Debates of Dec. 13th, 1999

Lucienne Robillard President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

moved:

Motion No. 118

That Vote 5a in the amount of $3,500,000, under VETERANS AFFAIRS—Grants and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.

(The House divided on Motion No. 118, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Lucienne Robillard President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

moved:

Motion No. 119

That Vote 10a in the amount of $785,928, under VETERANS AFFAIRS—Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, be concurred in.

(The House divided on Motion No. 119, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Lucienne Robillard President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

moved:

That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, except any vote disposed of earlier today, be concurred in.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Lucienne Robillard Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

moved that Bill C-21, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Lucienne Robillard Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

John Williams St. Albert, AB

Mr. Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that this bill is in the usual form?

Lucienne Robillard Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Chairman, the form of this bill is the same as that passed in the previous supply period, including a separate schedule for those agencies with multi-year lapsing appropriations.

(Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to)

(Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to)

(Preamble agreed to)

(Title agreed to)

(Bill reported)

Lucienne Robillard Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Peter Stoffer Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, for over two and a half years my party and I have been arguing with the Government of Canada that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is one of the most out of control departments in the entire country. Here are a few examples of where that department is completely out of control.

Recently the amalgamation of the coast guard resulted in one of the coast guard vessels going into Saint John harbour to hold a gala party for correctional officers. Also, since 1988 $4.2 billion has been spent restructuring the east coast fishery to no avail.

When the Marshall decision came down, it was quite obvious that DFO did not have a plan. We said from the beginning when the decision came down that DFO and the Government of Canada should have been prepared. Now we know from internal documents acquired through access to information by reporter Kevin Carmichael that the government had a plan but it did not want to present it to anyone because it did not want to affect, fear or shame anyone in its decision.

It is quite obvious that the government abrogated its responsibility and abrogated its duty to the people of Canada and the aboriginal people of Atlantic Canada.

The current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has constantly stated in the House that it is better to negotiate than it is to litigate. After the Sparrow decision, the Delgamuukw decision and now the Marshall decision, it seems the only recourse that aboriginal people have is constantly to go to the courts to meet their end means.

If the government truly believed in the fact that it is better to negotiate than to litigate, then I tell the government right now that it had better deal with the issue of non-status aboriginal people when it comes to status aboriginal people, especially in my home province of Nova Scotia. The non-status aboriginals believe quite firmly that the Marshall decision applies to them. There is legal opinion that says it may very well apply to them as well.

As well, the government is focusing on just the inshore aspects of the Marshall decision. We put it quite clearly to the government, and we wish it would stand up in the House and speak to the fact that the Marshall decision should apply to the inshore, the midshore and the offshore sectors. It should not be just one sector of the fishing community that bears the brunt of the decision. It should be a more co-operative approach toward all the fishing regimes so that the aboriginal people can feel like full partners in this industry with fisheries and oceans.

It was no surprise when the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans left the department fairly quickly. I have said it before and I will say it again that if DFO was on the stock exchange, one could almost accuse the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of insider trading because he seemed to leave in such a hurry. We know very well that the former minister, who is now the Minister of the Environment, was fully aware of how the Marshall decision may have come about for the people of Nova Scotia and especially the aboriginal communities of Atlantic Canada.

Because the government was not showing leadership or foresight in the decision making process, there were incidents in West Nova. There were incidents down in Miramichi at Burnt Church. People threatened one another. Boats were burned. It was a really ugly scene in the maritime provinces.

It all could have been avoided had the government only shown some leadership. We have asked time and time again for the government, especially the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to show leadership when it comes to fishing concerns in Atlantic Canada, especially when it comes to the integration of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and a common property resource.

We have many ideas on this side of the House on how it should go. We only wish that the government would listen to what we are saying so that all people in Atlantic Canada could share in a common property resource.

Lawrence O'Brien Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the approach the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken to address the Marshall decision.

Much has been made by the opposition about the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not been on the east coast personally dealing with first nations on commercial access.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appointed Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault as chief federal representative and assistant federal representative respectively, not because he wanted to send a B team to the Atlantic, as the opposition has suggested, but because these gentlemen bring to the task outstanding qualifications that are so important to the negotiation process.

Mr. MacKenzie has a background in negotiations with aboriginal groups, having been involved in land claims negotiations in my riding of Labrador as the chief federal negotiator for the Labrador Inuit land claims process. He also has extensive experience in holding consultations with diverse groups throughout Atlantic Canada and so is familiar with the issues these stakeholders are faced with.

Mr. Thériault has been involved with the Atlantic commercial fishery in a variety of capacities for the past 25 years. He has been a spokesperson, an adviser and a consultant in a variety of fora related to fisheries issues.

It is for these reasons that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans determined that they could provide a very important function in negotiating arrangements for the next fishing season that will accommodate the Marshall decision while taking into account the concerns and issues of the existing commercial fishing sector.

Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Thériault are now engaged in the process of discussing with aboriginal leaders—