John M. Cummins

[Petitions, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and to present another petition calling on the government to reinstate the coast guard dive team.

The petitioners note that the coast guard dive team was withdrawn from service in February of this year and that it may have contributed to the death of Paul Sandhu. We are concerned because the service was instituted recognizing the fact that the Strait of Georgia is the busiest waterway in Canada. The petitioners feel that this dive team should be reinstated.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by residents of the lower mainland who wish to draw the attention of the House to their concern that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has disbanded the coast guard dive team at Sea Island in Richmond.

The coast guard dive team provided a valuable service to people who were on the waters of the Georgia Strait which is one of the busiest waterways in the country. Shortly after the dive team was disbanded a young man died who may have been saved if that dive team had have been in place. The petitioners call upon parliament to reinstate the coast guard dive team.

[Fisheries, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the lobster food fishery is a failed Liberal policy now rejected by the Department of Justice. There is no aboriginal right to a food fishery for lobster. If there were, this policy would be an abject failure because it fails to meet the supreme court's objective of reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. Rather this food fishery leads to isolation and confrontation.

Who speaks for the government on a legal basis for the lobster food fishery? Is it the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Justice?

[Fisheries, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans denied the assertion made by the Department of Justice that there was no legal basis for a lobster food fishery in St. Mary's Bay. Let me remind him of what justice lawyers said:

Prior to contact with Europeans, harvesting lobster for food—from St. Mary's Bay was never an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal group.

That is to say, there is no aboriginal right to a lobster food fishery. Does the minister of fisheries agree with the legal advice from justice or not?

[Fisheries, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it clear to the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives. Let me quote from the justice department's submission to the federal court. It states:

(The Department of Justice) specifically denies that the (Shubenacadie Band), their predecessors or the Mi'kmaq Indians in Nova Scotia fished lobster for food, social or ceremonial purposes before or at the time of European contact in St. Mary's Bay or at all.

In other words, the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia do not enjoy an aboriginal right to harvest lobster for food. Why does the minister allow this lobster food fishery when it has been so clearly rejected by the Department of Justice?

[Fisheries, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today's newspapers say that violent lobster wars are likely to begin next week in St. Mary's Bay. The minister of fisheries is to blame for this pending confrontation. He has created an expectation for a food fishery that has no basis in law and opened the door to this dispute by refusing to accept Department of Justice legal advice.

Why has the minister of fisheries rejected legal advice from the justice department and moved to proceed with a fishery that can only end in confrontation and conservation concerns?

[Petitions, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from residents in my riding and elsewhere who draw to the attention of the House their displeasure with the government for disbanding the coast guard dive team which operated out of Richmond, British Columbia.

The removal of the dive team causes the public to be put at risk. The fact that the coast guard dive team was disbanded may have contributed to the death of Paul Sandhu. The petitioners believe that more lives could be lost if the dive team remains disbanded. They call on the government to reinstate the dive team.

[Fisheries, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying lobster boats, licences and gear because he said that the Marshall decision recognized a treaty right to harvest lobster.

The Department of Justice lawyers, in federal court, disagree with the minister. They deny that natives have a constitutionally protected right to harvest lobster.

Which is it? Who is speaking for the government on treaty rights to harvest lobster? Is it the minister of fisheries or is it the Department of Justice? Who is speaking for the government?

[Fisheries, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for months now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been refusing to provide or to make public his department's legal opinion on the Marshall decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We now know why he has refused. Department of Justice lawyers in the federal court have taken a position on the Marshall decision contrary to the stated public position of the minister.

Would the minister confirm that justice department lawyers acting on his behalf in the federal court in Nova Scotia have denied that natives have a treaty right to harvest lobster?

[Tomato Industry, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it took the government seven months to react to the U.S. protectionist blockade against P.E.I. potatoes.

Greenhouse tomato producers across the country cannot afford to have the government take that long to protect their interests from American protectionist actions.

The latest frivolous case against tomatoes is just the last in a long list of cases, including potatoes and softwood lumber. Why has the government failed to prevent the latest unprovoked protectionist attack against Canadian tomato producers?