Herb Dhaliwal

[Fisheries, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I responded to a question earlier, carapace size is about conservation. By increasing the carapace size by 1/16 of an inch, we will protect the resource and make sure we have a sustainable lobster fishery. We will ensure that we protect the resource, unlike the member and his party. At one time they speak about conservation and the next time they are not interested in speaking about conservation. They are speaking from both sides of their mouth. Why do they not become consistent?

[Fisheries, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, increasing the carapace size is consistent with our policy throughout that region. This policy was introduced a number of years ago by my predecessor. Conservation is going to be a priority for the government. That is why we are increasing the carapace size by 1/16. We will continue to ensure that conservation and protection of our resource to make sure we have a sustainable lobster fishery will be our priority.

[Fisheries, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. This was the policy on conservation put forward by the previous minister and it is something we are going to follow through on.

I would like to ask the hon. member something because his party and the member have talked about conservation repeatedly in the House. Carapace size is a tool for conservation to protect the resource. Are the Conservatives now abandoning their position on conservation and saying that we should not protect the resource? The hon. member should stand in the House and say whether or not they are still for conservation. They should make it pretty clear.

[Trade, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade will be in Seattle.

This morning, in fact, the minister announced that Canada and China have reached agreement on a wide range of market access issues relating to China's entry into the World Trade Organization. This means that Canadian products will have better access to markets in China.

That is good news for Canadians, it is good news for farmers and it is good news for our export business. I think we should celebrate this good news.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I know that his party, the Reform Party, is fighting tooth and nail against the Nisga'a bill. I respect the hon. member's views very much. Certainly I think he is always very sincere in the debates we have in the House. Just as hard as he is fighting now, his party fought very hard against hate motivated crimes. Just this last week, we saw a tragic case in Surrey, British Columbia where a Sikh man was murdered. The Reform Party in the House fought against the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives, and now it has voted in favour of increasing sentences for hate motivated crimes.

I think British Columbians and people who live in Vancouver would like to know from this member whether he and his party would vote the same way having seen what happened and having seen this law now work where the sentences were increased to those social misfits who murdered this innocent individual. Would they still vote in the same way on hate motivated crime that this government and all members in the House, expect the members of the Reform Party, voted in 1995. Would he still vote the same way and would his party still vote the same way?

[Fisheries, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. If the hon. member were following this matter he would know I have said from day one that we would have a regulated fishery, which is exactly what we have had, and that we would enforce the regulated fishery.

The only position the Progressive Conservative Party has is that it would use the notwithstanding clause. What is its position? It has not narrowed it down. We would like to hear what is its position?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when the court ruled today it totally rejected the position of the Reform Party, which asks for a hearing. Second, the court has reaffirmed the government's position, the government's strategy and the way the government has handled this.

Let me read the quote from the courts:

As this and other courts have pointed out on many occasions, the process of accommodation of the treaty right may be best resolved by consultation and negotiation of a modern agreement for participation in specified resources by the Mi'kmaq rather than by litigation.

[Nisga'A Treaty, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's numbers are incorrect. It is not a percentage, it is 60,000 sockeye.

To reallocate those we will be retiring licences from the commercial fleet, so it will not take away from the commercial fleet. Of course, the percentage will depend on the abundance of fish.

The majority of members of the House and all members on this side of the House are proud of the Nisga'a treaty and we will make sure we go through with it.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 5th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-56 was in the first session of this parliament. In accordance with a special order of the House of October 14, 1999, I request that the bill be reinstated at the same stage that it had reached at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees Of The House, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the government's response to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “The Seal Report”, presented to the House on June 9, 1999.