Mike Scott

[Fisheries Act, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I want to respond to some of the comments which the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls made this morning in debate.

The member is, of course, quite right when he talks about the foreign overfishing that has taken place in Canadian waters and just outside Canadian waters which affects Canadian fish stocks.

He is quite right when he notes that it was the Conservative government between 1984 and 1992 which dramatically increased, by agreement, the amount of foreign fishing in Canadian waters.

I do not refer to these amendments as being amendments to the Fisheries Act. I know that is how the government treats them. However, if we look at the bill, it will create a new act. It replaces the old act almost entirely.

There are, indeed, some aspects of the bill which are good. The problem, and it is the same problem we have with many pieces of government legislation, is that buried in among the parts of the legislation which we can support are many aspects of the legislation that we find totally reprehensible. Therefore we have to decline our support for the entire piece of legislation.

I hope that members who feel strongly about foreign fishing in Canadian waters and outside Canadian territorial waters, which affects Canada's fish stocks, will understand that what we are

saying is that the entire bill is so comprehensive and so far reaching in its impacts that we cannot support it. I am going to go through the main reasons, in the limited time I have, to discuss why we cannot support the bill.

There are problems in almost every fishery in Canada today. There are some fisheries that, thankfully, do not experience very many problems or any serious problems at the present time. However, they are the exception and not the rule.

Whether Pacific salmon, Atlantic groundfish or lobster, most of the fisheries in Canada are having problems of one sort of another and some are very serious problems.

In 1992-93 the government had to declare a moratorium on groundfish and cod in Atlantic Canada. We heard scientists talking about environmental conditions, seal populations and so on, but the raw fact is those stocks were overfished and overfished habitually and regularly for many years.

Why were they overfished? In essence the decision making with respect to catch limits, who could actually have a licence and how the resource was going to be managed was basically driven by politics, not by science and not by sound business principles. It was driven by politics and of course the results are obvious.

I remember clearly watching the former minister of fisheries and oceans under the Conservative government, Mr. Crosbie, in a press conference in Newfoundland. He was sitting surrounded by DFO officials and he said: "We are hearing some scientific evidence that is suggesting that we should reduce our quotas and reduce the harvest rates on cod. But we are not prepared to make those kinds of decisions because there are too many people who are depending on this fishery for their jobs and their livelihood. We think the scientific evidence is not strong enough and therefore we are just going to allow the current catch rates to continue". And they did. They fished it right into the ground.

Yes, there may have been some environmental conditions which added to the problem. Yes, there may have been some problems with respect to seals which added to the problem but the seals were not the main problem and the environment was not the main problem. Those stocks were fished into oblivion. There remains the question today of whether those stocks are going to rejuvenate over time.

There is some indication and a ray of hope that some of these stocks are starting to rebound as we speak and have been for the last couple of years since the moratorium was imposed. That is some stocks, but not all of them. Even the ones that have improved have improved only marginally. There are not massive increases in recruitment, massive increases in stock levels. There has been some minor improvement and in some cases an improvement that is encouraging for all who depend on the fishery.

The main problem is that politics has driven the decision making process. It has been the same whether it has been a Tory government or a Liberal government; it has been political decision making.

For example, we have the FRCC now saying that there is a minor improvement in stock levels. There is some hope that these stocks are going to come back. We have a discussion taking place this fall as to whether the cod fishery in Newfoundland, the upper St. Lawrence River and Bay of Fundy is going to be reopened next year for a limited commercial harvest.

Frankly, while I can understand that the FRCC would like to have more and better information with respect to stocks, and that is part of the reason it is recommending a very limited opening, in my view it is a major mistake for the government to look at any kind of a commercial harvest under the present circumstances. I am very concerned that we are going to have a decision from the minister very soon suggesting that is exactly what we are going to see next year.

We have to get away from politics driving the decision making process. This bill does not address any of the problems that I talked about. It is going to give the minister much more power than he has at the present time. The underlying reason for that is that the minister wants to make more political decisions and not less.

The minister wants to be able to enter into agreements with individual groups and organizations for access to fish stocks on an exclusionary basis. That is something we have never seen in Canada before. We know that the underlying reason for it is that the government is trying to justify the aboriginal fishing strategy in British Columbia. We know there is no constitutional or legal support for the pilot sales aspect of the aboriginal fishing strategy, which is what the government is trying to protect.

With the recent court decisions that were made this year, the government has absolutely no foundation whatsoever to maintain an aboriginal fishing strategy and the pilot sales aspect of it in British Columbia. However, it appears intent on doing that and it is looking to this legislation to lend support to that decision.

I see that my time is up. We will be dealing with this matter further in debate.

[Fisheries Act, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as always I was very interested to hear the words of my hon. friend. I appreciate the work he does on this issue.

However, as he was speaking he held up a copy of the Fisheries Act amendments and it was plain to see the thickness of that document. There is a lot in that document that goes well beyond what the member was talking about.

We support the idea that Canada should play a much stronger role in managing the fishery in international waters where they affect Canadians and Canadian fishermen. I certainly agree with many of the remarks the member made about the Tories. However, we have all heard the expression: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water". I am suggesting that with this bill Canadian fishermen and the Canadian people are going to be asked to drink a lot of stinking, rotten bath water to see a baby and that is not acceptable. There is a lot in this bill that is not acceptable and goes well beyond what this member was talking about.

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a bit of noise coming from across the way. I see a sea of agreeable faces, but there are two or three who do not agree with me over there.

There are other issues. The fishing licence fees that were imposed on Atlantic Canadians was nothing more than a $50 million cash grab on the part of the Liberal government. The Liberals say this is an access fee. It is in return for the services that are provided to fishermen. What services have they provided? It is nothing more than a tax grab to feed this black debt hole here in Ottawa. There is no intention to match the funds that are received for specific purposes and actually see that those funds are spent in those areas.

In closing let me say one more time that it is time for this government to come clean. It is time for this government to tell Canadians "we should not have made this promise, we are sorry that we have lied to you, we are going to abolish this idea of harmonization".

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks, my colleague from Swift Current reminds me that the official opposition is going into a leadership race and that the member for Vegreville may be resurrecting his campaign for that position.

In talking about the goods and services tax and the harmonization that Bill C-70 represents, it is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to what has been going on for the last few years, particularly since the run up to the 1993 election and since, that this bill is a cruel hoax perpetrated on the people of Canada, particularly the people of Atlantic Canada.

It is a political ploy designed to provide the illusion that the government and the Liberals are doing something about the goods and services tax. It was an issue in the last campaign. My colleagues have gone on all afternoon highlighting the statements, promises and remarks that were made by government members when they were running in the 1993 election.

The bill is designed to give Canadians the impression that the government is trying to make good on an irresponsible promise it should never have made and ought to have known better. I certainly believe that there are many members opposite, including the Prime Minister, as the evidence shows, and including the finance minister, who knew better than to make a promise they could not keep. They knew at the time they could not keep that promise but they went ahead and made it anyway in order to attract electoral support and to convince Canadians to vote Liberal in the last election.

They knew full well the deep resentment that Canadians held for the Conservatives for bringing in the goods and services tax. They knew what a hot button issue it was. They said: "Vote for us, folks, and we will get rid of it". They had no intention of doing that. As a matter of fact, they knew it could not be done. Any responsible Liberal knew it could not be done, but they went ahead and promised it anyway.

Now we have shifted away from kill, abolish and scrap, which was the election promise of so many current MPs who were running for the Liberal Party, and now it is replace.

When I thought about what I might say today, I knew I would have to choose my words carefully. I do have respect for the Chair and for this institution. I do not have a lot of respect all the time for what the government does in the House and what certain members opposite try to say to Canadians.

I have a friend in northern B.C. who has a rather laconic way of describing people who habitually cannot tell the truth, or who habitually lie. He says that somebody who does that would rather lie on credit when they could get cash for the truth. I think that is what we are faced with here. We are faced with a government and high profile cabinet ministers who would prefer to mislead Canadians in an election campaign in order to attract electoral support when they know full well that they cannot live up to the promises they have made. It also shows that the government, time and time again, will put political interests ahead of the best interests of the country. A case in point is this harmonization bill. It is designed to create the illusion that the government is actually doing something about the GST. In fact, it is a billion dollar rip-off for the rest of Canada, those people who live outside Atlantic Canada, and it will hurt the people who live in Atlantic Canada. Many of them have already come to that conclusion.

How many stories have we heard in recent weeks about small businesses having to close? They are telling the government not to proceed. They cannot possibly live with this additional tax. Consumers in Atlantic Canada know this means an additional tax burden on them. It is a hoax. It is not going to make anything better, it is going to make things worse.

Why is the government proceeding with it at this time? Why does it not come clean with Canadians and say: "We made a mistake. We should not have said that we were going to kill, scrap and abolish the GST because we cannot do it. Now, in the best interests of the country, let us balance the books. Let us get rid of the deficit and after that we will slowly start to reduce the GST until we can phase it out altogether". That is the responsible thing to say to Canadians. It is certainly what my colleagues in the Reform Party are saying to Canadians. It is what we believe.

If the justice minister will let us keep our guns, we will find a way to hunt that GST down a couple of years after we balance the books and we will kill it, but not before we balance the books and not before we eliminate the deficit.

This relates to other taxation issues, in that the government collects taxes and fees for services for specific commodities and services with the unwritten promise that those moneys collected are going to be used for the purposes which the government has identified.

For example, 60 cents out of every dollar that a Canadian spends at the gas pump goes to taxation of one form or another. A lot of it is road tax. A lot of that is collected on the basis that the moneys are going to be used to build new infrastructure or maintain existing roads and bridges. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or an engineer to see the state of Canada's infrastructure at the present time. You do not have to drive a great deal to notice the state of Canada's roads and bridges. Yet the government continues to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel taxes designed for roads and bridges. Where does the money go? It goes into the big black debt hole here in Ottawa.

We cannot forget that the government of the day, that wonderful Progressive Conservative Party, which introduced the GST in the first place, said: "We are making a solemn promise. When we introduce this tax we are going to use it to reduce the deficit." Does anybody remember that? By how much did that government reduce the deficit? I do not think there is a Canadian who believes that the Progressive Conservative Party ever intended to reduce the deficit. I do not think there is a Canadian who, at this stage of the game, believes that the Liberals intended to kill, scrap and abolish the GST, even though that is what they solemnly promised to do in the last election.

[Department Of Fisheries And Oceans, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while we all want to minimize environmental impact, common sense and rational approaches to development must prevail.

The Prime Minister and the government promised jobs, jobs, jobs, but constituents in Prince Rupert tell a different story. Small businesses in this community are deeply concerned and frustrated by the lack of co-operation the department of fisheries has shown with respect to waterfront development in this community.

I am told of many incidents where recalcitrant DFO bureaucrats are standing in the way of job creating developments in Prince Rupert. Last week I received a petition signed by a majority of Prince Rupert businessmen asking that DFO adopt a more reasonable posture.

On behalf of concerned citizens and businesses in Prince Rupert I call on the minister of fisheries to rein in his over zealous bureaucrats and encourage job creating small businesses in this

community and other Canadian costal communities to pursue rational waterfront development.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but reply to the member's statement.

He compared the money that is being put into the tar sands in Alberta with the $87 million no interest loan to Bombardier. He said, basically: "Can you not see that we are doing as much for Alberta and as much for western Canada as we are for central Canada?" That is a slap in the face to people who live in Alberta and British Columbia and who suffered through the $80 billion rip-off by the government through the national energy program. It took the money that belonged to those provinces and walked away

with it for the benefit of central Canada and the federal government.

By throwing a few crumbs back into Alberta in the tar sands project and suggesting that in some way it is the benevolent government looking out for the best interests of Alberta, I frankly find that a bit of a slap in the face.

I do not forget things like that. There are a lot of people in western Canada who will never forget what the Liberal government did with the $80 billion rip-off under the national energy program. I will never forget that.

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little late. The TAGS program was announced in 1994 and it has already almost spent its entire $1.9 billion.

The minister of fisheries is also culpable in this Atlantic Canadian tragedy. The audit revealed that one-third of the licence buyouts by his department, some of which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, are unsupported by documentation. Only Quebec files were found to be in order.

This grotesque display of incompetence cost millions of dollars in over-runs and legitimate fishermen are being denied benefits as a result.

How can the minister even pretend to care about Atlantic Canadian fishermen now that we know his political tricks have backfired in his face?

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The Atlantic groundfish strategy, otherwise known as TAGS, is off the rails and now we know why. This week we learned that the qualifying rules for TAGS had been ignored and each regional HRD office was making its own eligibility requirements. According to an internal department audit, and I quote from that audit: "The ignoring of these rules was one of the reasons for excessive cost over-runs".

How could the minister allow the gross incompetence which will deny benefits to legitimate fishermen who really need them?

[Canada Labour Code, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, I am voting in support of this motion.

[Fisheries, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the food fishery was opened up based on scientific evidence and analysis. The conclusion of this letter is: "I am disappointed and disheartened that important decisions are being made that disregard the scientific advice from this region".

Canadians and Atlantic Canadians want to know why the minister went ahead and opened up the fishery against the advice of his own scientists?