David Anderson

[Fisheries, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It allows me to point out that this summer the Atlantic salmon returns were possibly one-third of what was expected. This was the result of at-sea conditions. The escapement from the rivers, the escapement from hatcheries, were as good for this year as in previous years from the fish that returned.

However at-sea conditions resulted in a very substantial reduction. It is a major matter of concern for the government. However, there are many factors involved, not simply hatcheries, and I will be happy to discuss them with the member more fully when I have more than 35 seconds, which is what the Speaker allows me at question period.

[The Environment, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the sentiment of the hon. member. It is a little difficult, however, to legislate simply by a decision of this Parliament to somehow make good a problem that has existed since the second world war and is a physical problem in or on the surface of the ground.

I can promise the member that the concern she has expressed, which is particularly important in areas where children may get through a fence or wall into an area where there is such a dangerous situation, is a major concern. I am sure the opinions expressed by the hon. member are shared by every member of the House.

[The Environment, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that, yes, areas of Canada that have been used for testing or training purposes are of concern. There are quite a number of defence sites across the country that need cleaning up, not only of explosives and lethal devices, but also for environmental reasons. The government has a major program under way to do that.

There is, of course, concern that this clean-up will involve substantial amounts of time as well as money. But on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, I would be delighted to examine the particular case in the member's riding.

[Vcn Marine Radio, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I just received an envelope that contains a letter from the hon. member. If he wants me to provide him with a straight answer, to tell him if the Cap-aux-Meules station stays or goes, then I would prefer to review the information he just handed me. I have not had the opportunity yet to look at it and I would like to do so out of courtesy for the hon. member.

[Vcn Marine Radio, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of Oral Question Period, the hon. member handed me an envelope. Apparently, this envelope contains some information about the Coast Guard radio station in Cap-aux-Meules.

Of course, before giving him an answer, I would like to carefully read the information he has given me. Then, I will be able to make a decision in light of his information.

[Fisheries, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. member's party which signed a treaty which is so defective that the annexes ran out after seven years. There was no provision in it for continuing those annexes or for settling disputes. His party signed that defective treaty which is the cause of our current problems.

Strangway and Ruckelshaus are able to report when they wish. However, we will not make the same mistake that the Conservative Party made in putting on artificial deadlines. That led the treaty to come forward to the shamrock summit when it was not ready.

[Fisheries, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day what counts is not the rhetoric in the House. What counts is an agreement with the Americans. We must have a lasting agreement that we have not had because of the flaws in the Mulroney treaty which was negotiated in 1985.

We are attempting to overturn that through the Strangway-Ruckelshaus process. The hon. member is well aware of that process. Instead of coming here and putting forth the comments he has, he should be supporting the process so we can get to an agreement which will solve the problem we face on the west coast.

[Fisheries, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member comes from Vancouver Island, British Columbia and he should know better than to ask such a foolish question.

The fact is that the salmon resources on the west coast are shared between Canada and the United States. To have a decision which will be lasting and in the best interests of fishermen of both countries and at the same time to protect conservation, it is essential to have a joint agreement with the Americans. There is no other way of handling this matter except through an agreement which both sides feel is in their interests.

[Fisheries, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important factors both internationally and domestically with the fishing fleet is to get accurate information on the stocks that are being fished in particular with respect to bycatch and other destructive practices that may be taking place. It is therefore important to have information on catch.

Whether the black box the gentleman is talking about is in fact a two way radio which keeps the fishermen in touch with shore so they can report catch I am not sure. However where it is possible to use technology instead of having a human observer, generally speaking costs are saved and the fishermen are dramatically advantaged as a result.

[Fisheries, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the direct question is no. The answer to the second part of the question is we are trying very hard to make sure we have a viable fishery in Atlantic Canada and indeed on the Pacific and Arctic coasts as well.

It is very important to recognize that as part of the viability some fishermen who have in fact quite substantial incomes pay a legitimate fee for the product that they use. For others who are smaller fishermen such as the ones referred to by the hon. member, we are constantly examining the fee impact. There is a three year study which will start next year on the impact of it.