast. They have all been privatized. The hatchery program is only there for the aquaculture industry. Some of the recreational communities and river groups have river specific fish that they take to the hatchery and put a few smolts back in the river. The member can have that, it is a great idea. The member can get his guys to support that and we can probably get support for the hatchery system on this side without too much trouble.

The issue that the member spoke about was the ability of enforcement officers to confiscate property from inveterate poachers, people who are going to reoffend and reoffend, and use that money to supply DFO with greater funding, either to work on salmon enhancement programs, riparian strip enhancement, stream bed enhancement or whatever that type of environmental enhancement.

It sounds like a good idea at first glance. The argument that has always come out against that from the legal community has been that it leads to entrapment. All of a sudden there is a greater targeting of poachers and entrapment. Therefore, those ill-gotten gains, even though they are ill-gotten gains, end up being abused both by not only the person breaking the law but by the person enforcing the law. I am not saying I agree with that, but that is the argument against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to expand a little on the hatchery question. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has the Goldstream Hatchery in his riding. The federal government cut $16,000 out of its funding. It has cut almost $4 to $5 million out of British Columbia hatchery programs this year. What does my colleague think about the way those kinds of programs are being handled by the government?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House the results of those types of cuts. At one time we had 75 or 80 rivers in Nova Scotia that had multi-sea winter returning salmon, salmon that went off to Greenland, returned down by the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, into P.E.I., and around the coast into Nova Scotia. Today we have 17 rivers that sustain real consecutive return runs of salmon. We have no hatchery program. We have no enhancement. We have a total denial by the federal government that there is a problem.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion. It is important that I quickly touch on what the motion is calling for.

The motion states:

--that the maintenance of the sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River is crucial for conservation and for commercial, recreational and aboriginal users;--

I do not know who could not support that.

The motion is to basically acknowledge that this resource has been mismanaged, that decisions have been made without proper science and that as a consequence we should have a judicial inquiry to determine the cause of the collapse of the sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River.

Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River is probably close to where you reside in British Columbia. This is all stuff that we have seen going on for years. I do not know how any member could not support this motion.

When I was the vice-chair of the fisheries committee in 1998, we brought the entire fisheries committee out to British Columbia that year. We heard testimony from one end of British Columbia to the other. We heard testimony from the stakeholders, the recreational sector and the commercial sector. The committee travelled to the riding of the member for Vancouver Island North, to my riding and to the lower mainland. We literally packed hall after all. We heard from very angry, not just fishermen but recreational fishermen, every stakeholder in the group. These people were frustrated beyond anyone's wildest imagination about the mismanagement of the fishery. The chair of the committee at the time was George Baker, who is now in the Senate.

The committee made a number of recommendations which were supported by all parties. Unfortunately, six years later in 2004 what are we talking about? We are still talking about the mismanagement of the fishery.

The member just talked about the 2001 fisheries committee report. We also have the 2003 fisheries committee report which states that we should invest in more science and in more enforcement personnel instead of cutting them, but each report keeps talking about mismanagement.

Nothing has been done. If we do not look after the resource it will not be there. This is not something that we can take for granted.

Where does the money go? Where is the money spent in this department? When I was first elected in 1997, I said that there were no fish in the Rideau Canal. Why do we have an ivory tower here with thousands of DFO personnel? Why is almost half the entire DFO budget spent in Ottawa? Why are we not managing that resource on the east coast and managing the resource on the west coast? Why are we not bringing the science that is managing the resource to the source?

We should bring the management of that resource out to each coast. We should remove the politics and the partisanship.

I remember when fisheries ministers would open fisheries weeks before an election purely for political gain and to the detriment of the fish stocks.

I heard the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talking about this. I could have brought in his quotes from the last six or seven years in Parliament because I clearly remember what he said on these issues. He is singing from a different song sheet today but I guess that song sheet comes from the department.

The member has great proposals. Let us look at the hatchery program. In his own backyard, the Goldstream River hatchery, which is run by volunteers, does an outstanding job but it receives a mere pittance from the federal government. What does the federal government do? It comes and it cuts even that.

The government does not cut the resources in the ivory tower, just out at the front lines. When we hear stories that fisheries officers have their boats tied up to the docks because there is not enough money in the budget for fuel it makes us shake our heads.

I applaud the committee. The member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, a new member in the House, came to the British Columbia Conservative caucus and said that this was a serious issue. He advocated for it. He is on the fisheries committee. I would also argue that he was largely responsible for getting that committee out to British Columbia to hear witnesses.

Yes, the committee can do this great work and write a great report, but will the government do anything? The record speaks for itself. Why are we even talking about this today? Did the government listen to the Baker report? Did it listen to the 2001 report or the 2003 report? Had the government implemented the recommendations would we be standing in this House today talking about this crisis?

We could always encourage a judicial inquiry. We could put in a scoping clause. We could ask the inquiry to do a preliminary report, appreciating that a full report does take longer, and ask that the preliminary report be delivered before decisions are set in place for the 2005 fishery, but we must start taking these steps. It would be a great investment of taxpayer dollars to hold this judicial inquiry, and then to see some real action.

If we had followed the recommendation in the Baker report of 1998, which talked about moving the management of the resource to the source, I would argue that we would have been a lot better off today.

People wonder why we are cynical on this side of the House. Whether it is the sponsorship inquiry, the government refuses to answer questions; whether it is on immigration matters, it refuses to answer questions. I have been a member here for a few terms and it seems to me that once the Liberals get to the Rocky Mountains they only see the Pacific Ocean. They seem to forget that there is actually more of Canada on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. Whether it is the fishery or it is airport rents, it does not seem to matter. The Fraser River is in British Columbia but the government's actions demonstrate that it does not care.

For years the government has been warned about the east coast cod fishery. It should have listened and acted, but instead the fishery collapsed. For years we heard similar warnings about the west coast salmon fishery. It should have listened and acted, but the fishery collapsed.

The government must take immediate steps to fix this problem. History has proven that it cannot be trusted to take good advice. It has been there. There are permanent records. I worked with the member from Prince Edward Island and I appreciate his comments on many of those reports. He knows what I am talking about. He was there. He helped draft those recommendations and those recommendations have still not been followed.

It should not have come to this. I would have been the last one to ask for a judicial inquiry but it has come to this. Nobody can deny that fact. The House owes every fisherman in British Columbia, regardless of where they are involved in the industry, an apology, and we owe them our best effort to make it right.

I would ask all members to remove the partisan politics and let us start getting some honest answers. Let us start looking for solutions. Let us let the judicial inquiry do some work, concurrently with the work that the standing committee is doing on fisheries, but let us make sure that this does not happen again.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out for the hon. member and several other members who spoke this morning about the serious and troublesome problems in the cod fishery, that the shutdown in 1992 was made by the hon. John Crosbie in the previous government. I think we should all be cognizant of the fact that the mismanagement occurred under the reign of the hon. member's party, not this government's reign.

As I pointed out earlier, I spent three days in British Columbia and I do agree with a lot of what the member said. This is a complex and challenging issue. However where we fundamentally disagree is on the call for a judicial inquiry, which I do not support.

The member talked about a song book this morning. I have the song book prepared by the Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East which has been circulated through the House and throughout British Columbia. The report says, “The Department of Fisheries and Oceans' allegation that warm water decimated the early Stuart run is clearly a fabrication”, and the report goes on to blame a wall of aboriginal nets for the disaster. In my view that song sheet is provocative, explosive, divisive and it is not helpful. The member will certainly want to get that song book before any judicial inquiry.

Our committee report will be coming out soon. The Williams commission, which is independent, impartial and transparent, is out there doing its work. Would the member not agree with me that the judicial inquiry would serve no useful purpose in this case whatsoever?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more. The hon. member said that it would serve no useful purpose.

The member referred to 1992 when it was the hon. John Crosbie who made a decision. I accept that there were politics involved in that decision. I was not elected at that time. What I am advocating is that we do not let that happen again. What I am advocating is that it happened then and it has been happening ever since. We must remove the partisanship from these decisions.

Why are the Liberals so opposed to a judicial inquiry? Are there facts they are afraid may come out? He talked about the member for Delta—Richmond East. He has made all kinds of statements, many with which I would disagree, but we should let them be part of the judicial inquiry. I have no problem with that. The judicial inquiry will rule on that. Let us get to the truth instead of pointing fingers.

The member stood up and did exactly what I asked him not to do, which was to turn this into a partisan debate. I accept that in 1992 decisions were made at the peril of the cod fishery on the east coast. However that is what we are trying to prevent.

I would ask them to support this motion and remove the partisanship in this place in the interest of the salmon stocks in British Columbia.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have been on a previous fishery committee that looked at the issue of the salmon on the B.C. coast and in the Fraser River.

I agree with a lot that has been said in terms that there are serious problems, but a judicial inquiry is not the way to go from my point of view. We are parliamentarians. Committees can work in a non-partisan sense. I think we should accept our responsibilities as parliamentarians to do that work, to make the recommendations and to demand that the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans abide by those recommendations.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more about the committee doing the work, but I disagree with the hon. member when he says that we should not have a concurrent judicial inquiry.

The committee is doing that work he talks about. I sat with the member on the committee and he did great work. However the problem is still here today because minister after minister has completely ignored the recommendations of these committees at the peril of the stocks on both coasts. Let us fix it once and for all.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this matter, particularly since, over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to become more familiar with this issue. As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I took part in the trip to meet a number of witnesses and stakeholders with regard to the Fraser River sockeye salmon problem in B.C.

Just before I start my speech that will, I believe, be interrupted by statements by members and oral questions, I want to say the following. Given what I have just heard about depoliticizing the debate on the Fraser River sockeye salmon, I would have liked our Conservative colleagues to have done the same thing with regard to Bill C-9. This legislation concerns politicizing local and regional development throughout Quebec. Currently, I think that, yes, it should have been done, and it is not too late because the debate is not over yet. So, the debate on local and regional development in Quebec is being politicized and we are being asked to depoliticize the fisheries issue in relation to another matter. This is somewhat inconsistent.

On one hand, with regard to this particular subject, I first want to extend a vote of thanks, of appreciation to the Conservative Party for allowing us, today, to talk in greater depth and detail about this very important issue for British Columbia. I think that all regions, including my own, can have an interest in this issue. When it comes to species conservation, Quebeckers, particularly people in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, like those in other coastal ridings, are interested.

So, I congratulate the Conservative Party for having introduced this matter today and, particularly, the Conservative critic from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and the interested members who had the opportunity to talk about this matter on various occasions, particularly the Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East. I also want to recognize those who took part in this trip and who are working hard on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

When we went to Vancouver to meet people, we did so thanks to an amazing amount of work. We too often forget the work done by committee staff. Let me say that over the past few years in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I have had the opportunity of seeing it from a real-life viewpoint. Now, as a member of Parliament, it is even more obvious. I think it is appropriate to congratulate the people who work for each of our committees. Some of them help us figure out the issues and some provide us with information or organize the meetings. Three days in Vancouver, in the rain, with many hours of discussions and listening on subjects related to our portfolio; it took a lot of work to prepare for that. The committee staff worked very well, and I really must pay tribute to them.

I would also like to express special thanks, and many thanks, to the witnesses. We held public hearings as we have done on other occasions. I remember very well that in the matter of Atlantic groundfish, the committee went to meet the people in Quebec, in Gaspé, particularly, and in other provinces, including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

The witnesses who came to meet us took the committee's work very seriously, and the committee has tried to do its work professionally and conscientiously. I believe the members of the committee worked together respectfully and listened attentively to all those who came to testify. There were a number of groups.

These people spoke of their experiences and expressed their views.

We also heard from commercial fishers, the committee's first witnesses. Many fishing groups, including commercial fishers, benefit from the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. At that time, I had the opportunity—I have said this before and I will say it again—to hear Ms. Nguyen, spokesperson for the BC Vietnamese Fishermen's Association. The association represents commercial sockeye salmon fishers. I can tell you that Ms. Nguyen's testimony was extremely moving.

She told us, clearly and simply—I am repeating it today for those watching—that she agreed to come to Canada in the hope of sharing in the wealth of the Fraser River sockeye salmon industry. Her words were filled with emotion. At one point, even, she had difficulty continuing.

She spoke from the heart, saying all she and her group wanted was to join in the sockeye harvest on the Fraser River. Yet, given everything that has happened in recent years, they now find themselves with practically nothing, making what I would call a miserable income.

She spoke candidly and eloquently. Ms. Nguyen deserves our praise. The committee members had the opportunity to hear her, and I imagine they feel the same way as I do about what she had to say.

Then there was a group of sport fishers, recreational fishers as they say. They gave a very interesting presentation on their vision, their way of looking at things. Essentially, what they said was that illegal fishing was, in their opinion, mainly practised by the Aboriginal groups.

The Fraser River, I should point out, for those less familiar with it—I was one of them until recently myself—is 1,000 kilometres long. So its role is far from insignificant. It has generated considerable income from the salmon resource, hundreds of millions of dollars in the past. Now that figure is down to tens of millions. Hon. members can see what a difference that is, and what an impact this would have on fishers. So, those who fish for sport expressed their point of view.

We also had representations from the aboriginal groups, and the main thrust of their testimony was that for them the Fraser River red salmon, the sockeye in other words, was more than a source of food or income; it was also a continuation of their ancestral practices. We are all aware that this is a controversial point, and it is hard to know how to interpret the ritual consumption and other uses of these famous fish. Their presentations gave us a very good idea of their point of view.

I think my time is very nearly up and that we will have an opportunity to continue after members' statements and oral question period.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have ten minutes later on to finish his speech.

Justice

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this statement, the fourth in my series analyzing whether the courts are protecting our children, I would like to draw the House's attention to the case of Sergio Arcana-Martinez of Toronto who used an Internet chat room to lure an 11-year-old girl.

Fifteen hours after he seized her from a public meeting place, took her to his apartment and sexually abused this poor 11-year-old, Martinez dropped her off alone at a Toronto subway station.

The police and the Crown both asked for a 10 to 12 year sentence. Judge Bruce Hawkins ignored these requests and sentenced the child predator to time served while awaiting trial, namely 21 months; 21 months for kidnapping an 11-year-old girl, terrifying and sexually assaulting her.

Toronto Chief of Police Julian Fantino stated, “The system has failed this young girl. The system has failed all of us”. I agree. The courts are not protecting our children.

Canadian Forces

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform continue to make us proud. The Canadian Forces special operations military unit, Joint Task Force Two, has been awarded the United States presidential unit citation for heroism in battle for its service in Afghanistan.

During a ceremony in California on December 7, President Bush presented the citation to the American commander of joint special operations task force south, a multinational force in which our JTF 2 personnel were involved. The citation is given to U.S. and allied nations for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy.

This is only the second time a Canadian unit has been so honoured, the first being the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for heroism during the Korean war.

Because of the nature of the JTF 2 unit, we may never know who these brave Canadians are. Without knowing individual names, on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, and all Canadians, allow me to extend our thanks, gratitude, and our blessings for safety, to those who fight against terrorism for a secure and safe world.

Regional Development

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the northern part of my riding, the town of Parent, located 275 km from La Tuque, is completely isolated. Its only link to surrounding urban centres is a single unsurfaced road and an airport with a dirt airstrip.

In light of the risks facing the population of this town and surrounding reserves if a disaster were to happen, or just to meet the development needs of this area, the municipality of La Tuque has requested the assistance of the Department of Transport to make the area safe and foster its development by asphalting the airport's only airstrip.

This project should have had the approval of the Minister of Transport, if he really believes in regional development, yet the assistance was denied. The Minister of Transport has not fully grasped this urgent need. This is why we are urging him to reconsider his decision as soon as possible.

Centre d'intégration sociale et professionnelle de Laval

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the team at the Centre d'intégration sociale et professionnelle de Laval on setting up a computer room which will be available free of charge to the centre's users.

The CISEP offers a wide range of services to members of any cultural community, children as well as adults, and acts as a stepping stone to school or the labour market.

The new computer stations will be used for computer courses and to surf the Internet for school research or job search purposes.

This is the kind of initiative that facilitates the integration of newcomers into our society. I thank the CISEP for its initiative.

Arts and Culture

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts is hosting the first major museum exhibition of contemporary art from my riding of Nunavut, Canada's newest territory. The exhibit opened on November 26, 2004 and continues until January 30, 2005. The artworks, all created in the last 50 years, include sculptures, prints, wall hangings, photographs, videos and sound installations.

I would like to thank all the people who worked so hard to ensure this event would happen, especially the federal government, which supported this initiative from the beginning; Consul General Ron Irwin; INAC; and the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Foreign Affairs.

I would also like to thank the Peabody Essex Museum for showcasing Inuit culture and traditional Inuit knowledge, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.