House of Commons Hansard #2 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fishing.

Topics

Special DebateGovernment Orders

11:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the final dying moments of this debate.

I begin by congratulating the minister of fisheries who in a rare show of interest and willingness to listen to opposition members has stayed here in the House. Even against the advice of some members of the House that he should be in New Brunswick or in Nova Scotia, he has stayed here and has genuinely listened to and participated in the debate. I and other members of this party appreciate that effort and show of good faith.

I must take him up on a comment he made in his remarks that he had acted quickly. We have to revisit the chronology of what has taken place.

On September 17 the Marshall decision was handed down by the supreme court. He said that he acted within three days. But what happened? Within three days the Canadian public learned that the House of Commons was to be prorogued so he did not have the benefit of the wisdom of members who were very close to the issue, like my colleagues from South Shore and West Nova and other members of the House who have greatly benefited and even enlightened the minister to a degree during the course of the debate.

From that point we know that on September 27 the minister spoke of implementing some form of a response, a government action, to inform all stakeholders of what the government intended to do. That did not come about.

On October 9 the chiefs of the aboriginal communities stated that they were willing to embark on the possibility of a moratorium. On October 13, after meeting with the minister, hours after he had departed the maritimes, the chiefs themselves imposed a moratorium. It was a self-imposed pre-emptive move to give the government time to respond and to formulate its response.

Sadly, communications have now completely broken down to the point where we know the moratorium is no longer in place. The chiefs have decided they will not abide by the self-imposed moratorium. That is problematic.

We can engage in all kinds of partisan rhetoric. It is very easy for the Reform and the NDP to cast aspersions on current and past governments, having never had the luxury of having to make those tough decisions. It is a very easy thing to do, making statements that are not true. It does not make them true simply because they are said in this place.

The clock is ticking. There is more than just preservation of stocks at stake; there is preservation of human lives at stake. The potential for violence is real. It has already been played out in certain communities like Burnt Church and it is also on the tip of breaking out in parts of Nova Scotia, on the South Shore in particular and in parts of Cape Breton Island.

In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are many aboriginal participants already in the commercial fishery. There is the ability for peaceful entry into this industry. That has been displayed in the past. That offer has been extended in the past and I assume it will be extended in the future.

Timeliness is the issue now. I know the minister is sincere in his efforts and in his words to find the solutions, but there is little time to waste.

The minister must be proactive. We support him in his efforts to find the solutions, but those solutions will only come from the input of all stakeholders, including aboriginals and non-aboriginal fishers who have an equally important stake in the outcome. Given what the supreme court has handed down, given this dark abyss that is now before us, it does not just pertain to fisheries, as we have heard many times in the debate this evening. This goes far beyond one single industry.

This is the tip of the iceberg and the government is steaming toward that iceberg unless it acts quickly. With the closing moments of the debate I implore the minister to continue on the road he is on, but to do so in a very pragmatic and measured way, and to listen to the stakeholders who are equally sincere and have the greatest stake in the resolution of the matter. I encourage him to do so with post-haste. We do support him in that and I sincerely wish him the very best in finding the solutions that will appease all of those who are looking for a peaceful resolution to the matter.

Special DebateGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of my colleagues who represent areas which are farther north of my riding in Nova Scotia.

His previous colleague asked about the moratorium on the aboriginal fishery and he just said that what we require are peaceful negotiations in that regard.

Does he believe that if the government enforced a moratorium on the aboriginal aspects of the fishery that it would lead and be conducive to peaceful negotiations and dialogue with the non-native people?

Special DebateGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, obviously an even-handed approach is needed. One approach being suggested, that we would single out the aboriginals who have now been given this right by the supreme court and attempt to enforce it in a way that is unfettered, is unacceptable.

Obviously the minister is not about to single out one of the two groups in the divide. That I suggest would only lead to further confrontation and further violence. The difficulty is that this is a tinderbox that is absolutely on the verge of an explosion.

I do not mean to restate the obvious, but the minister has to act quickly. This is something that is going to get out of control like wildfire in an instant.

Special DebateGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, it being 12 o'clock midnight, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the House shall adjourn.

It being 12 o'clock midnight the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12.00 a.m.)