David Anderson

[Fisheries, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the report of the Harris committee, the Cashin report, the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council report and now the auditor general's report, it is perfectly clear there is a continuing problem in Atlantic Canada with respect to the fishery.

We have had a moratorium on the catching of groundfish. We have discovered that stocks are not returning as we had hoped four years ago.

There is still a problem to be addressed. I hope the Reform Party will continue to assist in finding a solution to this serious problem.

[Fisheries, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not from British Columbia and does not know that we cannot achieve financial viability for the industry by having the entire fleet chasing up and down the coast depending on where the fish happen to be.

By breaking up with regions for different gear types we are creating a system where fewer fishers are able to fish for longer periods and be more assured of an income and of a fishery than would otherwise be the case.

The answer to his question is no, we will not change the area licensing system. We will maintain it.

[Fisheries, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his first question in the House and his first question as critic on fisheries.

The Pacific salmon treaty was in fact negotiated and signed in 1985 during the Shamrock summit in between verses of When Irish Eyes are Smiling .

The purpose of it was to get it there in a hurry because the then prime minister wished to have something to show for that meeting. It was defective then because indeed the provisions only lasted for seven years and had to be renegotiated on an annual basis thereafter.

[Fisheries, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member has seen fit to point out that the programs of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, have in fact been very successful in dealing with many of the problems of those displaced due to rationalization of the Pacific salmon industry.

The issue concerning the $20 million that has already been spent by his department in this area was done, as was indicated, in connection with other organizations including the United Fishermen.

If the member will be slightly patient, we will make sure that the continuing programs are in place, as was always intended from the beginning.

[Radio-Marine Vcn, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in attempting to use the best technology possible and at the same time achieve a system which is economical to the Canadian taxpayer, changes have been made to the radio system in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I can assure the hon. member that safety is a primary consideration of the department and no changes will be made if it reduces the safety levels.

[Fisheries, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's knowledge of history of the TAGS program is defective. There was a change in it which changed it from a five-year to a four-year program. I should remind him that this was done with the agreement of the individuals concerned.

[Fisheries, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preamble of the hon. member's question, in my view an inquiry would serve very little in terms of advancing the interests of fishermen on either coast. It would be costly, it would take a lot of time, and it would mean that resources would be devoted to an inquiry and legal costs instead of to science in the fisheries itself.

I should point out that there have already been two studies done and I believe the auditor general will comment as well. The reasons given are overfishing, overestimating stock size, fishing abuses such as high grading and discards, changes in the marine ecosystem and finally, failures of the then political—

[British Columbia, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started by talking about the Pacific salmon treaty, as she did last week with the same preface to the question.

We wish to have a treaty with the Americans which guarantees proper management of west coast fish stocks, whether they be in Canadian rivers or in others.

The issue with the province of British Columbia is defence, the Nanoose base which we believe to be extraneous.

I would remind the hon. member when she talks about the closure of bases that bases have been closed in Quebec, in the maritimes, in Alberta and in Ontario.

[Fisheries, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party to speak with the leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia.

We have consistently had from the New Democratic Party of British Columbia rejection of the contacts with Americans that I have made, with every senator from Alaska, Washington state and Oregon, with representatives of the White House, representatives of the state department and the governors of Oregon, Washington and Alaska. They have said no to such contacts.

However, there is one committee in the United States which we believe to be a domestic affair of the congressmen in the United States and she then says that of course we have not done enough. Is she following the policies of the New Democratic premier or is she announcing a different policy here?

[Fisheries, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member, whose experience has been in a provincial legislature rather than in the national legislature, would not understand that in Canada, as in the United States, it is a decision of the committee itself as to who will appear before it. We have no more right to tell American committees who they will have before them than they have to tell our committees of this House who to have before them.

I find it strange that the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party would believe in a principle that would allow other governments the right to attend all committee hearings of the House of Commons and Senate.