Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Charlotte, who sponsored this bill. It is refreshing to see that some people are concerned about the fishers.
I would like to remind the House that the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans promised last fall, in response to a question from the Conservatives, that a fisheries policy would be tabled in February of this year. We have not seen it yet.
I must also remind the House that the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Desautels, also recommended that Canada develop such a policy. In its absence, we are currently faced with administrative chaos at the hands of the federal government.
I too have some reservations about this bill, but at least someone has managed to manoeuvre through the system and to introduce a highly worthwhile bill. This is very interesting.
Introducing legislation that will give fishers a hand in assessing stocks is very intelligent. Allowing fishers to take part in preserving fish stocks is very intelligent. I do, however, have misgivings about the setting of quotas and about licensing.
As for the administration of public fishing rights, I too would like to see fishers protected. We have to agree in committee on whether it is to protect currently active fishers from any discretionary power the minister of fisheries presently enjoys under the law, which he tried to consolidate in the former Bill C-62.
Those fishers still active are satisfied, but they are always afraid the minister will upset the balance they have achieved. I think it vital that their rights be protected, but, if the public is going to be allowed to fish, the circumstances under which others may enter must be defined.
What I find interesting in the second part of the bill is the discussion of establishing the right of fishers to be informed in advance of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood. I imagine the member is referring to native fishing. Personally, I think it makes good sense to be informed.
However, I will link this with the second right the bill attempts to establish, namely the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly. Let us look at native fishing. I believe in the rule of law, in that, if native people are entitled by treaty to certain things, I am not going to take them away. Except that it is not the fault of the non native fishers and it is not up to them today to pay for everything.
If Canada ever recognizes the rights by treaty, we must be able to compensate the non native fishers currently there. It has to be done systematically.
On the subject of the unfair abrogation of rights, reference must be made to moratoriums. When the minister of fisheries establishes a moratorium, prohibits certain types of fishing, fishers who have always earned their living from this sort of fishing lose their rights and have their lives changed. I think that warrants compensation.
I refer to the famous income support program, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, known as TAGS. We are two months away from its expiry, and fishers are still waiting to find out what will happen.
The members opposite continue to give mixed signals, telling us that maybe the program will be extended and maybe it will not. If such rights had been established, it would be automatic. If the bill goes to committee, we could suggest a few things for members to add.
We in committee saw the nasty tricks the government can play, how it tries to weasel out of its responsibility. If this needs to be formalized, we have a suggestion for members.
The points I would like to develop further concern the establishment of quotas, that is, allowing fishers to take part in the establishment of quotas, and the awarding of licences.
It is not that I am opposed in any way, but going back to the spirit of TAGS and my reading of it, which I shared with the fisheries minister, the fisheries minister admitted in the House last fall that the reason TAGS had not worked, and was a passive rather than an active program, was precisely because Ottawa had not involved the provinces in the strategy's development.
It is therefore important for the provinces as well to be allowed to help establish quotas and award licences.
Canada, a member of NAFO, claims to be a world leader when it comes to oceans management. Canada supplies NAFO with biological data and it is through participation and the sharing of biological information that it is possible to work out a conservation policy as well as decide on what should be caught and what should be left in the water to ensure the sustainability of the resource.
I will talk only about eastern Canada and leave the western part of the country up to the members who represent it. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean in zones 2GH and 3KL—for fishers in the know—why could Canada not operate along NAFO lines and work in concert with the provinces, sharing biological information in order to ensure that there is a conservation plan? The provinces, once they have established the quotas, could then issue licences, that is distribute the resources within their territory.
We must always bear in mind this rule of thumb: every fisher at sea creates employment for approximately five people on shore. The biggest problem, in terms of what we are looking at today, is in the provinces' backyards right now. I think some connections should be made between the two.
The secretary of state listed earlier the five principles that guide the department. He mentioned environmentally sustainable fisheries, economically viable fisheries and talked about Bill C-27, criticizing the opposition for withdrawing its support. What he failed to mention however—and I am glad the hon. member of the Reform Party picked this up—is that the opposition members on the committee wanted to call in as a witness the father of former Bill C-29, Brian Tobin. He is the one who drafted the legislation to preserve straddling stocks in the last Parliament.
This government is making sure this legislation does not have any teeth. My concern is that we end up with nothing. When, across the way, they brag, giving lip service to using to preserve the resource, I think they are taking kid gloves, not to say a 100-foot pole, to avoid taking their responsibilities in this respect, as they did with TAGS.