Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-302.
The bill that is before the House is very laudable in terms of its intentions but is seriously flawed in terms of its approach. I can even agree with the intent of the member opposite in terms of what he is trying to do through a fisheries bill of rights. I say laudable in its intention because the hon. member is as obviously motivated by a concern for Canadian fishermen and Canadian fishing communities as we are.
I am sorry to say that this afternoon when we were dealing with a very important bill, the United Nations fishery agreement, his colleagues walked out of the committee. Two very important witnesses were before us. We were trying to deal with the issue of straddling stocks and getting a United Nations fishery agreement through in legislation so that Canada can be one of the initial 30 to ratify the agreement.
I am disappointed and concerned about the opposition members walking out. They should not be playing political games with an issue that is so important to fishermen by walking out of the committee when we had two very important witnesses before us.
Let me deal with the bill. It is seriously flawed in its approach which would not help Canada's fishing communities deal with the realities they face. In all seriousness it could well undermine Canada's conservation efforts and damage the fisheries. I know that is not the member's intent. I am sure he intended otherwise, but that is the reality of what could happen with the bill.
Several issues need to be addressed, in fact too many for me to cover in 10 minutes. However, let us start with the wording of the bill which suggests that these communities would be better served or somehow protected from hardship if fishermen had certain legislated rights:
—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.
We cannot know exactly what is in his mind but perhaps the hon. member thinks fishermen need protection from us or from supposedly arbitrary decisions by distant officials in governments that affect their lives profoundly but over which they feel they have no control.
We can all sympathize with anyone who feels this way, especially when they face hardship as a result of certain decisions being made by governments and fisheries managers.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been holding very extensive hearings across Canada since last September. I believe in November we held hearings in Newfoundland and eastern Canada. We have held hearings on the west coast. We have held hearings in the eastern Arctic. We have held hearings in the Great Lakes region.
I believe the committee will be coming down with very strong recommendations related to all those points that the member is talking about which concern the rights of fishermen. I think we will find when the committee reports that there will be sound recommendations with respect to finding ways to ensure that fishermen are consulted, that their rights are protected, that fisheries conservation remains a priority, that fishermen are involved in the discussions and consultations on fishing quotas and so on.
What fishermen need and want is the chance to make a good living on the sea, not just for today and tomorrow but for the next decade and the one after that. That is what this government is trying to do with its various efforts.
Fishermen not only want that for themselves, they want it for their children and their grandchildren. That is what they need.
Depending at the moment on where they live and what they fish, they may face reduced quotas and closed seasons. We recognize that. Or they may, on the other hand, depending on where they live and what they fish, already be seeing the benefits of the government's efforts over the last few years to restructure the fishery.
The last member who spoke mentioned the lobster fishery. Although we had to take some strong measures this year to ensure that lobsters are there for the future, the lobster fishery is indeed quite healthy. We have to ensure that the egg production is there for the future, but it has been the mainstay in terms of the fishery in Atlantic Canada.
In Atlantic Canada, even with the groundfish turndown, which we have learned some lessons from, the economic returns as a result of the expanding shell fishery and lobster fishery have been increasing dramatically and providing good incomes for those fishermen and those communities. We are already seeing some benefits from some of the actions the government has taken.
Whether we like it or not, no legislation is really going to change the reality. The reality is that we cannot exploit the sea and its resources as generations before us have done. It is a very complex industry which today's government has to manage very carefully, with the best scientific evidence available, for the benefit of everyone: for the fishermen, for the communities, for the industries that utilize those fish stocks which are caught, and for the industries that provide the equipment and the technology to the fishing industry. These industries are not only on the three coasts, they are in central Canada as well, in terms of the economic spinoffs from the fishing industry.
In this day and age, with the kind of technology and equipment that is available, in many cases decisions must be made quickly. This bill, although I know it is not its intent, would in fact institute a review process that would be extremely cumbersome and time consuming. The implementation of necessary and quick decisions could be delayed until all appeals had been exhausted. The most important element concerning fisheries management in the future, although it is not the intent of the bill, is that it could be brought to a complete standstill.
I know that is not the desire of the member opposite, nor is it his intent, but that is the reality of where Bill C-302 could lead us. It could drive fisheries management to a standstill.
I will tell the House of the five principles that guide the government. First, the fishery must be environmentally sustainable. Second, it must be economically viable. Third, it must balance harvest capacity with the available resource. Fourth, participants must have a greater role in the making of decisions, and we are really working on that. Fifth, our fishing industry must be internationally competitive.
This government is moving forward on those principles. Conservation is a key priority. I am sure that in its hearings process the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will continue to push us on those principles and foster us with even greater ideas down the road.
However, I am sorry to say this bill will not help us in achieving the principles this government wants to move forward on.