Mike Scott

[Fisheries, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister has tried to determine how many jobs on the west coast will be lost as a result of his plan.

There is a delegation of people here from British Columbia today representing half a million British Columbians who are very concerned about their future and the future of their communities in the wake of the minister's plan. These people participated in these round table discussions and state unequivocally that their recommendations in that process were ignored.

Can the minister explain how it is that although he claims wide consultations with all the stakeholders, there is a delegation representing half a million British Columbians here today demanding that he withdraw this plan? Will he listen to them and do so?

[Fisheries, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Government of Canada has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the east coast fishery through a variety of programs for the last decade.

Recently the minister announced an $80 million licence buy-back in British Columbia. He is aware that virtually all of this money was contributed by west coast fishermen through licence fee increases they have had to pay for the past 25 years.

Can the minister of fisheries explain the disparity of treatment between the east and west coast fishing industries by his department where billions of dollars are dedicated to the east coast but only $80 million is dedicated to the west coast, which is really only a return of fishermen's contributions in the first place?

[Fisheries, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at least we got a straight answer.

The federal government is currently reallocating the salmon resource in British Columbia through native land claim agreements, as seen in the Nisga'a agreement in principle. The overwhelming majority of British Columbians object to a racially based, separate commercial fishery. The native only fishery is not supported by either the Constitution or the decision of Canada's courts.

Will the minister not admit he is reallocating the resource at a time when he is asking the commercial fishing industry to downsize by 50 per cent? Will he abandon this bizarre policy of two commercial fisheries in British Columbia separated by race?

[Fisheries, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is holding a gun to the heads of commercial fishermen in British Columbia. He has told them they must make a decision on license buy back before June but he will not set allocations until the fall at the earliest.

How can fishermen in British Columbia make rational decisions about their future in the fishery unless they know beforehand the rules of the game? Will the minister extend the buy back offer until after the allocations are set, as fishermen have demanded?

[Fisheries, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has told commercial fishermen in British Columbia that the salmon fleet must be cut in half.

He has put a gun to their heads, announcing an $80 million licence buy back program which fishermen must opt for prior to the end of June 1996.

What the minister has failed to do is set allocations guaranteeing salmon fishermen a set share of the resource. Fishermen are expected to make lifelong decisions with virtually no notice and no knowledge of what future allocations will be. The minister continues to reallocate the resource through aboriginal treaties without being forthright and admitting as much.

It is small wonder commercial fishermen in British Columbia are telling the minister his plan is totally unacceptable. The government must set allocation rules in advance of a buy back, not after the fact.

[Point Of Order, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of question period the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made a statement to the effect that I had refused an invitation to attend the Nisga'a signing ceremony on Friday of last week at Aiyansh. The minister knows this is totally false and I would ask him to withdraw this statement. It is not a matter of debate but a matter of record.

[Nisga'A Land Claims, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would do well to affix a sign on the Indian affairs minister's desk in the House to read: "Engage brain at least 10 seconds before engaging mouth". If he were to do that it might cut down the excess of bovine scatology emanating from that end of the House.

Aside from the minister's bizarre and outrageous comments, he has now taken to making blatantly false statements in the House, such as the one he made yesterday when he said that I had never raised the Nisga'a land claim issue in this Chamber.

He back-pedalled furiously when challenged and said he meant to say that I had never taken sides with the Nisga'a. He reveals himself. To him resolving native land claims is all about taking sides. Small wonder the editorial page of the Toronto Star recently described the Liberals thus: ``The federal Liberals are the walking dead. They seem vibrant but the centre is empty. Poke at them and you can feel the dry rot.''

[Points Of Order, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance. If an issue arises in the House that has profound implications to me as a member of Parliament and for my riding, such as false information is put in front of the House, what am I entitled to do as a member of Parliament to ensure the record is straightened out?

[Points Of Order, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period in a response to a question that was asked by my colleague, the member for North Island-Powell River, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that I, as the member for Skeena, had never risen in the House of Commons to talk about the Nisga'a land claim.

The minister knows full well that this land claim is very important. It is a crucial issue in my riding. I have risen on it many times in the House. I have held many meetings in the riding with respect to this.

I would ask that the minister, to whom many of these interventions have been directed-

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the core of this is the Pacific salmon dispute with the Americans.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this week that our disagreement with the Americans over Cuba was a very serious affair, while the west coast fishing dispute was merely "an annoyance". His statement underscores the government's attitude toward British Columbia: just an annoyance.

Will the minister apologize to the people of British Columbia and tell the House what measures the government is taking to protect the interests of west coast fishermen?