David Anderson

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it really is amazing. Earlier in the first question the Reform Party talked about the importance of the Privacy Act. It talked about the importance of making sure it is protected. We now have a member get up here 30 minutes later and say he wants me to break the law with respect to the observer reports on the offshore fleet.

I do not understand the contradiction in the Reform Party. We have had one member do it in his question and supplementary and now we have two other members do it over the course of 30 minutes.

We will uphold the law. I am bound by that law and I will not break it despite the requests by the Reform Party.

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the flip-flops of the Reform Party are very obvious. Initially the member praised Mr. Fortier but when I quoted Mr. Fortier's words to him in my response, he called it disgraceful and outrageous. That is the type of approach we get from the Reform Party, no consistent support for the position of British Columbia fishermen for which we need to stand up to the United States in this dispute.

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has clearly failed to read Mr. Fortier's letter. In it he says “I salute the senior officers of DFO and DFAIT in Ottawa, Vancouver and Victoria. The dedication and professionalism evidenced by these individuals is without par and ensures that Canada's interests are well served”.

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has omitted to mention a series of cases which are going to the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the issue of the aboriginal fishery and the right of aboriginal peoples with respect to other entitlements, be they land, game or other things.

It is important for him to remember the importance of restraining himself for a few more days, or even perhaps a day, as the case may be, until such time as the provincial court trial judge in the case of the Queen v Cummins renders sentencing.

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there has been an important case on the west coast dealing with the enforcement of regulations in the fishery. There is a member of this House who has been convicted. I think it is appropriate that we wait until the sentencing is completed before we comment on the case.

[Fisheries, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confused about the situation.

This government has always supported individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the type of difficulty that the Atlantic fisheries found themselves in some years ago.

We are now studying how to continue to assist those people. To suggest that a particular individual program will continue, as he has, is simply wrong.

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is that we should give up on efforts with respect to the fishery and train people for something else. I would be very interested to see if she adopts that position, goes back to her own constituents and says, “There is no hope for the fishery. You will have to look for something else”.

The TAGS program was put in place four years ago because we believed that it was important to have income support for people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves unable to fish. She may not agree but we felt it was important to support those people, help those people, and we will continue to do so.

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has failed to point out is that the people conducting the sentinel fisheries are in fact fishermen in the Atlantic fishery.

Obviously we could have shifted it from one group to another. That would be possible. But then of course the other group would complain about the group which we shifted it to.

It is essentially because there are relatively few sentinel fisheries which take place that inevitably there will be some people who feel they should have it instead of the people involved.

I can assure the hon. member that they are conducted by competent fishermen. The information gathered is extremely important to monitor the stocks of fish in the north Atlantic and we intend to continue with the sentinel fisheries.

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the concern with respect to foreign fishing is perfectly legitimate. I point out, though, that current fishing within the 200 mile limit is probably below 4% of what it was in the eighties when his government was in power.

I also point out that if we do not permit stocks that are not being utilized by Canadian fishers to be taken by fishermen of other nations, we will not be able to protect the cod and groundfish stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We cannot take an international law when it is to our benefit, reject it when it is not, and expect other nations to agree with us.

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in saying that we have serious problems on the east coast.

We have, however, a substantial number of stocks which are in good shape. For example, as he is well aware, in dollar terms the value of landings in Atlantic Canada last year was the second highest on record.

I would point out, however, with respect to the foreign fleets where there is no Canadian company or fishermen who wish to fish a particular stock, where that stock is available we do under international law allow foreign ships to come in.

The reason for this is very straightforward. If we did not do that, we would then not succeed with respect to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks where we are using international—