Mr. Speaker, it was with no pleasure that I left the fisheries committee this afternoon. The witnesses who appeared before the committee this afternoon were there at my request. When the government ganged up on the opposition to ensure that the committee could not insist Premier Tobin appear before it on a very important matter, we had to express our displeasure.
I am pleased to speak at second reading to Bill C-302. The bill put forward by the member for Charlotte contains three main elements. The three elements are: protecting the public right to fish, involving Canadians who fish for a living in the consultative and decision making process, and establishing that compensation is due when fishing rights are abrogated by decisions not involving the affected parties.
I strongly support the public right to fish, which has existed in common law since the Magna Carta in 1215. It should be common sense that if such a right has existed for so long there should be no need to implement legislation to preserve this right. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This government would prefer to obliterate this right because it is totally compromised by its inability to provide statutory authority to its divisive aboriginal fisheries strategy pilot sales program.
In the last parliament the government introduced a new fisheries act that would have given the minister the ability to grant a private right to fish for commercial or sports purposes to any group currently in political favour. It is fortunate that Bill C-62 died in the last parliament.
Reality does not always reflect common sense. We like to think rights do not need to be spelled out because everybody knows we have them. We think the rights apply to all, but in fact they only apply to this Liberal government because it is playing the power game. We can see from our many statutes that the power groups only sometimes agree to give rights to other groups. That is why these groups fight for and obtain things like the public right of access to fish.
This is what happened. The king assumed he had the right to do whatever he wanted with the fishery. The public got together, created the Magna Carta and told the king otherwise. That is why the public right to fish is a written right. It is a hard won right and it must be carefully guarded or this power group will take it away when we are not looking.
The fishery is a public resource and the responsibility of the minister is for conservation, management and protection. The minister does not have the right to decide who gets the fish. However, in the management of the fishery there will have to be decisions made about who gets licences and when the different fisheries should be opened and closed. In making these management decisions fishermen should be consulted and permitted to contribute to the decision making process.
Because resources such as fish are limited, we the public have to decide who can access them or who has the right to catch fish. That is why we have limited entry licensing and designated core fishermen. But we have delegated the responsibility for making licensing and opening decisions to the government. After all, we think that is what government is for. Unfortunately, the government has a political and power based agenda that influences its decision making. We saw this most clearly, as I stated, with the racially divisive AFS introduced in 1992.
Do we want to delegate this kind of decision making to one person alone, to one person who may be influenced by specific interest groups who do not see the big picture? I do not think so. Bill C-302 tries to prevent this situation from arising. I agree with its broad intent.
The preamble presumes that Canadians who fish for a living are the most knowledgeable about the fishery. Although those who fish are certainly in this group, there are others such as scientists, social policy makers, DFO officials and field workers who have a great deal to contribute. In other words, good advice can come from a diverse group but must include those involved who fish for their livelihood.
In clause 4 of the bill fishers are given the right to be heard in the process of government decisions respecting fish stock assessment, fish conservation, quotas, licensing or the public right to fish. This right should be established and is not exclusive of other parties. The government would be under no obligation to vigorously follow the advice of the fishermen, but it would certainly move the agenda along from the current situation. Current governments are notorious for pretending to involve people in decision making and then doing what they want anyway.
Clause 5 proposes items on compensation. What is needed in all government activity is transparency. If people see what the government is doing and there is no secret as to why things are done the way they are, I believe that people will not feel their rights are being trampled on. They will rarely feel the need to continue to fight the results.
If the provisions are mandatory and if they are carried out, then there should be no losses, as contemplated by clause 5. There should be stern consequences for any government that tries to abrogate the public right to fish. But as we know from experience, monetary consequences such as compensating people for the loss of their rights do not protect the right itself.
I have been a vocal supporter of the public right to fish, as well as an opponent of ministerial discretion in making up rules about who gets to fish and who does not.
I fully support the intent of Bill C-302. However, there are some minor changes that I would like to see. It is important that those making a living from the fishery do not have their rights abrogated, leading to a loss, without consultation, if they have not been involved in the whole process.
It is important in our ongoing battle to keep the government from making further inroads into long established principles for the benefit of the short-sighted government of the day.