Yvan Bernier

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

There may not be many of them, but I am sure we can rouse them.

To carry on where I left off, I mentioned yesterday to them that, according to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which tabled a unanimous report, a consensus had to be reached on the fish stocks problem in Canada. The five parties in the House were unanimous in describing the problem as poor federal government management. This is not me speaking, it is what the House standing committee report said, unanimously.

Second, once we agree on the problem, we can start looking for solutions. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, again unanimously, said an independent committee should look at the management methods of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the methods used to determine acceptable catches, that is, just how much fishers can catch.

Up to this point the recipe is fine. We can see the approach. First, we agree on a definition of the problem and, second, on how to find a solution. An independent committee is not something that works along party lines. But why go that route? This is where it gets interesting.

The standing committee is not the only one to say that the public has lost confidence. So does the advisory committee on fishery resources. I am told that it too raised the matter of the fishers' and the general public's loss of confidence in the management of Fisheries and Oceans.

I have a really big question in mind: Who will administer Bill C-27 and who will sign the United Nations Fisheries Agreement? The same gang that is responsible for depletion of the stocks. That makes no sense whatsoever.

They are being offered an opportunity to get that confidence back. First of all, the public and the fishers must be consulted, and agreement reached with them on acceptable means of management and on total catches, as well as how these will be determined.

I repeat, the same recipe that was used in the past is the one being used for the UNFA, and the same gang is still in charge. They need to put their house in order. Confidence must be restored.

I have another approach to suggest to the minister. The Constitution of Canada says that the federal government is responsible for fish catches. When the minister is questioned closely, he says he is responsible for conservation. But what is he saving, the resource, or his people's jobs? This is where it gets a bit disconcerting.

Everybody is mad at them, even the staunchest federalists are saying that this no longer makes any sense. If the minister really wants to think about conservation, let him do so. But what I want to see, as proof of his desire to do so, is fisheries plans, which are one way of preserving the resource, and agreement with the fishers. When we refer to a fisheries plan, we mean one relating to conservation measures.

Why has the crab fishing plan for zone 12 of the Gulf not been released yet? Have the biologists not given their opinion? Yes, they have. Have the fishers and the departmental staff not reached agreement on the Panel on Ice? Yes. What is left in connection with conservation that needs to be studied? Is it not rather the economic questions that are not settled? If it is economic questions that need to be looked at before releasing the fisheries plan, is this not exceeding the mandate? That is another good question.

If he really wants to solve economic problems, I can mention a few that come under his responsibility, TAGS for instance. It is also part of his jurisdiction to solve the AFS problem and to have an overall vision of fisheries. But this has not been resolved yet.

The standing committee agreed unanimously on its recommendations, including Recommendation No. 10. He was asked to extend TAGS with all those who were participating in it from the beginning until the moratoriums are lifted, or as long as no management decision has been taken regarding the size of the industry and its future direction.

In order to decide what this direction should be, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources Development should talk with the provinces. If rationalization is what they are hoping for, how are they going to persuade the provinces to go along with rationalizing their plant workers unless this is tied in with the catch?

Perhaps one approach would be to offer historic quotas. That would be one way of reassuring the provinces about the rationalization plan that they will have to come up with.

Since the minister's constant answer to our questions is that his job is protection, all he has to do is sit tight here in Ottawa and say “My job is to ensure that the number of fish taken is not greater than the number I have authorized”. However, in that case, he should let the provinces, with the quota they are given, share the resource and reach an agreement with workers.

That is what should be done, particularly as there have been some changes since my arrival in Ottawa in 1993. The Minister of Human Resources Development knows very well that, as a result of constructive criticism, there are manpower training agreements with the provinces. Why would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not delegate quotas to his provincial counterparts?

The Minister of Human Resources Development could then say to a province “You will decide how many people you need and we will give you money to retrain the rest. But you will do it as you see fit, in terms of what you have to offer”. Everybody knows that Canada is a big country, but the problems in the Gaspé are not necessarily the same as those in St. John's or Halifax.

This is 1998. I understood this a long time ago, and I would like them to understand it as well. So I am making this suggestion. I would like the minister to tell me how he could do otherwise, and to try to answer the question as to how the provinces can agree to rationalize their fishers if the resource is not tied to the number of workers.

If we go a little further to give the minister and Canadians a chance to solve the issue, other management tools must be put in place. Once the provinces have their quotas and their traditional share, they should set up unloading facilities.

Why? This is always of interest to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As we know, there are fewer fish than there used to be, at least in the case of cod, redfish and turbot. But there are other species of fish. Why are we not able to find a market for the so-called underused species? It is precisely because they are not numerous enough or because we are not used to them. We should get consumers interested in these other species.

Let me give you the example of a fisher who arrived at the port with 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of turbot, which was its main catch, 6,000 pounds of redfish and, because I put him in contact with other markets, 1,000 pounds of monkfish.

The turbot brought in between $6,000 and $7,000, since fishers try to make a trip that will bring in about $10,000. The 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of redfish at 20 cents per pound were worth $1,000. However, the 1,000 pounds of monkfish, which used to be thrown back into the water because no one knew this species in the Gaspe Peninsula at the time, found a market at $1 per pound.

The fisher realized that his 5,000 to 6,000 pounds of redfish was taking a lot of room on his boat and was not worth more than the 1,000 pounds of monkfish, which he could handle individually when lifting his nets.

If we can concentrate on these 1,000-pound catches of monkfish, skate and other species whose names I do not know or I forget, it will allow us to develop a distribution network that will ensure the survival of our fisheries.

How could a province or region of Canada establish such mechanisms if they do not have the tools? I urge the minister to be very careful to stick to the existing formula. Everyone in the Gaspé, Newfoundland and New Brunswick knows that the resource is migratory, and it does not reach our shores at the same time and in the same quantities. These are things that must be considered.

Who is in a better position to take a decision and direct fishers and markets in the morning, than the person closest to the dock, who is in contact with them, someone in Newfoundland who will say “Okay, boys, in the morning I can give you such and such a contract. Everyone who finds that in their nets should bring it in”.

Fishers are well aware that it will be a matter of luck, but the 20% or 25% of fish in their holds will perhaps give them their profit margin in the end. In the Canadian context, this is difficult to do because people always want wall-to-wall clauses.

I would like there to be discussion with the provinces. If I take the example of Newfoundland—and I am sure that my colleague will say the same thing in a few minutes—when Newfoundland entered Confederation, one of the conditions was that their fishing rights would be protected. In talking with representatives from Newfoundland this week, I was surprised to learn that they are not kept informed by the minister. The people in Ottawa know more about the future of the fishery than the public in their own riding, when those are the people who can see the dock from their window.

Changes are in order. I see my time is running out, but at least I was able to suggest a few solutions that are instructive for the members opposite, that let the public know solutions are possible. We must address this whole problem.

I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting for Bill C-27, but with reservations. As it now stands, all the bill does is let the minister sidestep the issue. He is merely giving the illusion that he is doing something about the fisheries and that he will try to find an answer to the problem, when he could have gone to Washington to sign the UN fisheries agreement.

He should start by going down to the docks and trying to sort out the fishing plans with fishers. People are waiting. Next week will be the fourth week the crab fishery has sat idle, and the minister is still rooted to the spot. It is time he took action.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try in the 13 minutes at my disposal to continue my remarks and instruct the members opposite on a potential management philosophy.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that Bill C-27 showed a lack of vision and management philosophy. I indicated my sources with respect to the public.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has pointed out that the main problem is that the federal government is to blame for poor management. In its report, the committee also indicated a way of restoring this credibility, which consists in reviewing management methods and ways of establishing total allowable catches.

I would like to cite article 5 of the United Nations Fishing Agreement or UNFA. This document was written in general terms.

I also want to look at the purpose of Bill C-27. What is its real purpose? We do not have to pass a bill to allow a participating country, such as Canada, to ratify the agreement. It is therefore false to say that the bill is being introduced in order to implement the international agreement.

We will look at the specific purpose of the bill. Does it help us provide better protection for our straddling stocks? Bill C-29 already does that. Does it sort out British Columbia's problem, as the Reform member said. No.

The first conclusion I come to today is that Bill C-27 serves primarily to introduce a red herring. All the while the government is urging the House, when there is a quorum, to debate the fishery, it is trying to give the illusion that it is doing something about the fishery problem. The real problem sits across the way and the real impact can be seen in the streets of Newfoundland and it will soon be seen in the streets of New Brunswick and the Gaspé.

There are a number of problems facing the few remaining small fishing operations—it is too bad I did not think to bring the list with me—the plan for managing the crab fishery in zone 12 for example, which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has yet to resolve. This concerns Quebec, particularly the Gaspé Peninsula, and New Brunswick.

Instead of having us believe that Bill C-27 is incredibly important, why does the minister not try to resolve the crab management problem? That is something he could do. It would have a direct, immediate impact. This would put bread and butter on the table for many families.

Life in the regions follows the seasons. When the ice starts to melt, it is time to go fishing. Wait too long and the water gets too warm; there will be strawberries in the fields but crab shells will be soft and their flesh white. So, what is the minister waiting for?

It is fair to say that there is no crab fishery plan. I think there are temporary ones for the shrimp fishery. We are hearing complaints from crab fishers in the Sept-Îles area as well. What is the minister waiting for to look into it? These are issues that need to be resolved and which would have an impact in the short term.

Let us get back to Bill C-27 now that I have let off some steam. As far as I could see in perusing it, Bill C-27 sets out some general management principles. Canada has not yet developed its own policy, as I said earlier.

I would like to quote a section—section 5 and its five paragraphs—stating general principles for managing fisheries.

In article 5(a) one of the wishes contained in the United Nations Fisheries Agreement is to promote optimum utilization. What is the department's or the minister's opinion on this? Most of all, what is the industry's opinion? Nobody has asked, and I believe they are entitled to have the first say.

In article 5(f), still in that international agreement which Canada would like us to sign with Bill C-27, reference is made to fishing gear. I will spare you all the details, but it ends with mention of “environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques”.

What is the meaning of this? Did anyone ask the industry what this represents? What are they thinking about, when we see Canada preparing to commit to such a thing? This can be interesting.

It is true that, if the government wants MPs to pass a bill to help it sign an international agreement, it needs to go first to the grass roots. It could sign it directly, I tell you. If it can, let it not bother us with it.

Still under “general principles”, I have another little question. It will be a good exercise at the same time. We will see whether the Minister of Fisheries himself has read the famous agreement he wants so badly for us to adopt.

Article 5(i) states “take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers”. Here is another good question. Does this mean that Canada is prepared to allow artisanal fishing when the fishery starts up again? So, we no longer have offshore or midshore fishers. What is Canada's position on this issue? What is the industry's attitude? What will fishers think? What will the processors who will receive the resource think? There is an impact, but we do not talk about it.

We are told “Pass this bill and all our problems will be solved. That is how we managed to stop that Spanish boat, the Estai ”. This has already been done with Bill C-29. The minister does not know what he wants.

These questions will have to be answered. And I only read three paragraphs of clause 5. Already, if the minister was willing to have a debate, we could get some idea as to whether Canada hopes to have an industry that will more or less operate in this or that fashion. But we do not know that and the government is introducing legislation to protect our stocks. It is tabling a bill that will confirm a management philosophy, but we still do not know what it thinks. We still do not know what this implies.

The main problem is that we need to answer these questions to deal with the fate of those who are concerned about TAGS.

The Minister of Human Resources Development seems like a nice guy. I am taking this opportunity, since he is sitting across from me. While he may try to show a great deal of compassion in the House when we put questions to him during oral question period, his job as human resources minister is to help people retrain, after they have been declared surplus.

But who will declare them surplus in the fishing industry, if not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? I hope the latter will assume his responsibilities and not leave them to the parliamentary janitor, even though I have a lot of respect for him. Someone must be in charge. Someone must get the debate going on this issue, but it is not being done right now.

I am very concerned by what the government opposite is doing. I do not know who will sit on the committee to be set up by the Minister of Human Resources Development. First, the members of this committee must have some idea of what our industry will look like, before determining what must be declared surplus.

Something else is not included. The government is trying to regulate the fate of the industry and protect our stocks, but under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government is responsible for the catch. Processing, once the fish is landed, is a provincial matter. Everything is related.

The image is distressing: a live fish is federal and a dead fish is provincial. It is not because I come from Quebec that I underscore this point and say there are problems. If I am the first to say so, it does not matter because others will say the same thing.

There is an impact on the provinces. The Minister of Human Resources Development knows full well the number of workers involved on land. He knows a lot of people are involved. In the Gaspé we have always said that one fisher provides work for five people on land. Everything is connected.

I want to say, in relation to article 5, that Canada has not had discussions with the fishing community—those who catch and process—on the general principles of management in the UN fisheries agreement. I wonder what provincial ministers are waiting for before initiating discussions with them?

Before Christmas, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, during an opposition day debate on a Progressive Conservative motion dealing with an eventual fishing policy, recognized that one reason the Atlantic groundfish strategy did not work was that the provinces may not have been sufficiently involved. To my way of thinking, that does not mean they were not involved enough financially, but that they were not involved enough in resolving the problem.

This is the sort of debate we need. There is a little time yet before the House adjourns and before the ministers take their holidays, which are perhaps justified. But I do not want them to leave on holiday without providing some security for the public, which will be faced with the end of the Atlantic groundfish strategy in August 1998. The people of Newfoundland and the Gaspé have got the message and that is why they are in the streets today. It is their only recourse. They say they have no choice.

I see time is passing, please tell me at the end of the day how much time I will have tomorrow morning, because I have a lot more to say.

That is the start and that is what needs to be done. Tomorrow morning I will be back and will carry on. I will suggest other approaches, but the message the public is waiting to hear is that we at least agree on what the problem is and that, once it admits there is a problem, the government agrees on a timetable for trying to do something about it.

The public also expects the government to be transparent in its approach and share its criteria, to be sure that it has not forgotten anything. Nobody will be hurt because there are not yet any names attached, but we can agree on wording and objectives. That will give us enough to go ahead with. Later on, after we have looked at it together, figures can be added and responsibilities assigned, if that is what we are asked to do.

I am all for decentralization to the provinces. I would like those who are not to adopt the approach I have just outlined, which is to define the problem and seek a solution, and not to rule out any solution a priori, but to consider them all.

Bill C-27 does not address the problem, and that is what I would like to continue to do. It is also a way of improving Bill C-27, because management philosophy comes up in this agreement. If the members opposite have not seen it, it is time they went back and read the United Nations Fishing Agreement and did their homework. Then we can talk.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am rising this afternoon to speak to the famous Bill C-27 which, I will remind those who have just joined us, is the act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

I must begin by admitting that I am somewhat disappointed to have to speak to this bill today, With all the problems there are with the fisheries, I do not think I would have started with this one, if I were the minister.

I will give one example of what is going on in Newfoundland today. The people of Newfoundland are out in the streets protesting to let the government know they have a problem and need financial support under TAGS. In response, the government pulls Bill C-27 out of a hat, to amend the Fisheries Protection Act. However, does that really solve their problem?

I will try to review the situation in the time I have at my disposal today. I will try to trace the history of this bill. I have said that this bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. However, I should also describe its intent. It is intended to implement the agreement to apply the provisions of the UN convention, which came into effect on December 10, 1982.

The subject chosen for discussion today is the conservation and management of groundfish stocks. So there were provisions in the United Nations fisheries agreement, or UNFA.

This bill started with the December 10, 1982 convention on the law of the sea. Between the two, there was the famous Bill C-29, which we voted on in this House and which was the legislation on the protection of the straddling stocks, in which the Bloc Quebecois participated with pride, because protection of the stocks was important.

We were aware we were writing international law with the former Bill C-29, because the other provisions did not exist. There were no treaties or arrangements between countries. In other words, all the member countries fishing in the Atlantic agreed on the principle, but few of them agreed on how to honour it.

Third, after the famous Bill C-29, there was the UN fisheries agreement, UNFA, which has just arrived and which contains provisions drawn from the convention on the law of the sea.

I would first like to say that no one opposes the principle. In general terms, the Bloc will support Bill C-27. We naturally have some reservations about the bill and we will have the opportunity to speak at report stage in the House and in committee before third reading and passing of the bill.

I would mention two reservations today, and some of my colleagues will have an opportunity to speak. The first reservation concerns measures for monitoring and boarding vessels at sea.

If they say they want the means to ensure respect for these principles, what will those means be? What I want to point out, first of all, is the lack of transparency of these so-called measures.

We had the same problem during debate on Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The government decided to establish these measures by order-in-council. In other words, cabinet decided behind closed doors.

It must not be forgotten that the public in Canada and throughout the world will have to live with these measures. If the government wants its legislation to be complied with by the whole world or by all Canadians, it is only fitting that it be debated by the 301 members of the House.

The second aspect of Bill C-27 about which the Bloc Quebecois has reservations is the UNFA management philosophy that the government is trying to introduce in Bill C-27. I know that this is not easy for those listening at home, so I will try to explain.

Not only does the bill contain measures to board and inspect vessels suspected of contravening our Canadian legislation, or NAFO's legislation, but it contains a management philosophy.

I do not wish to contest the management philosophy set out in general terms in this policy, but I have some questions. What is Canada's management policy? What does it have as a management policy?

I was elected in 1993. We already had moratoriums on fishing back then. In the spring of 1994, Mr. Tobin, then fisheries minister, introduced the program known as TAGS, or the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. A strategy implies having an active tool, but is it the case?

At least, Mr. Tobin had the political courage to give a figure. He expected he would have to reduce by 50% the size of the industry, of the catch. Again, at least he gave a figure and, in doing so, he got the debate going.

What has happened to that debate? What has happened since 1994? The Prime Minister was obsessed with reducing the deficit. Because of a lack of funds, the government opposite was penny wise and pound foolish. Indeed, four years and $1.9 billion later—although that money was needed to provide financial support to fishers and plant workers—the government still has no idea, no vision about the future of fisheries. Worse still, I do not think it has even started working on the issue. This is very serious.

The Bloc Quebecois does make criticism, but it is constructive criticism. I want to talk about the most recent report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My colleague from the Reform Party alluded to it earlier.

The report includes unanimous recommendations. One way to define an approach is to first identify the problem. Then, together we can look at the solutions that each one of us puts forward.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—and I have not yet blamed any party in this House—identified one problem, among others. It blamed the federal government—regardless of the party in office—for the poor management of fisheries in Canada and in Canadian waters.

Many members opposite refuse to believe or to hear this.

Why? We did not blame any one party in particular. But what can we do now to try to correct the situation, again thinking in terms of constructive criticism?

After indicating that the problem was poor management by the federal government, the committee recommended, among other measures, that the department review its management procedures and its ways of setting quotas and determining the total allowable catch.

So far, regardless of which party we represent in the House, this issue does not present any real problem. Why do we not discuss it? It is serious because they are preparing to pass a bill that imply the existence of management measures and approaches, whereas Canada has none.

All representatives of the Canadian fishing industry have said, some more crudely than others, “We do not trust the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans any more.” That is the main point.

In the meantime, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are lobbing the ball back and forth in an effort to come up with a way to provide financial support to workers and fishers. Neither has specified any criteria, set up a committee or consulted the public. There are lots of avenues to explore.

I have a lot to say, but I am afraid of running out of time. Time is rushing past.

What are we going to do to get around this? We explain the basis and they come back with the potential result of the work begun—Bill C-27—which is supposed to contain management measures and approaches.

The other point I would like to raise, still in connection with the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries—

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last week in Halifax, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the measures that will be implemented when TAGS ends will apply only to those still receiving benefits under TAGS next August.

Can the minister corroborate his colleague's statement and, if he can, under what principles will he exclude close to 20,000 fisheries workers, with no support? How? And under what criteria?

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in the 30 seconds I have, I want to say that I agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, about the astonishment shown by our colleague who lives in a more central riding.

I think it is a bit contemptuous for a member to say during today's debate that money does not grow on trees. What the people of our region are asking for is tools to work with.

I also want to remind the House that Canada was built from east, from Gaspé and New Brunswick, to west, and that we would not have a country if it were not for us.

Our industry is agonizing. We wants tools. Wake up.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the name of my riding is quite a mouthful, but it is one of the loveliest regions in Quebec. The full name is Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. These are the names of the four RCMs around the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands directly opposite.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate in the House on the distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor, mainly in the context of globalization of markets. I am also very pleased to be speaking after my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, because I know that the region he represents is experiencing some of the same things as we are in the Gaspé.

I heard my colleague mention an unemployment rate of 22% in his riding. My constituents are in pretty much the same boat, if not a little worse off. Even if I look beyond our region, the situation is the same in New Brunswick, showing the relevance and importance of the issue. Those of us from the regions must raise these issues.

People often say that the population in the regions is small, but we export. We are therefore hard hit by the globalization of markets. What tools has the Parliament of Canada put at our disposal? We do not see any. Our colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, initiated this debate, and that is what should be borne in mind.

When I speak of exporting regions, such as mine in the Gaspé, in the Magdalen Islands or in Acadie—Bathurst in New Brunswick, the crab fishery is very important. I mentioned it earlier. I think that the only person not aware of the problem is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We rely heavily on exports. The Japanese are our main buyers.

But what is there to help this industry if ever Asian prices were to drop? We are just as dependent on exports as the riding of my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. His riding would also be affected if anything were to happen to Asian pork markets. This is what we want to discuss. What are the available tools?

Second, we talk about the distribution of wealth, but what does the Parliament of Canada put at our disposal? What are the tools available to help the needy and those who are searching for work? How can we improve the situation?

In the context of globalization, what are the tools provided to fishers who rely on the TAGS program? These people need tools to cope. They export their fish, because there are not enough of us in Canada to eat it all. They would like to retrain, but to do what? These are all issues that need to be discussed.

I will conclude, for I want to give the last word to my colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. But first I want to congratulate the Ralliement madelinot-gaspésien. This organization from the Gaspe Peninsula drafted a social contract to make people think about the distribution of wealth. The hon. member for Québec referred to it in this House, and I am prepared to give a copy of this social contract from the organization to all members of the House. This group of people representing the various regions of the Gaspe Peninsula also wants to launch a debate on the distribution of wealth.

I now give the last word to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Crab Fishing, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

On April 9 the ice committee, made up of fishermen and officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, gave the green light to crab fishing in zone 12 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. More than three weeks later, the minister has yet to give the go ahead to this industry.

Why is the minister taking so long to make a decision, penalizing thousands of workers, especially when he knows this means the loss of significant amounts of money, especially—

[Fisheries, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last week, the minister indicated that, in replacing the TAGS program, it was his intention to implement new measures aimed at getting a certain number of fishers out of the industry.

Can the minister explain to us what principles and criteria will enable him to determine which people are to be deemed surplus to the fishing industry

[Fisheries, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, instead of playing an old tape, I will ask a brand new question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Given the $20 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, what is the minister waiting for to implement a true groundfish strategy and provide tools to the 22,000 fishers and plant workers who are waiting? There are $20 billion in the fund, but the minister is still waiting.