Wayne Easter

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would very much love to answer that question.

If members will recall what I said to the member for Delta—South Richmond and what I said in my remarks, it was that the government was being proactive. The government recognized in the Sparrow decision the right of the fishery for food and ceremonial purposes.

We recognized as a government that there may be other treaty rights coming along and that we had to involve the aboriginal community in the fishery sector. We took a proactive strategy by trying to do that through the aboriginal fishing strategy to bring the aboriginal community in, in a managed way. That is what we were doing and we were moving well on it. That is what it is all about.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said tonight but we need to take a look at the motion itself and pull things into perspective. The motion reads:

That this House take note of the difficulties in Canadian fisheries, especially as complicated by the Queen and Marshall case and its implications for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples and for the future management of natural resources.

Some have taken sides on that motion tonight. I want to specifically say that I am not taking sides. We have to recognize the decision and try to figure out a strategy as a government and as members of the parliament of Canada on how we implement that decision in a fair and reasonable way and ensure that all those players who fish and make their livelihoods at other natural resources can do so in a way that conserves the stocks and live in reasonable prosperity.

As the motion says, we are indeed faced with a serious crisis. Some members have mentioned this evening that this crisis seems to be escalating with the potential collapse of the voluntary moratorium negotiated by the minister last Sunday. I have talked to the minister a number of times about the issue. I know he had hoped that goodwill and tolerance would prevail. Over the weekend the minister had gone a long way to achieving a satisfactory interim solution.

Given the news we heard in the media tonight that may have broken down. I would appeal and I hope others would join me in appealing to the Mi'kmaq chiefs and others in those communities to let the agreement of last Sunday stand. What we really need is peace in the water and a timeframe in which to institute a regulatory plan to manage the fishery situation in a reasonable way.

The seriousness of the situation is perhaps outlined best by a constituent of mine, Barry Murray, who is a fisherman in the Malpeque Bay area. He wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will quote sections from his letter because it outlines the seriousness. He wrote:

There are individuals with strong feelings on both sides of this argument, and these personalities are at a heightened state of volatility that will take very few more sparks to ignite violence. Once started, this slippery slope may quite possibly devastate both communities. I am not trying to exaggerate.

There is potential for a lobster stock crisis and community unrest that would rival the cod crisis of the early eighties.

He closed by saying:

Mr. Minister, please close these out of control aboriginal fisheries for conservation reasons until such a time that an agreement can be put in place that will amply protect the stocks and protect our fishing communities.

Mr. Murray outlines the serious volatility and the serious situation in terms of the lobster fish stocks in Malpeque Bay, the area he knows best.

I do not mind admitting I am disappointed that the supreme court did not grant a timeframe. I do not know why, whether it is the responsibility of justice lawyers or the supreme court, but I am disappointed that the supreme court did not grant a timeframe within which to institute the regulatory plan to address the treaty rights.

It is important for us to look at the facts tonight. We are hearing all kinds of things, and people are basing their interpretations of what the supreme court said on the media instead of on reading the judgment.

What did the decision say? The supreme court found that Donald Marshall had a treaty right to fish for and to sell eels, which extended beyond the already established right of aboriginal people to fish for food and ceremonial purposes.

The court also stated that this right to sell fish would be carried out within certain limits. Section 58 of the decision states:

What is contemplated is not a right to trade generally for economic gain but rather a right to trade for necessaries. The treaty right is a regulated right and can be contained by regulation within its proper limits.

The court indicated that necessaries had been defined as moderate livelihood which according to the court in section 59 includes “such basics as food, clothing and housing supplemented by a few amenities but not the accumulation of wealth. It addresses day to day needs”.

Section 61 of the decision places the limitations of the Marshall decision within context. According to this section it is very important that “catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood for individual Mi'kmaq families at present day standards can be established by regulation and enforced without violating the treaty right. In that case regulations would accommodate the treaty right”.

That is what the decision states. Members opposite have accused the minister and the government of not acting on the issue. The fact is that the government had been proactive. The aboriginal fishing strategy has been in place since 1992. Because of the Sparrow decision it was moving along the line and doing what the supreme court now recognizes as a right.

The aboriginal fishing strategy was the government's response to the Sparrow decision. Through the aboriginal fishing strategy the Government of Canada and DFO were buying licenses from retiring fishermen and turning them over to the aboriginal community so it could have a livelihood on the water as the supreme court said is its right. Thirty-two million dollars annually has been spent on the aboriginal fishing strategy. The member from Delta can like it or lump it. Those are the facts.

The court did affirm certain rights of the Mi'kmaq that originated with the treaties extending back to 1760. What is at issue here is not the ruling but how to respond in a balanced way to the aboriginal community and the non-aboriginal community so they can survive and prosper together.

I applaud the minister for his efforts through dialogue and co-operation. However, if things might be happening tonight and the fishing effort is above the amount anticipated when the minister made his decision last Sunday, I believe he should consider using his authority under section 43 of the Fisheries Act in the interest of conservation. At the moment the impact of even a small fishing effort on lobsters could be serious.

Let us we look at what has been happening with the government over the last number of years. We could go back to a release by the former minister of fisheries on April 22, 1998. It outlines that the November 1995 report of the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council advised that lobster fishermen were “taking too much and leaving too little”.

As a result of the FRCC report and as the minister of the day decided that we needed to double lobster egg production in the lobster fishing areas, new conservation measures were instituted. Escape mechanisms were put on traps. Lobster tariffs and sizes were increased. V-notching was considered. Quite a number of management measures were imposed upon the industry. It is serious.

I maintain that if there is any lobster fishing over and above what the minister anticipated on his agreement reached last Sunday, then he has the authority to act under section 43 of the Fisheries Act. He should take that authority and institute that action to prevent jeopardizing the future of the lobster fishery.

[Canadian Coast Guard, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the helicopter, no specific decision has been taken on it. I can assure the hon. member that search and rescue are definitely a priority of the government.

The Canadian Coast Guard has a proud Canadian heritage. We have tried to build on that heritage by making better use of limited resources and ensuring they are more efficient. The bottom line is ensuring safety for boaters and fishers in the country.

We as the Canadian government want to build on the strong Canadian Coast Guard heritage.

[Tancook Island Ferry Wharf, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the parliamentary secretary answered basically the same question, that we would take this question under advisement and get back to him with an answer on the specifics of it.

[Canadian Coast Guard, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has made it very clear many times. We are not in terms of our program review and cost cutting exercise putting lives at risk. We are finding a more efficient and better way of doing things and ensuring that all the safety factors are in place so that fishermen can fish. On top of that, we are providing better management plans so that the fishermen will have the fisheries in the future in order to gain a decent livelihood.

[Canadian Coast Guard, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has made it very clear many times in the House that safety is and will remain a priority with the coast guard. When the various reviews are done, that information will be provided.

[Fisheries And Oceans, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this was not a sell-out, it was a gain for Canada. The endowment fund helps science and helps habitat. We have moved fish to Canada. In terms of Fraser River sockeye they have been in place for the last number of years. There have been 4.1 million more fish for Canadians.

There is an article which sums it up best on the steelhead and salmon issue said:

Now the 20th century closes with the courageous actions of David Anderson, proud Canadian to the core, determined to do right by his country's rivers and oceans and the wild salmon they nurture.

[Fisheries And Oceans, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite feels an obligation to defend the actions of the B.C. government, which were indefensible in terms of this situation.

There have been many processes over the years. There was government to government negotiation. There was an all-stakeholders process.

There was a multi-stakeholders process in which all people were brought in. It would always end up in deadlock. Strangway-Ruckleshaus recommended the government negotiations. We undertook those negotiations. We moved fish to Canada and now we have a deal that is good—

[Privilege, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said. He did send me a note yesterday saying that he would possibly be talking to the press based on the report. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what I sent back and I confirm it. I said “This report has not been tabled yet and I would advise you that if you talk on this report you are in breach of parliament, in my view”.

[Privilege, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given notice.

My question of privilege arises from a Canadian Press news story which appeared in today's Globe and Mail under the heading “Seal herds to be culled”. It gives its source as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands deliberately divulged information from an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans held yesterday morning, at which the committee was discussing the draft report as related to our study of the east coast seal issue.

The story carried in the Globe and Mail reads as follows:

The size of Atlantic Canada's seal herd must be reduced to save depleted cod stocks, the Commons fisheries committee decided at a closed meeting yesterday where it rewrote a report on the industry.

The story continued:

“The committee, acting on recommendations from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, will urge the federal government to come up with a five year plan to reduce the size of the seal herd significantly”, said Reform fisheries critic Gary Lunn.

I draw the attention of the Speaker to citation 851 of Beauchesne's sixth edition which states:

When a committee chooses to meet in camera, all matters are confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what matters should be published, in which form and by whom.

The statement attributed to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was not delivered in the heat of debate in the House. This was not a mistake in judgment or any kind of oversight. This was a deliberate act, and one which demonstrates a disrespect and contempt for the privileges not only of every member of the Standing Committee for Fisheries but of every member of the House.

As well, I was informed that there was a major interview on CBC in Newfoundland also divulging information that was talked about in that in camera meeting.

If you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.