John Duncan

[Toy Labelling, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the returns of Atlantic salmon are at historically very low levels. This is why, for conservation reasons, anglers have been practising only catch and release on the Saint John River in New Brunswick.

My question to the minister on November 17 asked why the DFO closed the Saint John River to catch and release fishing and then proceeded to kill fish and give them to the local native aboriginal communities for ceremonial purposes when these communities never asked for those fish, they were not surplus and were not required for science.

The minister's answer displayed a profound lack of knowledge of the spawning behaviour of Atlantic salmon. He stated that male fish were double the number of female fish, and therefore it was important to reduce the imbalance by killing male fish as well as to protect genetic stocks of salmon by making sure that the numbers of hatchery fish are reduced.

When the head of DFO science appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries in November, he also justified the killing of these fish based on the female ratio. This is bogus and DFO has no supporting evidence for these actions.

Once again, DFO has managed to politicize fish science. First, for the record, the fish stock from the hatchery are all of Saint John River origin and there is a competent breeding program to prevent in-breeding. Thus, there should be no reason to kill fish to protect genetic stocks of salmon, contrary to what the minister stated.

Second, a biased male to female ratio is not something inherently wrong which requires correction by killing off the offending males. So far, no one has found a nightclub where eligible Atlantic salmon meet to pair up prior to joining in their journey to the spawning grounds.

Salmon are schooling fish and behave more normally when they are in groups. When returns to rivers are low, such as this year, the number of fish available to form schools is low.

These fish may alter their behaviour and become hesitant to move upstream to spawning areas because they do not have companions. Killing off any fish, male or female, when numbers are so low is unjustified.

The hatchery on the Saint John River was built to compensate for fish losses caused by the construction of the Mactaquac dam. However, even with these hatchery contributions, the river is not meeting its egg conservation thresholds. Every fish counts.

The scientific rationale for killing these fish makes no sense. The explanations by the minister and by DFO have not abated the concerns of the Saint John River anglers nor of the local population.

Locally, DFO appears to be embarrassed. The department and the minister both stated that part or all of the rationale was to harvest these 40 fish to fulfil native requests. We believe this is an attempt to cover all bases by DFO and certainly does not explain why there are some fish still in a DFO freezer.

The statutory authority for this action is dubious at best and, in my opinion, exceeds the authority of DFO. It is important that the department have the support of the community at large to conserve and protect habitat and Atlantic salmon.

The statements and actions by DFO defy logic and have turned off the people normally most involved in stewardship of the river. The community wants reassurance that these actions will not be repeated.

Will the minister assure the community and the fish that this action will not occur again?

[Petitions, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing 350 names from Quadra Island and the nearby area in my riding.

The petition states that despite the UN resolutions affirming the rights of the East Timorese people to self-determination, the Indonesian military has continued to occupy East Timor, inflicted violence and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese.

The petitioners ask that the government support a UN referendum for an independent East Timor, impose a ban on the sale of military equipment to Indonesia and end all government funding for the promotion of trade with Indonesia as long as it continues to illegally occupy East Timor.

[Fisheries, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Saint John River in New Brunswick has a catch and release sports fishery for conservation reasons. Recently the DFO closed the river to catch and release fishing and then proceeded to kill fish to give to the local aboriginal communities.

The local native communities never asked for those fish. They are not surplus fish and they are not necessary for science. Why did the DFO close the river for conservation reasons and then proceed to kill fish?

[Division No. 22, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not here when the vote was called, but had I been here I would have voted with my caucus.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

[Fisheries, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I bet I know what American congressmen call our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. They call him “Our man in Canada”.

Washington has shown no interest in reducing its salmon catch on the west coast and our minister has shown no more backbone than a jellyfish.

My question is simple. Why is the minister continuing to ignore Canadian fishermen? Why does he jump every time the Americans say boo?

[Pacific Salmon Treaty, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the United States caught $650 million more in salmon than allowed under the Pacific salmon treaty.

The Liberal government has known since 1993 that this has been happening. We now know that the Liberal's own negotiator advised that the U.S. federal government, and not the states, is responsible for the treaty.

Why has the government ignored the advice of its negotiator and taken a softball approach to the United States government?

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what I find so interesting about what has gone on in this debate is that none of us would be debating this if it had not been for the excesses of the Mulroney era. All of the legislation from which flowed this current bill was legislation that was initiated during the Mulroney era. These very Liberals in government who are now defending every aspect of every agreement are basically defending the excesses of the Mulroney era.

In those heady days before there was effective opposition in this Parliament to talk about some of the potential downstream problems associated with some of the legislation in the north, we ended up with agreements that were constitutionally entrenched. This led to commitments being made in the north which are now leading to a circumstance where this government is attempting to cover up the cracks and deal with some very problematic circumstances in terms of resource development, how to operate the bureaucracy and how to operate governance in the north.

We had a circumstance here where a member asked why we did not come up with some constructive solutions. Last January I presented a paper on the very subject of how the governance of the western arctic could operate the western Northwest Territories after the creation of Nunavut which we all know is coming and very quickly it will be upon us, the creation of a new territory in the eastern arctic that is a province in everything but name with new governance. We already have the contiguous territory of the Yukon. Left between those two circumstances is a territory that many people are calling the western Northwest Territories. Some people are calling it the western arctic.

Presently the whole seat of government for the Northwest Territories resides in Yellowknife which contains half the population of the residual territory after the creation of Nunavut. Several land claims agreements were initiated and legislated in the last Parliament but they all began during the Tory regime. There are competing interests between tribal groupings, Metis and non-natives. They are often at odds as to what the future arrangement should be in the western arctic.

So it is ridiculous to assert that there is a made in the north solution when it comes to this Mackenzie Valley land and water management act that is singular. It is certainly anything but singular. Bringing this whole arrangement into a workable fashion is turning out to be a very complicated arrangement indeed.

As we know, in terms of resource development the north is a warehouse resources. We need to generate interest and debate in southern Canada on the fate of what goes on in the north. We do not get enough opportunity to debate this very important issue.

Half the people who live in the western territory which wholly contains the Mackenzie Valley live in Yellowknife. We went through a constitutional proposal to try to figure out a way to govern that territory, given all of the aboriginal settlements that have already occurred and those that are likely to occur to try to tie all the community arrangements into that.

After a very lengthy study, my ultimate conclusion was that the best solution would be to carry out the essential housekeeping changes to the current Northwest Territories Act which are necessary to take into account the upcoming division. The western Northwest Territories could readily continue to operate under the amended Northwest Territories Act for the foreseeable future.

The Government of the Northwest Territories putting more service and program delivery responsibilities into the hands of the communities should continue to be encouraged. That is what has been happening because of the reduction in federal transfers during the last Parliament.

When we look at practical and pragmatic ways to deal with resource management in the Mackenzie Valley we have to remember that we have constitutionally entrenched commitments which flow from the agreements already in place. However there is a better way.

There are some laudable goals in the bill. It is not so much the goals that we are concerned about. It is the actual provisions within the bill.

It is important to note that the Northwest Territories is 90% dependent on federal funding. In order to move away from that, the main industry that can accomplish it is mining. There is a warehouse of resources and it is mostly mining oriented.

The BHP mine proposal which will be a major stimulus to the economy of Yellowknife and the western Northwest Territories would not have occurred if it had not been proposed by a large corporation with patience and if the deposit had not occurred outside of one of the litigious land claims settlement proposals. There are lots of warnings from the mining sector that what is being put in place has all of the pitfalls of leading us into the circumstance where those kinds of developments will be very much put at risk.

The mining sector has a world full of experience. We know that most of the large mining concerns and many of the small ones, and more and more Canadians are operating in an international theatre. They view some of the concerns in several ways.

There are new obstacles to resource development in what has been considered by many to be a friendly environment. There are concerns about everything from the staking of mineral claims to a confused enforcement policy.

The reliance on litigation to solve problems when it comes to the way this new board will operate came out clearly in an information session held by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the north. Concerns were raised about the vulnerability of this new process to delay tactics by certain parties. Then there is the lack of clarity in the process for selecting members.

I certainly have not gone through the full list, but what is clear is that the substantial amendments presented by the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines revolved around two things. One was the lack of clarity in the law and the rules, and the other was that the new system is seriously under-resourced. Those concerns need to be dealt with in a very clear way in this legislation. There should be amendments made to that effect. We would certainly support them.

It concerns me that we do not recognize the complexity of the legislation which we are dealing with.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to once again return to this whole question of the amendment that has been put forward by the Liberals on this opposition motion. I would like to refer to section 566 of Beauchesne's.

I think these amendments should be posed in such a way that they are more acceptable to the House of Commons. How can that be when the very amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal government which talks about calling upon the government changes “establish” to “continue the implementation of a comprehensive national fisheries policy that demonstrates real commitment to resource conservation”.

My point is that just last week the auditor general in his report said very clearly that the department has stated that its mandate is conservation of this fishery resource base and that is implied in current legislation. Nevertheless we found—

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from the Bloc. He obviously knows a lot about the subject and I believe in the last Parliament was also involved in this committee.

It is important that we tell all of the story when we talk about transition. Leaving more money in people's hands, no matter what they are doing, is very important. A focus on retraining and a focus on fewer boats fishing is also crucial. All of the transition strategy cannot be based on income support.

People leaving Newfoundland, for example, is very sad indeed.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member for Vancouver Kingsway speak so well of my community of Campbell River, British Columbia. I recognize some of the very good work that is being done in that community.

As a matter of fact, the transition moneys that have been dedicated to Campbell River and North Island fisheries initiatives are probably some of the best spent moneys when it comes to training displaced workers than is spent anywhere in Canada right now.

The main program, out of a through put of 336 people, had a placement rate of 102 people, which is a virtually unheard of figure. It works out to something like a 30% success rate. That compares with a success rate for the northern cod adjustment recovery program of 5%.

The best numbers that I have been able to come up with for the TAGS retraining component are closer to 1%. I recognize direct comparisons like that cannot be made. Nevertheless, the program in Campbell River is being looked at by many as one that should be emulated in many regards.

Certainly I am a proponent of that. I think when the federal government decides that it is going to allocate money, we want full accountability, a demonstrated set of measurable standards to which we will operate and to try, in one way or another, get a return on our investment.

All of this, of course, has a very human dimension to it. One of the things that continue to concern me is that the government continues to make announcements of a nature that it has no plan or no commitment to meet later.

For example, we had an announcement of a $7.7 million retirement program for fishers on the coast. That announcement was made in January. We have some older fishermen who were very much interested in that. Their expectations were raised and now we see no commitment from the government to follow through on that.

Does the hon. member have any knowledge that there will be follow through from the federal government on that issue?