Gary Lunn

[Dna Identification Act, June 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With apologies to the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, this is a matter with respect to quorum at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans which is being held right now. The chair of the committee has unilaterally decided to continue to conduct the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—

[Fisheries, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now the Minister of Fisheries has been refusing our suggestions to amend Bill C-27, the fisheries protection act. As it stands now, Canada will not be able to prosecute foreign vessels who are breaking our laws. Ironically, when Premier Tobin sends a letter asking the minister to make amendments, he turns around and says “No problem”.

We know the Prime Minister asked to have this letter kept under wraps, but what we do not know is who is running fisheries and oceans: Tobin or the member for Victoria?

[Petitions, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of 49 constituents of the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners request that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[Fisheries, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government has failed the people of B.C. during the last five years by its inability to resolve the Pacific salmon dispute. Unless the minister is ready to put some teeth into this we will never get it resolved.

Is the minister prepared to take some actions against the U.S. fishermen and prevent U.S. fishing vessels from crossing into Canadian waters until this dispute is resolved?

[Division No. 158, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementation bill, and to represent my constituents.

I suppose what is most frustrating, though, would be for them to witness this last vote. The government should be ashamed of itself. It has just forced closure again, again and again. There are 107 amendments to this bill. There has been less than one day to debate these at report stage and what does this government do? It does like it has in the past from the very first bill, right back to Bill C-2. It forces closure.

The government pulls every single trick and all the people on that side of the House get their little marching orders, they stand up like trained sheep and do what they are told to do. It is absolutely disgusting and appalling.

I want to talk about Group No. 1. I have not quite figured out whether this is the Prime Minister's slush fund or if it is the finance minister's. The Prime Minister has announced a $2.5 billion slush fund which nobody will see until at least the year 2000. We have no idea what direction it is going. He is sort of burying it in a dark hole. We are not sure if it is being put away for the finance minister's announcement when he wants to seek the nomination of this party to sit on this side of the House. We do not know where it is going.

Imagine if it does go to some of the students. Only 6% of the entire student population would receive any benefit of this $2.5 billion slush fund belonging to we are not sure who.

I find that very disturbing but even more disturbing is that this government stands up on that side of the House, gets on its moral high horse and all of a sudden it is so proud of doing something for young Canadians, putting something back into education. This government has a very short memory. Over the last four years during the last parliament this government cut $7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces. What do those go to? Education.

Students are struggling. Now the government is on its moral high horse again to announce a slush fund. It does not want to do it too early in its term. It is going to wait and the fund will benefit at best 6% of students if it ever gets to them. That is a disgrace.

I will talk about the budget. The minister was quite upset at being criticized by the auditor general for his accounting practices so he sent his cronies to talk to the auditor general. The message was basically that if you do not like the way we are keeping our books, we will just change the rules. Who do you think you are to criticize the government, you are only the auditor general.

I have to commend the auditor general on his reply. On March 18 the auditor general stated this to the government: “I believe the change will open the door for governments to influence reported results by simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end of the year once preliminary numbers are known”. The auditor general is trying to very politely tell the government to quit cooking the books. That is exactly what the government is doing. I cannot believe the Liberals sit on that side of the House with their faces buried in their papers. They are not paying attention.

Look at the facts. Look what those guys did less than a half hour ago. They stood up like trained sheep and followed their marching orders. How can they do that? We watched it on hepatitis C and we watch it on vote after vote. Why do they even come to Ottawa? They are ordered here. They think they have some dignity coming to this House and voting like that. I have been here for one year. Time after time I see closure.

They can crack jokes but this is serious business. The people of Canada are incredibly frustrated that the Liberals sit on that side of the House and force closure on bills like this, that they make a slush fund for the finance minister to dispose of when he feels it is right for his political advantage while students are out there struggling. They are struggling all over British Columbia where I come from.

Canadian students are facing rising tuition costs and expenses and the government's response to them is we will create a slush fund but come back and see us in the year 2000 and we will decide if you qualify. If you buy a young Liberals membership we will see where you fit in the mix and if you will get some of this fund. We have not quite decided who will benefit from it.

That is absolutely shameful. Students are looking for help. They are facing rising tuition costs on account of this government's massive cutbacks to post-secondary institutions, $7 billion since the Liberals formed government.

That is straight fact. Look at the numbers. Any financial expert can tell them that. They sit over there and think it is a big joke. The day of reckoning will come, next election day. How they can actually stand up and vote to force closure on 107 amendments is incredible. We have had one day of debate.

There was a time when those members sat on this side of the House. They thought it was appalling to force closure. But how quickly it changes when they are on that side of the House. Time and time again we have seen what these members have done. They get their marching orders from the whip. I think they call it a triple whip vote. That is what we are getting again.

How can those guys sit on that side of the House with straight faces and joke and laugh about something this serious? We are talking about the budget implementation act and I am specifically talking about the $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund which is a nice fancy title for the Prime Minister and his cronies.

If this government had anything to do it would put that $2.5 billion into tax cuts immediately where there would be a tangible benefit, where jobs could be created for students who will be getting out of university in the next week or two looking for jobs. Students are facing dismal prospects right now across the country due to the government's high taxation on small business. This government could have done something positive for the students of this country. Instead it chose to play its political games, cooking the books, hiding the money and deciding what fits its political agenda and how it can benefit from this. That is exactly what the government has done.

I honestly believe that students and all Canadians in the next election will come back to this. We will make sure they remember that time after time this government forced closure when it was convenient, when it suited its own political agenda. There is no substance in this. It is just hiding $2.5 billion. The government calls it a scholarship fund but it is not accessible until the year 2000. Even then it may benefit 6% of the students of this country.

How can government members sit on that side of the House and be proud of themselves?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is fine for the minister to stand up and make jokes about what is revealing. He just told the member for Burnaby—Douglas that he is unaware of documents that department officials are talking about with respect to the treaty with the U.S.

This minister is unaware of the extinction of our fish stocks in Atlantic Canada. He is unaware of what is going on in B.C. with our fish stocks out there that are facing extinction.

Is the minister going to stand and fight for B.C. or is he going to watch our fishermen and fish stocks out there become extinct as well?

[Justice, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a witness stated that there was a party atmosphere among the boys who watched the assault on a 16 year old boy that left him lying unconscious in a pool of blood.

“They were just having a good time, they were laughing it up”. These are the words of Rob Parsons, the youth co-ordinator for Lambrick Park church. The youth was assaulted while on his way home from a church youth group in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

My constituents are still trying to deal with the similar incident of Reena Virk. These are just two examples of why the Minister of Justice must deal with changes to the Young Offenders Act today.

I will be holding a Young Offenders Act forum in my riding on May 11 where students, legal professionals and the general public will tackle the growing problem of youth violence in our communities.

Canadians are working together to resolve this crisis. The minister has the power to put teeth into the Young Offenders Act. She has the power to be part of the solution not just for my riding but for all of Canada. Until this happens she is the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going in the same vein and I was speaking on a point. My friend just alluded that this bill has no teeth. This government has argued that it had to follow the UN convention. That is what this legislation is all about.

Last April just before the government called the election, it tabled enabling legislation for the same bill, but ironically these same clauses were not there. The minister at the time did put some teeth into it, the very same legislation. I notice some of the members on the opposite side are shaking their heads. I would offer that legislation to them. They are welcome to contact me and I will give them a copy.

This was negotiated in 1995. They brought in the enabling legislation in 1996 and it died on the order paper when the election was called. I remind members that we can put some teeth in the legislation and it is beyond me why the current minister has watered it down so it has no effect. It is supposed to allow our enforcement officials to have the ability to act when foreign nations are fishing illegally and breaking our rules. UN conventions allow them to act.

We all know when the Estai was fishing illegally in 1995 that is what they did under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. The new legislation takes all the teeth out of it. They have to get permission from the flag state before they can lay a charge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday on this and I understand some members from the government side were quoting me earlier today. They said I was wrong. We are talking about the two provisions which have been debated at length in the House. I said that an officer or an enforcement person would have to get permission to board a vessel. I went on to say that I agreed that was arguable. My point was that this legislation is vague. One section states they can board and then advise the flag state while the next section states that before they can do that they have to get permission. I wanted to put those comments on record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and my colleagues in the Reform Party to speak on Bill C-27. This bill is the enabling legislation that will implement the United Nations fisheries act.

I find it hard to stand here today and speak about this although I do agree with the minister that it is important. However, I had to make my way through groups of protesters from Newfoundland this week whose livelihood has been devastated by the collapse of our fishery and who will see their TAGS benefits expire in a couple of days. What is the minister's response to them? Why are we going to ratify the UN fisheries agreement, UNFA?

This government is asking Canadian fishermen to forget about the fact that it has taken over three years to bring this legislation to the House.

The government is asking fishermen to forget about the fact it promised TAGS benefits to them until May 1999. The government has reneged on this promise and is now about to cut them off in a few months. The government is asking the fishermen to forget about the fact that they have been provided with no real long term solutions. We are going to talk about this at length.

There are no solutions to resolving the crisis that this government has created except throwing money at it and hoping it will go away; $3.4 billion and we are no better off today than we were when this government took office in 1993. This government is asking Canadian fishermen to forget all these facts because today we are debating Bill C-27.

That was quite a technical speech the minister gave and I am not too sure how many viewers, unless they are really involved, understood what was going on. I will try to put this in terms they will understand.

The United Nations fisheries agreement will ensure long term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks such as flounder and turbot. These stocks go back and forth across the 200 mile line off the coast of Newfoundland. I agree completely that we need control of these stocks. We need rules and regulations in place.

I am going to criticize this legislation because it does not do that. This is an issue we heard at length when we were travelling in our committee. Let us go back a little and look at exactly what this legislation does.

I think it is important to point out to all the people listening that it requires 30 signatures, 30 countries to adopt this legislation, to ratify this legislation in their own country before this takes effect. I think there are 16 or 17 countries to date that will have ratified that.

This is really going to do nothing for a long time. We are years away from this ever taking effect.

This actually started way back in 1982, 16 years ago. That was UNCLOS, the UN convention on the law of the sea. When that agreement was negotiated, and ironically it was a Liberal government in power in 1982, the agreement was full of holes. Nothing ever became of it. It was brought back before the UN in 1995 under the UN fisheries agreement in order to plug some of the holes and do something with it.

Brian Tobin was the minister at the time. I am reading from a news release dated August 4, 1995: “Tobin foresees permanent end to foreign overfishing when new UN convention is implemented”. I will read a few paragraphs from the press release because I do not believe that is what is going to happen today.

Canada played a leading role in the conference, which approved new international controls on high seas fishing. Canada's major concern was to end foreign overfishing of cod, flounder and turbot on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

The new UN convention provides for binding and compulsory dispute settlement. As well, for the first time, international law will prohibit any unauthorized fishing of straddling stocks, thereby making fishing by flag of convenience vessels illegal. To ensure that vessels abide by the new international rules, the new UN convention authorizes Canada to take action outside 200 miles where the flag state fails to control its vessels.

In fact this is not going to do that. I think the intention was there but our government has watered down this enabling legislation. It will not be able to enforce it.

“This new UN convention, when fully implemented, will protect straddling stocks better than Bill C-29”, Mr. Tobin said.

Bill C-29 was brought in by this government in 1994, the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act, and that was the legislation the Government of Canada used to seize the Estai , to bring that ship back to port, to press charges against the captain and the vessel.

He went on:

“Until the new UN convention is fully implemented, the Government of Canada will stand ready to exercise powers granted to it by Parliament under Bill C-29. These powers will no longer be needed to protect straddling stocks once the new UN convention is fully implemented”.

What he is saying is that we are going to get these new laws by this international agreement and we will not have to rely on the former legislation, the Canadian Fisheries Protection Act.

Let us go to the bill. We can have all the legislation we want but if we cannot enforce it, it is not much good to us. There are two sections that are quite troublesome.

Section 16.2(1) says:

After boarding a fishing vessel of a participating state, a protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that the vessel has contravened section 5.3 shall without delay inform that state.

That says that once the protection officer boards that vessel he has to inform the flag state. If we have a Spanish vessel out there in violation, he has to inform Spain.

Section 16.2(2) says:

A protection officer may, with the consent of the participating state, exercise the powers as provided for in section 16.1.

Before he can board this vessel he has to get the consent of the flag state of that vessel. That is arguable. Some will say not but the way the bill is worded it is left open for interpretation.

Let us say he gets permission of the flag state. Then section 7.01(1) comes into play:

A protection officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a fishing vessel of a participating state found in an area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii) has engaged in unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters may, with the consent of the participating state, take any enforcement action that is consistent with this act.

The frustrating part of this legislation is that if they go outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail or the Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks and find a foreign vessel in violation of our laws or in violation of an international agreement, the Government of Canada or the enforcement officers must first go to the flag state of that vessel and get permission to board it. If they get permission to go on board and they find that the vessel is in violation and there are charges which can be laid they have to go back—and this is absolutely true and is in the bill, I read it word for word to the House—to that flag state and ask for permission to press charges against the vessel.

Let us go back to March 1995. I will read a paragraph or two from the book Lament for an Ocean by Michael Harris. It is subtitled “The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery: A True Crime Story”. I will start on page one. This will set the scene for what happened in March 1995 when the old legislation, the Fisheries Protection Act was used to press charges against the Estai . This is the scene our fisheries officers were up against.

It was the other shot that was heard around the world. The 50-calibre machine gun bursts from the Cape Roger , three in all, marked the first time since Confederation that Canada had fired on another country in defence of the national interest. When the order came to open fire, the officers aboard the fisheries patrol vessel were so taken aback, they asked that the command be repeated. The fateful words crackled once more over the ship's radio: an initial burst was to be fired over the bow of the Spanish trawler Estai , the next rounds into her screw 60 seconds later if she refused to stop. After warning the Spanish captain to move his crew forward, Captain Newman Riggs nodded to Bernie Masters, who adjusted the sights on the Cape Roger 's heavy gun and sucked in a deep breath as his finger squeezed the trigger.

This was when a Spanish vessel was illegally fishing straddling stocks off our coast. Our enforcement people went to take control of that vessel. There was a four hour pursuit, a very tense moment. We were engaging in an “act of war”, as the book goes on to tell. We had the right to do so. We had the laws at that time to suggest that we could go out. They boarded the vessel and brought the vessel back to port. They held that vessel until appropriate charges were laid. The captain of that vessel was detained and we are proceeding and prosecuting on that.

If that same incident occurred today, if a foreign flag state vessel was out there fishing illegally, that is the very thing for which this legislation is supposed to be the saviour. I agree that we do need some international agreements. What would happen today is our control boats would go out. Their observations would be that the Estai was fishing illegally. Then they would have to ask our government to get permission from the Spanish government and ask if it would be okay for them to board the vessel.

I agree it is open for debate. There is some inconsistency in the way it is worded. It is arguable. I do not know how long that would take. It took four hours of hot pursuit. The vessel actually cut its nets, dropped them to the bottom of the ocean and tried to run away.

Let us say they got permission to board after they observed what was being done. They knew the vessel was fishing illegally and they wanted to bring the vessel back to port. No sir. They could not do that. They would have to stay onboard and inform the flag state, which was Spain in this case. They would have to get permission first to lay charges. Then the vessel would go back to Spain. We would never see it again. We would never be able to follow it up.

The minister of fisheries at the time stated that this new UN fisheries agreement would be the saviour, that it would give us some teeth. We have taken the teeth out of it. My research has shown that of the 15 countries that have ratified the UN fisheries agreement, not one has clauses like the ones Canada has put into its legislation which take the teeth right out of it. I find it unbelievable.

There are members in this House who travelled with me and the rest of the fisheries committee and who have great interest in this matter. They are listening today. We travelled to Newfoundland and we heard these concerns. They want somebody to stand up and fight for the fishermen out there.

We heard the minister for about 40 minutes today. He told us of all the wonderful things the government has done over the last 10 years. He went over a chronology of all the great things. We heard words like major conservation program and when the stocks recover.

I suggest that the minister look at the record. I ask him to look at the record of this government with respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the management of the fish. I have never seen such a dismal failure.

There is no confidence from the fishermen. There is no confidence from the people of Newfoundland. I understand that the federal government buildings in Newfoundland have been taken over by frustrated fishermen. I do not blame them. When I went there these fishermen told me that they want to work and pay taxes. They told that to the Liberal government prior to the Tory days, but all we hear from this government is that it took over this mess.

The government does not accept responsibility for what it has not done over the past five years and even before that. Back in the eighties these fishermen were telling that Liberal government that there was something wrong, that the fish were not there, and nobody listened. We have heard this over and over again in committee. We have heard evidence from scientists who were ordered to be silenced.

I have talked about this legislation and that they have to get the consent of the flag state to board the vessel and get the consent of the flag state to lay charges. Imagine that a police officer sees a young person committing a crime. Then he discovers he has to call the young person's parents before he can talk to him. After the police officer talks to the parents, he has to get their permission to arrest the young person. This is the same type of scenario. We have to take control of these straddling stocks and we have not done so. There should be an agreement but we should be putting some teeth into it so we can actually enforce and take control.

I am sure that as this day proceeds the minister or somebody from the government will tell us that they had no option, that these clauses were agreed upon in the agreement negotiated at the UN in 1985. I am sure they will say that they had no other option, that this is what was agreed upon and they had to put this in the enabling legislation.

It is ironic. Bill C-96 died on the Order Paper last April. It was brought before the House about 10 days before the last election. Bill C-96 has exactly the same title as this legislation, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, and it goes on. It is exactly the same. Section 1 is the definition of straddling stocks and in section 2 the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is repealed.

Let us get to the sections I am talking about. This is the same government. This enabling legislation is for that very same agreement.

Looking back, Minister Tobin went out with our navy and 50-calibre guns and took charge. At that time the current Minister of Veterans Affairs was the minister. This is what he put in the enabling legislation:

A protection officer may, subject to subparagraph 6(e)(iii), in respect of any fishing vessel found within Canadian fisheries waters, the NAFO Regulatory Area or an area of the sea designated under subparagraph 6(e)(ii),

(a) for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, including any measure incorporated by reference under subparagraph 6(e)(i), board and inspect the vessel.

They are just saying that they can board it. Then it goes on to the placing of arrests:

A protection officer may, subject to any regulations made under subparagraph 6(e)(iii), arrest without warrant any person who the officer suspects on reasonable grounds has committed an offence under this Act.

It allows the custody and seizure of vessels, the seizure or delivery into the custody of such person the minister may direct. The minister retains control.

The problem with this enabling legislation is that it has no teeth in it. The government has taken all the teeth out of it. They have to ask for permission. This is absolutely ludicrous. How long is that going to take? Is it really practical?

I would like to support this, but we need to go back to enabling legislation much like what we had a year ago which had some teeth in it. The government could actually do something.

The other frustrating part of this whole agreement is that the minister brought this legislation in for first reading in December. He has been the minister for almost a year. Our fisheries on both coasts are in a state of crisis. The government comes in here and is proud of the situation when there are thousands of people in Newfoundland who have occupied federal offices out of frustration.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has tabled reports. I can read some of the recommendations. I agree that foreign overfishing is a problem. We made nine specific recommendations.

One, the committee recommended that Canada withdraw its support for any turbot quotas assigned to foreign nations, and it goes on.

Two, the committee recommended that Canada cease giving permission to Canadian companies to hire foreign vessels and foreign crews to catch fish in Canadian waters. We heard all of these concerns. These are real concerns.

Three, the committee recommended that Canada withdraw its support for the redfish quotas given to foreign nations. It goes on and on.

I could read the entire report. I am not sure if the government has read it, because it is not acknowledging it. It is not adopting it.

The government has come in with enabling legislation for an agreement that was negotiated three years ago. The first agreement was back in 1982. I do not know if it is just going to go to sleep and say that it has fixed the problem with fishery.

This is a disgrace. There are so many problems out there, starting with the foreign nations. Some nations have four times the quota on certain species that Canadian fishermen have. An example is tuna. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 120 to 125 tonnes go to Japan and Canada's quota is 30 tonnes. One fish is worth $30,000.

This government will not put its people first. The bureaucracy. I have asked the minister in this House if he will move the management of the fishery from Ottawa closer to the resource. Right now there are 1,100 bureaucrats in Ottawa. I am sure there are a lot of good people but I cannot believe that we are managing the fishery from Ottawa.

We have to move the management of the resource out to where the resource is on the coast. That makes sense. That is what the fishing community is asking for. We need to bring the provinces in as partners in trying to get this issue back on track.

I am not suggesting that the government can divest its responsibility but it definitely needs to include the provinces at the table, which it is not doing right now. I would ask the government to look at issues like this one.

When I raised these concerns with the minister, he suggested that I should be aware there are more taxpayers in Ontario than there are in British Columbia. This is not about Ottawa versus B.C. or Ottawa versus St. John's. This is trying to put the interest of the fishery first.

This report was written by 16 members of parliament. The first nine recommendations I am referring to with respect to foreign overfishing were supported by every person on the committee—nine members of the Liberal government including the parliamentary secretary—and we have had no response from the minister. In fact he stood in the House earlier and stated that no fish were given to foreign nations unless Canadian fishermen had first crack at them. We know that is not true. That is absolutely false. We have heard this from fishermen after fishermen when we travelled out there and in committee. It is absolutely wrong.

I find incredibly frustrating what the government is not doing. We need Bill C-27 with some changes, I might add. Enabling legislation the way it is worded now will not amount to a hill of beans. We have to do something about that before we can support the legislation. We have to amend it.

The government has to do a lot more. It promised the TAGS program to all people in Atlantic Canada until May 1999, and it is about to cut them off. In the coming days about 3,000 people are to be cut off. These people were given letters, went to the banks and relied on the program. The government has gone against its word. It has not come through. It is absolutely terrible.

With respect to the agreement let us go off on another vein. All the minister talked about was the Flemish Cap and the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. To a lot of listeners out there there is another straddling stock, although it is not technically a straddling stock, and that is the salmon out in British Columbia.

We know the coho is facing extinction and again the government is doing nothing. The minister has been in power for almost a year and we are no better off today than we were four or five years ago. It is terrible. Fishermen out there are in a crisis situation. They are losing their livelihoods.

Some would argue that we are really talking about the salmon which would fall into that category. They swim in and outside the 200 mile limit. They are highly migratory species. What was negotiated was straddling stocks and highly migratory species. However the legislation is silent with respect to that.

I will go out on a limb. At the time Minister Tobin was negotiating I would suggest his interests were primarily Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. British Columbia was put somewhere on the back burner.

Salmon are considered an andromous species. The act only applies to highly migratory species and straddling stocks. An andromous species is one which begins its life cycle in fresh water, lives in the oceans but returns to fresh water to spawn, for example salmon and trout. The agreement is silent on that.

Why is the minister not in New York or at the UN fighting for British Columbians and for Canada? We are on the eve of another fishing season in British Columbia and absolutely nothing is being done.

We saw the frustrations last time. We have been constantly after the minister not to wait until the night before this fishing season starts but to do something about it now.

The government appointed a new negotiator, the one person it has who stood up and fought for the people of British Columbia. Mr. Fortier. I suggest he resigned out of frustration because he was not getting any backing from the government. He worked very hard. He was the one person that we had who actually fought for the people of British Columbia on the American fishing dispute. He is gone. We have a new negotiator. We are back to square one. Where is the minister on that? I did not hear one word from him on that.

It says in the act that it only applies to highly migratory species and straddling stocks and the definitions are to come under the UN convention. These definitions were arrived at in the conference on straddling stocks.

The UN fisheries agreement does not apply to salmon. Why not? Where is the minister? He has lost the confidence of the people of British Columbia. I represent his neighbouring riding and, believe me, the people of his own riding are frustrated. They want action. They want something done and the government is not doing anything.

I ask the minister to start doing something in these other areas. He has an opportunity to look at the interest of the fishery as the committee did. Ten of the sixteen members of the committee spent a week to 10 days travelling throughout Atlantic Canada and spent a little better than a week in British Columbia.

Right now that committee is travelling through other parts of the country where there are fishery concerns. They are listening to the people. They are listening to fishermen. They are listening to provincial representatives from the legislative assemblies of those provinces. They are listening to the fisheries ministers of those provincial legislatures.

However there was nobody from the government's department on the Atlantic trip. They did come on the Pacific trip. They did not come to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada. They did not come to listen to the people of Newfoundland. This is an absolute disgrace.

Some would way I am digressing from Bill C-27, but the minister spoke on this wonderful bill saying that it would solve the problem. First, it has no teeth. Second, it needs approximately 14 countries to ratify it before it takes effect. Is that the best the government can do for the last three years and this minister for the last year? Is that the best he can do?

I would be embarrassed if I had to come into the House and say that is all I have done in the last year as minister of fisheries and oceans. Why is he not fighting for Canada with the United States on the Alaskan fishing dispute? We have heard his comments on newscasts down there that he may have to cut Canadian quotas in half in the name of conservation if the Alaskans continue. That is what he is telling the Americans when he goes there.

We need somebody who can stand up and fight for fishermen. The government should be here announcing that it will not go back on its word, that it will honour its commitment to continue to pay recipients of TAGS until May 1999 who are now overtaking federal offices in Newfoundland out of frustration.

I have met with these fishermen. They have said to me “We read in your report that you were against TAGS”. I explained to them that we should be giving them TAGS until May 1999. That is what my colleagues and I believe. The government has to honour its commitment. Fishermen want to go to work. That is what they have been telling us. They do not want truckloads of money. They want to go to work.

We need to move the management of the resource out to the coast. We have to instil confidence in DFO. We have to get rid of the politicization. We have to get rid of the corruption. We have to get rid of some of the regulations in the sealing industry which prohibit the export of seal products. These are all things the people of Newfoundland want to do. We have to get rid of foreign quotas and make sure that our Canadian fishermen have access to the quotas first.

I have heard arguments from the department saying that it is not economically feasible for our guys to do that and that it will be given to Cuba because it would cost our fishermen 21 cents per pound to catch them and they can only sell them for 19 cents.

Why are we not investing in the infrastructure? Why are we not finding some way to put these guys back to work? Why are we not looking at the fishery of the future, identifying what species are there and ensuring that our people have access to them? Then we could look at what we could do to make sure the industry will be sustainable and viable in the years to come?

What do we have? Bill C-27 is what we have. It is pretty impressive for the minister, is it not, to bring in enabling legislation on something that was negotiated three years ago after being in the House for a year as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

If the government and the minister do not get off their butts and do something they will have a crisis, a revolt in Newfoundland. They will have a revolt in British Columbia. These people are frustrated beyond imagination and what they are doing in Newfoundland is evidence of that. They are very frustrated. There is no confidence in the government.

I have written a note on my speech on the positive side and I am not sure I have found a positive side in the last 10 or 15 minutes. On the positive side of coming to parliament has been being able to work with the fisheries committee, to sit down with 16 members from five political parties, to leave our political baggage outside the door, to try to bring forward witnesses and to make recommendations for the benefit of the fishery.

It is interesting to note there are eight members of the government on that committee. There has been a few exceptions but generally that is what we try to do. Sixteen members of parliament from five political parties are in agreement. We know how hard it is to get 16 members of parliament from the same party to agree. We have witnessed that in last few days. It is difficult to get 16 members of parliament from five political parties to agree.

We did that in the east coast report, and the government is not even looking at it. There are good recommendations in there that look at foreign overfishing. There are suggestions in there about moving resources from Ottawa to the fishery. The minister is just brushing it off.

I ask the government to take a hard look at the report. There needs to be some more work done on Bill C-27 so that it will have the teeth it needs for our enforcement officers to actually do something with it. We need international agreements. I am in full support of that. However we have to go a long way before we solve the fishing crisis. This is not a drop in the bucket.

I ask the minister to listen to what I have said. It is time he started acting instead of giving us smoke and mirrors.