Brian Tobin

[Fisheries, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed the fishermen of Canada were pleased when Canada was assigned by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization-

[Privilege, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege. It is not even a matter of being a good point of order. What we have here is the beginning of a debate.

The debate being proposed by the member opposite is a debate about the impact or the capacity of enforcement officers both departmental and aboriginal officers to conduct their responsibilities.

This is very technical that there is a late signing of an aboriginal fisheries agreement. The agreement in question this year has been the subject of a lot of discussion, questions in the House, a great deal of media. It is now the subject of a review by a former Speaker and a public panel. There has been some acknowledgement of some problems. The agreement in question primarily is on the lower Fraser. The group in question is the Sto:Lo. But this is one of 47 agreements. There are 47 agreements.

If the member chooses to focus on some areas of difficulty and draw from them the conclusion that the entire program, the planet as we know it, the fishery as it has been conducted, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and every last fish are all subject to a totally uncontrolled situation, that is his right as a member of this House. But to extrapolate from it that the answer given is misleading when there are 47 agreements and not just one is improper. It is wrong and is an abuse of the whole principle of a question of privilege.

What we have here is a debate. Mr. Speaker, if you would like to provide for a debate, you well know in the years we have shared together in this place that I am always tempted to engage in such.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 15th, 1994]

On September 23 the hon. member raised the question of the impact of the late signing of agreements on enforcement and regulation of British Columbia fisheries. On November 18 a response was provided which assessed the impact of late signing on the overall enforcement of agreements and regulations pertaining to management of the aboriginal fishery.

The answer provided to the question posed by the hon. member in September was neither inaccurate nor misleading. The response acknowledged that late signing did have some effect.

In characterizing this effect as small, the response was correct in the context of management of aboriginal fishing throughout British Columbia and in the context of the legal capacity to enforce against unauthorized fishing. The question posed by the hon. member was set in both these contexts. The response was not meant to imply that in specific areas and for specific agreements the late signing of agreements did not have negative implications as recorded in the documents cited by the hon. member.

The response characterized the effect on "enforcement of the agreements and fisheries regulations" as small for the following reasons:

1. The integrity of management systems made up of both agreements and regulations was maintained. All aboriginal salmon fishing before the signing of agreements was licensed under the aboriginal communal fishing licence regulations. These licences provided an enforceable framework for the control of aboriginal fishing until agreements were signed.

2. While there were problems with the implementation of some of the more complex agreements, particularly the Sto:Lo agreement, these instances must be interpreted in the context of the 47 agreements signed in 1994 with aboriginal groups across British Columbia.

3. In 23 cases steps were taken to minimize the effect of delays in signing agreements through bridge funding agreements starting at the beginning of May. These agreements provided aboriginal groups with funding to continue management and enforcement activities under protocols established the previous year while negotiations on allocation numbers and funding levels for the current year continued. In the Sto:Lo area, while bridge funding was not possible, a contractor was employed to monitor the fishery.

4. Finally, many of the problems with enforcement which have been identified by fisheries officers are not related to the late signing of agreements. Problems of resource levels, planning and communication while real, and in some cases perhaps attributed by officers to signing of agreements, are actually more related to other aspects of the operation of the department.

The minister has never denied that there were problems with enforcement of aboriginal fishing agreements and regulation in British Columbia in 1994. Many concerns were raised by fisheries officers when the minister met with them on November 2. Some of these problems, such as the curtailed activities of aboriginal guardians and other problems with the ability of some aboriginal groups to participate in management, were related to the late signing of agreements and were identified as such in the initial response. However, in the face of failure to reach agreements at an earlier date, the department took steps to minimize these effects.

The minister is committed to conservation and has taken measures to ensure that the reasons for the disappointing returns to the Fraser this year are independently investigated and publicly reported on. The minister does not believe the late signing of agreements was the primary cause of poor returns in the Fraser. The minister would like to point out that, as agreements are negotiated documents, the department does not have complete control over when they are signed. However, if late agreements are bad, the government must consider the effect of no agreements and no aboriginal involvement on the management of the fishery.

This should not be a game of semantics debating the definition of "little impact". Suffice to say, all issues contributing to the situation on the Fraser this year are being assessed and the minister is committed to taking whatever remedial action proves necessary to ensure conservation.

With specific reference to the late signing of agreements steps have already been taken to commence negotiations on agreements for 1995 in early January. To provide time for planning the implementation of agreements the minister will not be authorizing the signing of agreements after a deadline well in advance of when fishing for major runs is to commence.

[Privilege, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief intervention. I submit that while the hon. member has demonstrated an interest in the issue of the management of the Fraser River salmon it is clear he has not demonstrated a breach of his privileges.

The member in his summation said that the information given on September 23, 1994 is not absolutely complete and the minister knows it is not complete because in early November, six weeks later, he met with enforcement officers in Vancouver who gave him additional information.

If you check the "blues", Mr. Speaker, because I listened very carefully, you will find that is exactly what the member said, that the minister should have known better on September 23 and had a more complete answer because on November 2 the minister met with enforcement officers and was given additional information.

I want to confirm that as the member knows, I did meet with enforcement officers on November 2 at DFO headquarters in Vancouver. I was given additional information. As a consequence of that additional information I set up a panel which in the last week has held public hearings in British Columbia listening to every single stakeholder group talking about the management of salmon on the Fraser River. The member knows that as well, even though he has called into question the integrity of this panel which is chaired by none other than the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. John Fraser.

Let me say this to the member and let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the time the question was asked the answer which was given makes reference to the fact that delays in signing agreements have had little impact, it says, on the enforcement of aboriginal fisheries. That is the information the minister had. I learned subsequently in discussions with enforcement officers over a full month later of additional concerns.

We have acted to have a total public review to deal with those concerns. I have a review going on internally in the department to deal with concerns about enforcement. Nobody is attempting to mislead anybody. The member is a month behind the process. We were already working on the problem before he even brought it to the House.

[Fisheries, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It is a shocking thing that fully 35 days have passed since the Government of Quebec tabled a proposal that would radically alter the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the provincial government. This government has not yet offered a comprehensive response to this radical altering of the nature of the way in which we manage the marine fisheries and we have had fully 35 days to deal with it, to fully discuss it and implement it. It is a shocking, shocking thing and I will attempt to do better in the future.

[Salmon Sport Fishery, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, receiving such a valuable, worthwhile and sensible question gives me a quick start today.

We have had many questions about the state of the coho salmon resource in British Columbia from members on all sides of the House. The proposal of which the member speaks is a private sector initiative that we welcome, one that will help rebuild weak stocks of coho and chinook salmon through a privately funded program of support of breeding and habitat restoration.

The program Quickstart represents a unique partnership between the private sector, the sport fishing sector and both levels

of government. It is a solid initiative. We intend to work fully and quickly with the proponents to make sure it is a success.

[Severance Pay, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would want me to restate two points he made rather quickly.

First, the individual in question was away for seven and a half months and in that period received no salary for three and a half months.

Second, Treasury Board rules provide in this kind of circumstance-and I would be glad to lay a copy on the table for the House-for up to six months' severance pay for an individual who leaves a job abruptly for these kinds of reasons.

The assistant deputy minister of corporate affairs, when I sought advice, recommended in writing four months' severance. I accepted the advice.

[Severance Pay, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the individual in question is the executive assistant to the minister of fisheries. Last February he was named in a matter that was under investigation in the Parliament of Newfoundland regarding fundraising practices in the province of Newfoundland.

The individual in question, my executive assistant, resigned his position in my office the next day until the matter had been cleared up. As it turned out the matter in question was subsequently referred to the RCMP because it involved a provincial cabinet minister.

Seven and a half months later the RCMP concluded that notwithstanding questions raised in the House initially by the opposition, subsequently referred to the RCMP for a thorough seven and a half months investigation, that individual was cleared of any question of wrongdoing whatsoever.

In that seven and a half months period the individual, Mr. Gary Anstey, sought no employment with any other operational organization, received no other income, in fact went without income for three and a half months.

After he was cleared of any wrongdoing he was restored to his job as executive assistant. He has done without three and a half months' salary in the process. How that can be described as a golden handshake boggles the imagination.

[West Coast Fishery, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not clearly understand the question when it was asked the first time.

I have no intention of in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly, trying to influence the flow of information or the outcome of the review being done by an independent review panel headed by the former Speaker of the House of Commons, John Fraser.

I agree that all of the information available ought to be presented to the panel so that a solid conclusion is arrived at. Any and all information provided to me, even in a confidential meeting by enforcement officers who seek to take me through an apprenticeship, is available and will be available to the full review panel.

[West Coast Fishery, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member, because I know of his interest in the matter, that no information has been withheld from the Fraser review panel.

If there is information that ought to be presented to it by any member of the commercial industry, any stakeholder or by any professional group within the enforcement community, they are quite free to make those recommendations.

I have had a very constructive meeting with enforcement officers in Vancouver. I am studying the information that has been given to me. As a consequence of listening to people in the field, on the front lines and on the rivers I hope to do a better job in 1995 than we are able to do in 1994.