moved that Bill C-302, an act to to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nova Scotia.
I believe if members look carefully and examine what has happened since the election last year, this is the first major fisheries bill to be introduced in the House. I am very pleased that it is mine and coming from the opposition side of this House.
This sends out a certain signal to the fisheries community. I do not think the government has been listening carefully to what is happening in the fishing community.
Canada has been abused by other countries in terms of offshore fishing. Successive governments have never really stood up for our fishermen and outlined the rights of fishermen. That is what this bill is intended to do. It is the fishers bill of rights. I know the word fishers is more politically correct today but I am from the old school. I still use the term fishermen. I hope my colleague from Quebec forgives me.
What I am attempting to do with this bill is give fishermen the right to be consulted. Examine what has happened on the east and west coasts and with Great Lakes fishing. We are also talking about Lake Winnipeg.
Fisheries from coast to coast are in desperate straits. What they need is some protection. What we have to do is consult with the fishermen. I am convinced that had we consulted with fishermen from day one we would not be in the state we are in today where on both coasts of this country we are into a situation of vanishing stocks.
We have allowed foreign overfishing for years. As a result we have a fishery in Atlantic Canada that is almost broke. Cod have virtually disappeared. Groundfish in some areas have virtually disappeared.
I am not standing up to blame the present government because that would be wrong. I am not standing up blaming the government I was part of from 1988 to 1993 because that would be wrong.
It has been a succession of governments, regardless of political stripe, making errors along the way but never really standing up for fishermen. Now we have a fisheries on the east coast that is virtually in collapse.
The other part of this bill I think fishermen will take a keen interest in and support is that when support programs for fishermen are being negotiated they have to be at the table.
Whether they are talking about support programs to move them from fisheries into something else or to buy back their licences, they have to be consulted from day one. That has never happened.
Where was the consultation from the very beginning in terms of the TAGS program? It was a program basically invented in Ottawa. Again, I am not blaming any government. It was invented by bureaucrats and administered by bureaucrats. From the very beginning there was no consultation with fishermen.
The other problem I see where it would have made a big difference is on the conservation side if fishermen had been consulted. There is no secret that in the early days of international overfishing our fishermen knew what was happening. They saw huge quotas granted to outsiders, outside countries coming into Canada and fishing our stocks. The result was well known by fishermen at that time as to what would happen. It is like the old story about Canadians. We are much too polite to tell it like it is.
I remember the story of a Canadian in New York. When a New Yorker stepped on his toe the Canadian looked at the New Yorker and said “excuse me”. The New Yorker said “you must be Canadian”. He asked why. “Because you are the only people in the world who apologize if someone steps on your toe”. Is that not what we have done internationally?
I can remember when Premier Tobin stood up internationally for fishermen. I was the first one to applaud him. The former fisheries minister, Mr. Crosbie, was very congratulatory as well. We had a politician who for the first time in recent Canadian history stood up and told it the way it was.
We might debate whether the outcome of that was successful. At least the international community heard us. All politics aside, it is something we should have done years ago. What the fisheries minister was doing at the time was listening to those people he represented regardless of political stripe. That is what we have to do.
Testimony was heard by the fisheries committee of what some of our fishermen go through in terms of income and cost of getting on the water or attempting to catch fish that are not there. Some of this is absolutely outrageous.
Mr. Fortin on November 27 gave his testimony to the fisheries committee. I use his testimony to show just how ridiculous the situation is. This year he caught $40,000 worth of fish, gross. His earnings were $16,000, of which he paid $5,500 in fishing expenses, $5,400 in fuel, oil and other things, $5,525 in repairs because they were out of luck, $4,775 for electronic equipment, $1,500 in groceries because they live on the water for days. He paid $4,000 in car insurance because he has a family to support at home. He paid $1,400 for the CSST and $2,400 for other expenses.
Then there was interest on the loan he had to take out from the credit union and taxes. That is 25% of the boat payment. He has a deficit of $30,000 and $10,000 in expenses, and they still want to take his TAGS benefit back. He said he cannot accept that.
Who in this House could accept that? I think it goes right back to the bill I brought into the House. Again I stress it is the first major fisheries bill to hit the House since the election of last year. There is a deficit on that side of the House in terms of what it could do today to pay attention to fishermen, the people the government is supposedly representing back home.
That is just a small example of what has happened over the years. What we have to do in the House is say fishermen have certain rights that cannot be taken away by governments. When rights are taken away to fish and to make a living, they are to make sure there is adequate compensation. When the compensation package is decided upon fishermen will be at the table. They will be there helping us make the decisions. It will not be left to bureaucrats in their ivory towers in Halifax or in Ottawa. It will be in consultation with fishermen.
I will pass over the remainder of my time to my colleague from Nova Scotia. I am sure he can carry on this debate. I thank the House for waiting for me to arrive. I know the previous debate collapsed a bit early. I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. member for South Shore.