Fred Mifflin

[Salmon Fishery, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the harvesting capacity increased the last 15 years by anywhere from three to eight times. He knows that fishermen are losing money in all sectors. He also

knows the difficulty with the salmon is that the stocks are in a severe and critical situation.

That is not the issue, that is the problem. The issue is to come up with an effective plan to address this problem. This will be done. I can assure the House that we will end up with economic viability and an environmentally sustainable plan that will address this problem.

[Fisheries, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, which I know is a serious one.

I met with a community sustainability group yesterday. It expressed some of the concerns and misunderstandings with the Pacific revitalization plan which, as I said, is not 100 per cent perfect. I understand these difficulties and I understand the uncertainty involved. I have great concern for the concerns of fishermen and their families.

I will be in British Columbia tomorrow meeting with fishermen, addressing their concerns, listening to them, bridging some of the gaps, addressing uncertainties and fine tuning the program, which will probably address some of the items mentioned by the hon. member.

[Fisheries, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the hon. member has difficulty with the plan from what he said. I will not get into detail.

I suggest to the hon. member that if he has difficulty understanding the plan perhaps he could speak with his colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who came out with a press release a couple of days after the plan was released to criticize it sentence by sentence, only to have one of his constituents, a fisherman, write to him to criticize his criticism, actually calling the press release drivel, which means silly nonsense, like the hon. member.

[Fisheries, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not finish his question but I can anticipate it.

Contrary to the belief of his colleagues, the Pacific salmon revitalization plan was developed over a period of about a year, stemming from the Fraser report, 70 stakeholders and a round table that went on for a long time.

It is not a perfect plan. It is not a plan which has 100 per cent consensus. I doubt if any plan would have 100 per cent consensus in the commercial salmon industry. However, the plan does address the difficulty of overcapacity in the fishing industry.

He is right, it may not result in fewer salmon caught. However, at least it will reduce the pressure on the salmon that exist. The salmon stocks are at a very low level.

This plan will address the problem. It will help the stocks. It will help the industry at a time when it is low. It will help in the revitalization despite the plan the member has, which would derail everything that would help the fishermen and their families.

[Fisheries, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not asking a question, he is posturing.

I did not agree that the plan was not a good plan. I did not agree that anything was going to be done with the plan. I did listen to the sustainability group. Therefore I do not appreciate the hon. member putting words in my mouth.

In answer to his question, I listened to the sustainability group which I think had some worthy points. The group put forward about seven or eight points that are reasonable for consideration. I will be looking at them. I want the best plan possible. We have a plan now. I have to make sure that any improvements will be beneficial to the

fishermen because the fish come first and the fishermen, and the politics come last.

[Fisheries, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the plan will not punish British Columbians. The plan is tough. The plan has some consequences which will create difficulties.

Everybody agrees there is an overcapacity in the industry. Everybody agrees this has to be reduced. Everybody agrees the objectives of sustainability have to be met.

We have put forward a plan which will address this tough situation. Again, it is a tough plan to address the health of the industry.

If the hon. member has problems with the plan, I have yet to see any plan he may have devised.

[Fisheries, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the commercial fishery in British Columbia is in a very sad state. The stocks are low. The fishermen are losing money. They are expected to lose more money this year. Something has to be done.

A plan was put together which would address the environmental sustainability of the industry and its economic viability. Essentially

it is a plan that would allow the fish to survive. It is a tough plan. It is a plan which has consequences for the people involved.

However, these tough measures are necessary. They have to be taken if the fish are to survive and if the fishermen are to survive. We will move forward with something which has been needed for the last 15 years.

[Fisheries, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member has some of his facts wrong.

In the sense of the commercial fishery and the 50 per cent reduction, we may not be able to achieve that in the short term. The maximum we could achieve is around 40 per cent through a series of licensing restrictions, licence stacking and voluntary buy back.

From the round table discussion which stemmed from the report, my understanding is that the seiners wanted it around 30 per cent, the gill net representatives wanted it between 30 and 35 per cent and the trawlers wanted it between 25 and 50 per cent. What we are doing in this case is we are representing essentially what the industry has asked for.

With respect to the Nisga'a the hon. member is totally wrong. The maximum number involved is around 25 per cent. This is done with the agreement of most of the parties involved. The Nisga'a have been negotiating for over 100 years and we have finally come to an agreement. I do not think it is right for the hon. member to try to throw off this very honourable agreement in principle on the basis of information which is not based on fact.

[Marine User Fees, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us put this in context.

First, the study of the fees is a decision of the Government of Canada passed by Parliament. The system fee was put forward by the marine advisory board that controls what happens in this regard in Canada. There were 850 consultations with members of the industry and there was a final look by the committee, as the member suggested. The majority report of the committee said that the fees should go forward with the system which is very complex and developed.

The premise of the hon. member that their views were not taken into consideration is very wrong. It is for that very reason that I am still studying the minority report as well as the majority report. He is wrong.

[Fisheries, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but I think there may be some confusion as to what is happening.

I would like to set the hon. member straight. The total allowable catch was 16,100 tonnes. The traditional catch was basically divided between the traditional crabbers, the large crabbers, and the non-traditional crabbers, those smaller ships and boats of the inshore fleet. Therefore, 77.5 per cent went to the large crabbers and 22.5 went to the inshore fleet.

Essentially this was done in the years when we had larger than traditional quotas in such a way so there would be a balance between the inshore fleet and the large crab fishermen at a time when fishermen have a great deal of difficulty coping with the situation.

I think the tenor of his question is that he may have been against the inshore fishermen. I am sure that is not his intent.