Debates of Oct. 13th, 1999

Special Debate

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, on September 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Regina versus Marshall. The effect of that judgment is quite clear. The situation in law now is that before fisheries managers can lawfully open the fishery to others, the Mi'kmaq people must be accorded the opportunity to fully satisfy their rights for a moderate livelihood. In other words they are given a priority right to fish.

This follows from the order of priority set out in Sparrow and in other cases which establish firmly that aboriginal treaty rights have priority over general, commercial and sport fishing rights.

Moderate livelihood is defined as including such basics as food, clothing and housing supplemented by a few amenities, but not the accumulation of wealth. It simply addresses day to day needs. This definition is broad and hopelessly vague. It is likely that there are few existing commercial fishermen who enjoy any greater standard of living than that from the inshore fishery. These fishermen will now have to stand aside while each and every Mi'kmaw who chooses to go fishing does so and earns enough to achieve this level of income.

What happens if there is some doubt as to when to close the fishery? Our experience is quite simple. When in doubt fisheries managers will be inclined to err on the side of allowing too much Mi'kmaq fishing rather than too little. This has been our experience. It happens because non-aboriginal fishermen do not have constitutional remedies for infringement of their fishing rights as aboriginal fishermen do.

The practice of erring on the side of aboriginal fishing rights seems to have been adopted as a method of keeping DFO managers on safe ground and free of legal challenges to their decisions.

The present situation also allows for the courts to strike down the current regulations of the fishing rights of the Mi'kmaq because these regulations did not have any specific accommodation in regulation as a priority right. The minister's absolute discretion under the Fisheries Act, which is the basis for the current regulations, was not held to be adequate protection of the treaty right. Accordingly at the moment there is no valid regulation of the Mi'kmaq right. There is a legal vacuum. Unrestrained fishing can take place by the Mi'kmaq until such time as a valid regulatory regime can be put in place. That may take months or even years since consultation must take place beforehand.

Before I go any further I will look back at the situation in British Columbia because the experience there with preferential fishing rights accorded to natives is not a happy one. The problem in British Columbia was visited upon us by the Conservative government, in particular John Crosbie, minister of fisheries at the time. He allowed for a separate native commercial fishery in British Columbia in June 1992. There was a tragedy that year for fish stocks. The situation only worsened until 1994 when there was a complete breakdown in enforcement. We have encountered some of the lowest spawning escapement on the Fraser River in history.

As a result the Liberal government asked John Fraser, a former Minister of Fisheries and Speaker of the House, to investigate the management system in place on the Fraser River. He found that the natural disaster excuses the government had offered to be without much substance. It had said that the water was too high and the water was too warm. The fact of the matter was that the problem was visited on us because of the poor regulations which were in place, poor enforcement and so on of that native commercial fishery.

That was the experience of British Columbia. It has been a tragedy. Prior to 1992 the fishery on the Fraser River was a profitable one. This past year commercial fishing was completely closed on the Fraser River for the first time in history. That came about as a direct result of the aboriginal fishing policy and the commercial fishing regulations which were put in place by the government. There is no question about that.

Over time the government has blamed nature, acts of God: the water was too high; the water was too low; the water was too warm; the water was too cold; it was El Nino; it was La Nina, all these problems. When they look at that collapse they say it was El Nino in the north Pacific in the last couple of years.

What happened? Why was it that there were strong returns of sockeye to Port Alberni on Vancouver Island this year? Why is it that in Alaska they anticipated 25 million sockeye to return to Bristol Bay and we ended up with over 40 million? Those fish were swimming in the same waters in the north Pacific as the fish from Fraser River. Those returns came back strong. The only difference was the aboriginal fishing regulations in place on the Fraser River and the cutbacks by the government resulted in a lack of enforcement and a lack of proper monitoring of the fishery.

The minister talks about supreme court decisions and the effect they have on the government. Supreme court decisions are not made in isolation. The government was there and it was supposed to address the issue on behalf of all Canadians. It was supposed to present its case and especially the case of the fishermen who would be impacted by the decision to the court so the court could have something to base its judgment on.

What did the crown do, the crown being the Liberal government? In the first instance the crown expert witness described the prohibition on Mi'kmaq trading peltry with any other than the British as a Mi'kmaq right to trade. How we can get from a restriction on trading, which that was and which the truck houses were, to a right to trade is beyond me, but that point was conceded by the government.

Second, the expert witness conceded that the treaty right included a right to trade fish although peltry was the only commodity cited in the treaty and the price list agreed to by the chiefs and the British did not include fish.

How do we get from an agreement which does not include fish and which is a restriction on trading rights to a priority right to fish? I will tell the House how. The government had in place a policy on the west coast which gave to natives a priority right to fish. How can it have that kind of policy in place and sustained on one coast and then go to court and try to deny it on the other? It cannot be done and the government knows it. It did not do it and that is why we are in the jam we are in now.

There is another interesting oversight by the government. The crown also failed to enter into argument the public right to fish. The public right to fish has existed in British common law since the Magna Carta. The public right to fish guarantees all of us equal access to the fishery. That public right can only be broken by the House. It takes an act of parliament to allow for separate native commercial fisheries. That has not happened on the west coast. There is no act of parliament dealing with it. Those fisheries are operating illegally.

That argument should have been put to the court when the decision was argued so the court would understand the legal condition in which that treaty was signed. That treaty should not then have been interpreted as an exclusive right or as a priority right given the underlying right that we all enjoyed, the public right to fish.

The crown failed to enter evidence demonstrating the social and economic impact on the maritime fishery if the Mi'kmaq were awarded the right to fish commercially. The crown also failed to argue that a decision in favour of a commercial fishery on eels, there being no viable commercial fishery in the maritimes on eels, could result in a commercial fishery on other species such as lobster. The crown failed to introduce evidence such as the 1995 fisheries conservation council report which suggested that lobster were already overharvested so that any official entry into the fishery through a treaty would mean an existing participant in the public commercial fishery would have to be displaced.

In other words, the crown failed to represent to the court the situation that currently exists, a situation in which a fishery is already oversubscribed, in which there are already too many participants according to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and in which allowing the entry of others would require the displacement of those who are currently exercising rights to fish. That argument should have been put in place and it was not. The government overlooked it.

It is not the first time a tragic oversight by the government has happened in arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada. It happened in R. v Nikal, which I will not go into now because of time limits, but I will reference the recent Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Delgamuukw, the federal government supported aboriginal claims to self-government and the continued existence of aboriginal title. Although the Supreme Court of Canada did not deal with self-government, it did find in favour of unextinguished aboriginal title which continues to cause chaos throughout British Columbian resource industries. That is tragic. It caused the logging disputes we had this summer and the flagrant breaking of law, not to mention the hardship. The minister, himself, mentioned just moments ago that these rights would extend to logging, mining and so on.

There is chaos and turmoil in eastern Canada. Shortly after this decision came down, I offered the minister a reasonable and legal escape route. I sent it to him in a letter and I sent that letter to the provincial governments affected. I told him that what he should do first is to seek a stay of judgment and, second, to seek a rehearing of the case.

It is clear what the effect of a stay of judgment would be. It would simply allow for a cooling off period. It would have allowed the government time to pool its resources and to figure out what it was going to do with the situation it was faced with.

The second thing it would do is this. By asking for a rehearing it would have given the government, the attorneys general of the provinces involved and other stakeholders, whether they be fishermen's organizations, processing organizations or the communities affected, the opportunity to go to the supreme court and say “Look, if this decision moves ahead this is the impact it is going to have on our communities”. It would have given those stakeholders a chance to say “Look, when you dealt with the Gladstone decision of the supreme court you acknowledged that others had rights”. That Gladstone decision dealt with an inherent aboriginal right to commercially fish herring roe on kelp.

Even though it was found to be an inherent aboriginal right, the court acknowledged that others had acquired rights as well. That argument was not taken to the supreme court by the government. It left it out. It refused to bring that forward. It refused to defend the interests of current stakeholders.

The fisheries oversubscribed. If one drives down the coast of Nova Scotia and takes a look at those small towns and villages one will see that the only building standing is the lobster processing plant and behind every house there are lobster pots. That is how those communities exist. If we take away their access to the resource what is left? It is not only the fishermen who will go out of business, it is the processors, the guy who runs the gas station and the guy in the grocery store. It trickles right down. It will destroy the economy. Nothing is gained by taking from one who is simply making a living and giving it to another.

In my view it is imperative for the court to rehear this matter. Neither Parliament nor the provincial legislatures have the power to deal with the matter, it having been put out of reach of the legislative branch by sections 35(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The notwithstanding clause is not available since section 35(1) is not a part of the charter.

The only legislative remedy is a constitutional amendment by Parliament and the legislatures of seven provinces containing 50% of the population of Canada. This is probably impractical.

The minister says to negotiate. Negotiations would be lovely but they can only be successful if one goes to the table with something in one's hand. The minister has no cards. He has no chips on the table. He gave it all away when he failed to score points and make the proper arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I want to quote three passages from the Gladstone decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to show which references the government could use if it sought the court's advice on this matter. These three passages would provide legal weight to an escape route from this problem. The first quotation reads:

It should also be noted that the aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1) exist within a legal context in which, since the time of the Magna Carta, there has been a common law right to fish in tidal waters that can only be abrogated by competent legislation.

This is from R. v Gladstone, paragraph 67.

The second quotation reads:

While the elevation of common law aboriginal rights to constitutional status obviously has an impact on the public's common law rights to fish in tidal waters, it was surely not intended that, by enactment of s. 35(1), those common law rights would be extinguished in cases where an aboriginal right to harvest fish commercially existed.

This is R. v Gladstone, paragraph 67.

The last quotation reads:

Although by no means making a definitive statement on this issue, I would suggest that with regards to the distribution of the fisheries resources after conservation goals have been met, objectives such as the pursuit of economic and regional fairness, and the recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-aboriginal groups, are the type of objectives which can (at least in the right circumstances) satisfy this standard. In the right circumstances, such objectives are in the interest of all Canadians and, more importantly, the reconciliation of aboriginal societies with the rest of Canadian society may well depend upon their successful attainment.

This is R. v Gladstone, paragraph 75.

That says it all. By not arguing for the rights of other Canadians when this matter was before the court, the government has put peace and good government in the country in jeopardy. It has walked away from the very legitimate concerns that other Canadians have for their fishery, the legitimate interests that other Canadians have to earn a living from the fishery. It is beyond belief that this could happen.

DFO could balance the interests of Canadians in several ways. It could state, as did the court: that the federal government has the ultimate responsibility to balance the interests of all Canadians; that there will be only one commercial fishery operating under the same rules and regulations; that the treaty right will be accommodated by issuing commercial licences to fish in the public commercial fishery alongside other Canadians; that any licence issued to the treaty fishery will be offset by a licence that the government purchased from a voluntary seller of a licence in the public commercial fishery.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the member. His time is really over.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, given that the hon. member made the suggestion to the federal government that it seek a stay of judgment to allow a cooling off period during which legitimate and constructive negotiation to allow peaceful aboriginal entry into the fisheries could occur, what was the government's response? Why did the government not pursue a stay of judgment and pre-emptively perhaps make a recommendation to the supreme court in anticipation of the potential ramifications of the Marshall decision which would have allowed a peaceful entry for the aboriginal fishers and would have prevented some of the chaos that exists now?

We are on the eve of the Bay of Fundy lobster season beginning tomorrow morning. It is going to affect communities in my riding. We understand that there is now a withdrawal by some of the native fishers on the 30 day moratorium. There is tremendous chaos looming right now which the government could have prevented with an appropriate pre-emptive strategy that was more long term in nature. I would appreciate the member's feedback on that.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government's response to my position that a stay could be sought from the Supreme Court of Canada and that a rehearing of the judgment would be appropriate was simply to reject it as unfounded. I did not just pull that suggestion out of the air. I consulted with some prominent constitutional lawyers in my home province of British Columbia, lawyers who have experience before the Supreme Court of Canada. It was their suggestion and one that is very real.

A caller mentioned to me early this morning that some of the bands that had committed to participating in the moratorium had simply moved their gear and placed it elsewhere. I cannot confirm this, but if the moratorium has been broken, the government should use the opportunity to say that the situation is out of hand and out of control and that it would be best to go back to the supreme court to seek some legitimate advice on how to handle the situation. It has 30 days to do that. In other words, there are only about three days left for the government to make that representation to the supreme court.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, we have a very serious situation on our hands. As everybody can appreciate, it is very serious for those of us who live in coastal communities and for those of us who live along the sea.

It always disturbs me when I hear the situation presented as the hon. member who just spoke presented it, to rehear the case. It reminds me of people tossing a coin to see who goes first. If they do not get the right answer they go for the best two out of three. If they still do not get the right answer they go for the best three out of five. They want to keep going until they get it the way they want it.

It seems very unusual to talk about rehearing a supreme court decision. I wonder if the hon. member would have taken the same position if the decision had come down not in favour of the aboriginal treaties.

We have a very serious situation. The court has ruled. It has made a decision. We should now be focusing our attention on giving a practical application to the decision that will be beneficial to all who are involved, to all the stakeholders in the industry. We have to do that through negotiation, which is where the government has fallen down. It waited until the decision came down before it looked at the prospect of negotiation despite the fact that Delgamuukw had talked about negotiation and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had spoken about negotiation.

We have known for a long time that there must be a sharing of resources and that it must be done in a way that will maintain peace and harmony but we wait until a very crucial decision comes and now it comes down to one side against the other side, communities being divided against communities.

I have heard a lot of goodwill spoken on this issue by people on all sides, by the aboriginal people and by non-aboriginal people who want to resolve this issue in a favourable way. This is where the minister and the government must take the lead and show leadership. They must not wait and see whether the negotiations have broken down. They must not wait and see if the traps have been pulled. Rather, they must initiate leadership and do something now. It is great to hear about the long term plans but we have an immediate situation that must be dealt with now. It is a matter of getting the priorities around the table now to deal with the crisis that is facing us.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, the objective of asking the court to rehear the case is simply this. There is obviously turmoil on the east coast. People are upset because they are not sure what the decision means. They are not sure whether this priority right allows for others, non-aboriginals, to have access to the fisheries resource. We need clarification from the court.

The rehearing is not to rehear the judgment. The court has spoken on that right. It has acknowledged that the treaty right exists. What it has not done is to clarify what right others have given this decision.

We can argue this out until the cows come home but the quickest way to solve this problem is to go back to the court and ask it for clarification. What balance did the court have in mind when it allowed this treaty right? Was it going to allow that treaty right to be infringed? The suggestion in Gladstone and in other cases is that yes, others have rights, but those rights are not stated in this case. In fact, the people affected by the decision were not represented in court.

It is beyond me why the member would not want others to be heard by the court as well. The government did not represent the interests of existing commercial fishermen when it made that case in court. Those people had a perfect right to be heard in that court. For the member from Halifax to suggest that they do not have a right to be heard in court is beyond me.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for my friend.

The first question is when we heard the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make his intervention, he suggested that aboriginal people had been denied access to resources. My experience in British Columbia is that that is not the case. Could the member elaborate on what the aboriginal participation is in the regular commercial fishery in British Columbia?

The second question is a genuine question. Can the member explain to the House and Canadians what the aboriginal experience is on the east coast with respect to the lobster fishery? Is this fishery a traditional fishery that existed prior to European contact and colonization? Was there a reliance on lobsters by the Mi'kmaq Indians as a part of their culture and as a part of their subsistence prior to Europeans coming to North America?

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, with reference to the first question, aboriginal people played a big role in the British Columbia fishery. Prior to 1992, when the former Conservative government introduced this racially based commercial fishery which gave natives a priority right to commercially fish in British Columbia, 30% of the commercial fishermen in British Columbia were native. Some of the most prosperous fishermen in British Columbia were native Canadians.

If we went to Prince Rupert in the member's riding of Skeena, 60% of the people working in the fish canneries were natives. There was a high participation of native people in the fishery in British Columbia where the native population represents about 3% of the population.

With regard to native participation in the lobster fishery on the east coast, one circumstance that a historian described to me today was that fish were not mentioned in that treaty because they held very little value at the time the treaty was made. They were readily available to anybody who wanted them. If they wanted fish, it was not hard to catch them. As a trade item they had no value. Certainly lobsters were probably not a commodity that was sought after by natives. There is no evidence to suggest that they were.

As the member behind me said earlier, prior to 1968 anyone could have got a lobster licence. For a long period of time they were available to everybody for 25 cents. The people who participated in that fishery did so for a variety of reasons, but it was tough to make a living. Since the restricted licences came in, the fishermen, the processors and DFO have worked hard together to put a quality product into the marketplace, a product which has gradually risen in value. Now that it is a valuable fishery, obviously there is interest from others.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to state at the outset that the aboriginal fishers and the commercial fishers on the east coast have my sympathies.

I had the pleasure of touring Nova Scotia in the summer of 1998. I would remind hon. members that, at the time, the entire area of education had been vested in the aboriginal people of Nova Scotia.

I took the opportunity to tour. I went to Indian Brook, and this summer I went to Prince Edward Island to see the people on Lennox Island, the Micmacs. I noticed one thing during my visit. There was social peace everywhere. The native community, and the non-native community, shared a lot of visions on the sea.

Then there was the famous Marshall decision. Unfortunately, I find that the government handled it very badly. If we look at the turn of events, what is occurring in the Atlantic provinces is not very happy.

I decided to raise the issue of the vision of the treaties, because, as we recall, the supreme court analyzed the Murray treaty before making this decision. The native peoples viewed the treaties very differently from the Europeans. For them, the treaties were not just between governments, but between nations as well.

What we can also see in history is that all of the people in an aboriginal nation felt bound by the treaty. Whether it was an ordinary treaty, a friendship treaty or a treaty of co-operation, all of the members of the nation felt bound by it.

I mentioned the example of the Micmac guardians of the treaty known as the Putu's. The guardians of these treaties, brought together the Micmac communities every year, reread the treaty and discussed it.

We realize that the native view of the treaties is something both quite sacred and important. Naturally, everyone knows, even if it is something rather folklorical for us, still it is a tradition that remains current. There were a lot of festivities when a treaty was signed: singing, dancing and so on.

Things were not the same for the Europeans. It was more a business matter, where the signing meant as much hold as possible on all of the land. Treaties were often signed by generals. This was the case with the treaty at issue, General Murray's treaty. No one knew the ins and outs of this treaty. They simply left it to the government or to the general signing the treaty and then forgot it.

When the treaty became a bit of a bother, it was stuck away in the bottom of a closet and forgotten. This is the way the native people have always been treated.

I would like to tell a story to explain what is going on in the Atlantic provinces. Two hundred years ago, a neighbour of my family decided to put up a fence that took in 50 feet of my property, and things stayed that way ever after. Each successive generation said it would straighten the matter out, reclaim our land and our jurisdiction. Two hundred years later, the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, decided that the fence was in the wrong place. How long will it take for the fence to be put back where it belongs? No more than a day.

It was no surprise that native fishers set out in their boats immediately after the decision, because they want to force the issue. They see that they have been left out in the cold and that it is very important that they get out quickly so as to perhaps force negotiations. Unfortunately, negotiations are very slow in coming.

I would not want to forget the Murray treaty, because I mentioned this famous general earlier. Early in the 17th century, there were a series of treaties in Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. As I said earlier, the British crown drew up treaties with all aboriginal nations.

There were treaties of this sort in Halifax in 1750. Grand chief Jean-Baptiste Cope, the aboriginal negotiator, concluded treaties. The one in dispute today, the 1760-1761 treaty, was concluded by General Murray, and had to do with matters of trade, including such things as trading posts. This was the dispute, according to the Marshall decision.

Nowadays, are aboriginal people allowed to trade a commercial fishery for goods or money? At the time, they had the right to do so and specific counters were set up for such activity. The English had total control over all commercial trading because, in signing the treaty, the aboriginals pledged to negotiate only with the British crown. That was for the Murray treaty.

Centuries have passed and a number of major events have occurred, including the Constitution Act of 1982, which includes section 35. That section, which was drafted after long battles by aboriginals, was included in the Constitution Act. In my view, three paragraphs are particularly important: The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are recognized and confirmed. So, this type of treaty was reconfirmed by the court which said “Yes, this is valid”.

In the current act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. This means that the Micmacs and Malecites meet the definition of aboriginal peoples and Indians. For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. This means that any land claim will now automatically be included and protected under the Constitution.

I looked at how the jurisprudence has evolved over time, because I feel it is important. Since this debate began, I have been hearing my colleagues commenting “We should go back to the supreme court in order to get it to specify what reasonable livelihood means; we should go back to the supreme court and ask it to suspend its decision”. Since 1973—I have gone back to 1973 but there are other earlier ones—aboriginal people have won just about all supreme court decisions. The first one I will refer to is Calder.

Mr. Calder is a Nisga'a—we shall shortly be addressing the Nisga'a question in the House—and he took a case to the supreme court back then, and the decision was as follows:

Six of the seven justices of the Supreme Court recognize the existence of ancestral title based on land occupancy Canada law. The justices acknowledge that aboriginal territorial rights exist not only by virtue of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 but also under Indian title as the result of ancestral occupancy. Above and beyond the rights guaranteed by treaties or laws, aboriginal ancestral rights exist in Canada, that is to say customary rights that have survived colonization and the political transformation of the country.

The year 1973 constituted a very significant breakthrough for aboriginal peoples before the supreme court. Then in 1984 there was Guérin. In this case, the majority of the justices of the supreme court reaffirmed the existence of ancestral title and emphasized the federal government's fiduciary role.

The federal government, therefore, has an obligation to become involved in what is going on at the present time on the east coast.

The Justices recognize that aboriginal ancestral rights existed before the British and Canadian regimes.

Thus, the rights existed even before the Europeans arrived here.

The relationship between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal people is a fiduciary one and imposes real obligations on the federal authorities.

Note the wording “real obligations”.

Then came the Simon case. The decision was as follows:

The Supreme Court finds that native ancestral or treaty rights are not extinguished through the implicit effect of a statute.

That means that the Parliament of Canada, even if it passes a law, cannot extinguish native rights. That is explained clearly in the decision in the Simon case, which dates back to 1985. I am following a time line up to the present. Members will realize that the solution is not necessarily a return to the supreme court.

In 1989, there was the Sioui case. In this decision:

The Supreme Court recognizes the validity of the treaty signed by General Murray... in favour of the Hurons—

He had concluded an agreement with the Hurons on September 5, 1760.

The Court recognizes that the consent of the native peoples is obligatory to the extinguishment of treaty rights.

That means that, without the agreement of aboriginal peoples, rights cannot be extinguished. Furthermore,

An ancestral or a treaty right may not be limited if public interest is served.

Now we come to the Sparrow case, which was pivotal to commercial and fishing activity in Canada. A lot of things were said in it:

—provincial laws cannot limit an ancestral right, even if public interest is claimed. Native fishing rights have absolute priority over others' fishing rights. Only the survival or the depletion of wildlife stocks may limit this right.

I think that is currently recognized now.

It goes on to say that, furthermore, an ancestral right cannot be interpreted so as to take in the particular regulation prior to 1982. Regulations that applied to one thing way back then could apply to something totally different today. That is the gist of the Marshall ruling. It says that there were trading posts at that time, and today native peoples are being given the right to engage in commercial fishing. This was the decision from which the case law evolved.

It added that any government measure detrimental to the ancestral rights of native peoples must be justified explicitly and in a convincing manner. And the interpretation of treaties in particular must be generous and liberal. This means that when the supreme court judges look at a case, they are going to give the broadest possible interpretation to the words and provisions of the earlier decision.

Then there were the three famous decisions we often read about in the newspapers: Gladstone, Van der Peet, and Smokehouse.

In Gladstone, the ancestral right to fish commercially was recognized. In Van der Peet and Smokehouse, the claimants had to show that their nation had already fished commercially in order to be granted the right to continue doing so, and failed to make their case.

The Calder decision of 1996 recognized that the right to regulate for conservation still exists. The minister is therefore right in saying that regulating conservation is an important role he must play.

Finally, there was the Delgamuukw ruling, which is revolutionizing our approach to aboriginals. Not only do we take into account the treaty, but also oral traditions. This means that someone appointed by his community could come before a court with oral traditions and say “I am in a position to demonstrate that we have always occupied that land”. If the oral tradition is accepted by the court, it would be as powerful as the signature on a treaty.

What I am trying to show is that the legal basis of the aboriginals is absolutely unshakable. Whenever the minister of Indian affairs comes before the committee, once a year, I always make a point of asking him or her the following questions “When are you going to act regarding the aboriginal issue? When will you stop waiting for the courts to rule on this issue?”

Today, parliament is faced with a supreme court ruling, and it is always the same story. All these decisions have led to minor changes in the government's policy. There are 1,000 grey areas in the Indian Act. There are 1,000 grey areas in the treaties. And what does the government do? It manages, but from one crisis to the next.

Since the crisis began on September 17, the government's attitude has been “If we can manage to solve this crisis and get it over with, we will go back to our business”. That has always been the problem. There will be other crises in natural resources. There will be other crises in forestry. There will be other crises regarding self-government, because of this government's total carelessness. It does not deal with the issue.

The government begins discussions with various aboriginal groups and overlooks potential crises. When a crisis erupts, parliament must be called. Parliamentary decisions must be made. The minister needs to get his feet wet.

In Marshall, as in all the other decisions, the government is completely subservient to the courts, not only to the supreme court, because the situation had to gravitate there. Instead of seeing what was up ahead, instead of saying “We will sit down and negotiate”, the government says “We will wait for the court to decide and then we shall see”.

The Marshall decision recognized the rights of aboriginal fishers on the east coast and now we are stuck with having to make room for them. Certainly, this upsets the old way of doing things. Ingrained habits die hard. White fishers were not used to seeing other people allowed to enter their market, their fishery. Someone is going to have to give in, and it is not the aboriginal people. Frankly, we are not going to send out the RCMP to arrest them when they have a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says they are entitled to be there.

The minister ought to settle this by negotiation. Earlier, I received some most alarming news over the news wire.

Instead of the minister coming along with his colleague, the minister of Indian affairs, both of them proud as punch, to inform us that everything is just fine, that there are no problems, that now there is a moratorium, that the people will talk to each other, he should hop a plane this very night with his colleague, go down there to sit down and define what is a reasonable livelihood. That is what the Marshall decision is all about.

In Marshall, it is stated that they are entitled to fish commercially for a reasonable livelihood. What does this mean? As I said, the Bloc Quebecois will certainly not be in favour of going back to the supreme court to ask it to define “reasonable livelihood”. Is that minimum wage? Is it $100,000 a year?

This needs to be thoroughly discussed. These discussions should be held at the bargaining table. The definition of the suitable subsistence level must be negotiated, not determined by moratoriums that no one respects and by other interpretations that could be requested of the Supreme Court.

I think historical errors have been made. For example, when the Fathers of Confederation signed the Constitution in 1867, the native peoples were not represented.

Treaties have always been made for the benefit of the moment. When they were unfavourable, they were stuck in the closet. There is good reason why native peoples are reacting aggressively today.

The government totally lacks courage, and shows a total lack of care. The Indian Act dates back 100 years, and the government is still trying to manage the aboriginal peoples with an act that is 100 years old. Why does the government not speed up the issues of self-government and territorial claims?

So long as the native peoples lack the land and resources to be self-sufficient, we will go round in circles in this parliament, and the native peoples will react, especially since the supreme court decisions are in their favour. As I said earlier, the score is about 50 to nil in their favour.

It seems to me there are things to be done. I say that Quebec's approach will be different. It has always been different and will continue to be in a sovereign Quebec. In the bill that was introduced in the National Assembly, it was clear that aboriginal nations would sit down with the government to draft the Quebec constitution, something the Fathers of Confederation did not do in 1867. We want to avoid past errors.

Finally, I say to aboriginal people that Quebec will always abide by the treaties that were signed by the British crown. It goes without saying that we must maintain the same statutes and the same conditions. In fact, we will probably improve them.

The James Bay agreement signed in May of 1975 is proof of that. The Quebec government has already said to the Cree “If you want to update the agreement, we are prepared to do so”. This is not done in this parliament. Here, the government goes from one crisis to the next. Right now, some serious and dramatic events are taking place on the east coast. I will get to that in a minute.

I want to tell aboriginal people that the Bloc Quebecois will always support their efforts to gain greater autonomy. The Bloc Quebecois is probably the one party in this house that is best able to determine and appreciate what it means to strive to achieve greater autonomy. I want to tell aboriginal people that we are on their side in this endeavour.

It is unfortunate that the minister is not here, and that the minister of Indian affairs is not here either.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

It is true that I am not allowed to say that. Perhaps they are listening to me in the lobby.

I have here with me the communique issued about an hour ago by all the chiefs on the east coast. I will read it in English. They say:

We the chiefs wish to state that we are no longer asking our members to stop fishing.

Tomorrow morning there will be problems. That is why I told the minister to get on a plane this evening with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They should go to the east coast. The chiefs have just said that the moratorium is over and that they will resume fishing tomorrow. Their communique also states:

“We are no longer asking our members to stop fishing should they wish to fish”, said Ben Sylliboy, Grand Chief of the Mi'kmaq Nation, in a statement.

This was released at 7.16 p.m. Here is proof of the government's negligence and carelessness, and we are paying the price. I suggest that they take a plane this evening and sort this out.

The solution lies in negotiation, not in going back to the supreme court.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

We see that there is a crisis in the lobster fishery, but we also often forget to mention the social crisis in our regions. Tomorrow morning, our communities will still be facing a crisis. Tomorrow morning, children will go to school, and natives and non-natives will still be divided. It is sad; families are affected by this problem. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has refused to show leadership and take action. It has left communities to fight it out, instead of stepping in, taking control, and sitting down and negotiating.

It is very important to remember that what is involved here is not just a crisis in the lobster fishery. What my constituents are facing is a social crisis. We have worked very hard to get along, to work and eat together, and in less than two weeks, everything is being destroyed.

I hope that the minister will take this into consideration and take action to ensure that we will be able to repair the damage to our communities.

I wonder whether my Bloc Quebecois colleague would agree with me on this.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am totally in agreement with my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

As I said at the start of my speech, I was in the aboriginal communities this summer and the summer before that. I noted a very fine social peace between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. My fear now is that the government's carelessness and permissiveness in making decisions, and its lack of courage, will tear the community apart, as it has already begun to do.

The minister has stopped momentarily. I believe from the communique I have just received that it is absolutely urgent to negotiate. That is why I am suggesting that the minister take the plane tonight. If he is short domestic travel points, I would give him one, two even, if he wants to take his Indian affairs colleague to the east coast.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, would my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois not agree that because of the void in leadership in past Conservative governments and the current Liberal government the current government must allocate financial and human resources? The real leadership in this crisis will come from the grassroots. The fishermen themselves and their communities will come up with short and long term solutions to the very serious crisis we now face in Atlantic Canada.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that the government must provide immediately the human and financial resources to help solve this problem?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree that, the mess having been caused by the federal government, it is once again up to the federal government to go and clean it up. When I refer to cleaning up the mess, my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madelein—Pabok will surely have suggestions shortly on how that can be done. For instance, buying back licences, something that is often done, so that more space can be made for the aboriginal fishers who have had the supreme court rule in their favour.

Now the government is going to have to roll up its sleeves and show some courage. Instead of going back to the supreme court it is going to have to negotiate immediately, so that social peace may be restored to these communities.

THE MESS is of its doing, as my colleague has said, the Progressive Conservatives as well. When the Bloc Quebecois is in a sovereign Quebec, I will always be able to support my NDP colleagues, for I find their positions very close to those of our party.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, every member of the House and every Canadian who has been following recent events in the east coast lobster fishery appreciates the fragile nature of the situation that has developed in the aftermath of the recent supreme court decision affirming treaty rights for Mi'kmaq and for aboriginal people in Canada.

Confirmation within the last hour of the collapse of the voluntary moratorium is very worrisome. It underscores the importance for every member of the House to try to do everything humanly possible not to inflame the tension that has gripped communities in the east coast fisheries.

I must say in that regard I find it frankly abhorrent to hear the intemperate, inflammatory and simply historically inaccurate references again and again by Reform Party members to a racially based fishery. That does nothing to help move us toward a solution which will ensure a sound, sustainable fishery for all those who deserve their fair share in the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities of the east coast.

It is evident that major challenges are posed by the Marshall and the Delgamuukw decisions which will impact on a host of resource sectors and not just the fishery. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal will now be vying for access and will be demanding their fair share.

There seems to have been very little appreciation of the enormous significance of these legal decisions, and I might say not only by the federal government but by the Government of Nova Scotia as well. If there had been, both levels of government would surely have been working together and working overtime with all the stakeholders affected to develop a plan which would be ready to be put in place when the supreme court brought down its decision on the Marshall case. Instead what we have seen is paralysis and ineffectual action, in fact virtual inaction by the federal government.

The government's failure to have a contingency plan was inexcusable and has resulted in a vacuum into which various legitimate stakeholders inserted themselves with predictable results. It is a response, incidentally, that is becoming all too frequent these days as Liberal lack of leadership in the agricultural and airline industry crises so sadly demonstrates.

As I mentioned earlier in my throne speech remarks, that same lack of foresight was not displayed by the Mi'kmaq leadership. As early as April 1999 the Mi'kmaq implored governments to recognize, and I quote directly from a document dealing with the issue of the Mi'kmaq fishery, that the impending decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in the Queen versus Donald Marshall, Jr. case had increased Mi'kmaq expectations for greater access to the east coast fishery while at the same time creating uncertainty and anxiety within the existing industry.

It is regrettable in the extreme the federal government did not have the foresight to at least take under serious advisement the urgings of the Mi'kmaq leadership to anticipate the outcome of the decision.

The Liberal government did nothing as it awaited the Marshall decision. Its inaction allowed tensions and chaos to take hold in the Atlantic fishing communities.

Regrettably calm heads and voices were absent in the aftermath of the Marshall decision, precisely because the current fisheries minister and his predecessor had been conspicuously absent from this file prior to the supreme court decision.

It is little wonder that lobster dependent coastal communities in Atlantic Canada have been wracked with tension and dissension in recent weeks.

Surely the answer is not to blame the supreme court for ruling on a treaty rights issue which was placed before it. Nor is it acceptable, as the Prime Minister suggested, to stay the court's decision or, as some members in the debate keep insisting, to send the matter back to the supreme court.

It is important for us to acknowledge that aboriginal people have been waiting for two and a half centuries for a ruling to clarify their rights of access to the fishery under existing treaties. A lack of preparation and foresight by the government is a lame and feeble excuse on which to criticize our highest court. Talk about shooting the messenger.

What is the right policy response to the challenges now confronting the lobster fishery and other commercial fisheries on the east coast? Atlantic Canadians want and deserve a coherent answer to this question. They want to see a post-Marshall regime based on principles of fairness, equity, sustainability and long term commercial viability.

In the wake of the Marshall decision, Atlantic Canadians want a fair, just and sustainable fishing arrangement. To achieve this end, those involved must be consulted and listened to.

To arrive at a workable set of rules governing access to the resource we first need to consult those who are directly involved, to listen patiently and respectfully to all the stakeholders. Without their insights, knowledge and at least tacit agreement we cannot proceed.

Permit me however to outline briefly some broad ideas which might inform that process and might form the basis of an acceptable solution. First, emphasis should be put on conservation, on preserving the long term health of the stocks. Sound principles of management and conservation based on well grounded science must be implemented.

Atlantic Canadians cannot afford another government induced collapse along the lines of the cod fishery fiasco. Independent expert advice must be sought and must be heeded.

Second, we need to find a way to allocate licences to aboriginal Canadians so that they may enjoy legal and uncontested access to the resource. This may involve the government buying back some licences from commercial fishers. Indications are that maybe 10% of those who are currently fishing would welcome the opportunity to make way for aboriginals to make their rightful claim to their fair share of the fishery. Let us be clear that we are talking here about those who would choose voluntarily to exit the lobster fishery at this point in their lives.

It is absolutely critical to build consensus on a set of rules governing conservation, allowable catches and so on. A level playing field is the only way that we are likely to get buy-in from all groups concerned.

Third, we must work toward establishing community based fishery policies to replace the corporate industrial model which has enriched a few large companies at the expense of many independent inshore fishermen and their families. The unemployment, the poverty and the out-migration in many of these fishery communities is eloquent and distressing testimony to the failure of that approach.

Over the long term, we must work to establish fishing policies that are more community oriented than industry oriented.

It is important to recognize that the modest entry of aboriginal fishers into this resource is not the reason various Atlantic fisheries are under threat.

In my discussions with Mi'kmaq representatives over the last week they have expressed what is understandably a great deal of distress and, I think it is fair to say, hurt at the implication that the problems caused to the fishing stock in the east coast are in any way attributable to their entry into the fishery.

The real threat comes from the indiscriminate and unsustainable practices of corporate fish companies and multinational conglomerates. In my view the Leader of the Opposition was wrong today to condemn a communal approach to resource allocation as he did in respect of the Nisga'a treaty.

There is every reason to believe that increased meaningful local control and responsibility for the resource by fishing communities would generate rules that guarantee a reasonable livelihood for fishers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, while preserving the future of the resource. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate a striking lack of faith in the decency, fairness and sense of responsibility of fishers.

I pay tribute to the important and ongoing work of the joint working group on the Mi'kmaq commercial fishery that was established in February of this year. Let us hope that same careful, respectful, collaborative approach can get important progress back on track in moving us toward a solution by involving all stakeholders: aboriginal, non-native and government. That working group has been earnestly laying the groundwork for a viable commercial fishery that looks after the interests of all fishers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

This kind of forward thinking is what we need from our leaders and decision makers at every level, and especially from the federal government where it has been so notably absent.

Let me conclude by saying that we need public policies to govern our fisheries and other resources that are grounded in long term thinking, in devolving decision making to those closest to the resource, and in a sense of fairness and respect for the livelihoods of all. The existing industrial factory style approach underwritten by bad science and greed has taken us to where we are today.

Let us turn this page and refashion the fishery and our other resource industries as well so they will be around to provide a decent livelihood for our children for many generations to come.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member whose comments were quite insightful on this whole issue.

Today in the House the minister was asked several questions. On a couple of occasions the minister said that today we should applaud those aboriginal leaders, 33 out of 35, who on a voluntary basis decided to have a moratorium and not fish for 30 days. He went on further to say that was co-operation and dialogue and that they had a solution in place which was working because dialogue and co-operation was working.

Does the hon. member now begin to believe that in order to have dialogue and co-operation it takes two trusting parties? In this case where the aboriginal leaders have absolutely no trust in the minister and no trust in the government, how then can we have co-operation and dialogue and therefore how can we have some kind of co-operation with the minister and the department to solve this very serious issue?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it gets us to a solution to be stating absolutely that this problem cannot be solved because aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers in Atlantic Canada do not have trust in the minister.

It is absolutely true that fishers need to be able to build trust in the minister. They are shaken by the fact that it was not just this minister who has been very absent and in fact stayed completely out of the arena when there was an urgent need for immediate leadership in the aftermath of the Marshall decision. However, I think they are badly shaken by the fact that the federal government and the Conservative government before it showed so little respect for the issue of treaty rights that they basically were forcing people into the courts, turning their backs on the important principle laid out in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that we need to adopt an approach that says we negotiate, not litigate, these matters.

There is a long legacy of this government and the previous government, not just the current minister, not showing appropriate respect for aboriginal Canadians, who now, understandably, want their fair share of the Atlantic fishery.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to state that the leader of the NDP in her speech did not offer any constructive or workable solutions, unlike Reform, which called for a stay and a rehearing of the judgment so that they could work it out and get it right instead of getting it wrong and then the government going in with all kinds of weaknesses trying to negotiate, let alone legislate, an end to this problem.

I was interested in her comments that slammed large companies as causing widespread poverty in the region affected. I wonder how she squares that with union support for her party that thrives in large successful corporate environments. Is she totally against the corporations that fish in that area for lobsters? She would rather see them all go out of business I take it.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, I do not think it is very helpful to make sweeping statements about anything so ridiculous as condemning all large companies.

What we are talking about are fishing methods used by some of the large companies that virtually involve raping the ocean floor, ignoring the ecosystem, ignoring the food chain and ignoring the fact that if they are going to suck up everything that is in sight and throw fish overboard because they do not meet certain specifications what they will do is cause the kind of crisis that we now see in the east coast fishery. I do not think it takes us anywhere to go down that blind path of ridiculous conclusions.

We need to look carefully at what kind of fishing practices are sustainable and what ones are not. For the benefit of all concerned, we need to adopt a regime of practices and regulations that will ensure a sustainable fishery over time.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party says we must try to develop a viable and sustainable fishing industry. Could she give her opinion on the most recent international agreement that Canada signed this summer? I am speaking of the UN fishing agreement. Article 5 of that agreement provides that the signatories pledge to develop and to maintain a sustainable and cost-effective fishery.

My problem here is that Canada must now deal with a requirement from the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that we must guarantee adequate livelihood to aboriginal people. However, we still do not know what is meant by a cost-effective and, more importantly, a sustainable fishery, in the language and vocabulary used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Sustainable has to do with the proposed fishing gear, but will it be viable?

What is the expected level of cost-effectiveness, particularly in the context being dictated at the UN by all the countries of the world, including France, the United States, England and so on, and without subsidy? What will this “without subsidy” mean? What do the words “viable” and “cost-effective” currently mean?

Right now, we are asking Gaspé Peninsula fishers to share their resources with aboriginal people. If the court forces them to do it, they will do it, but they will also share their misery. In the wintertime, they have to rely on employment insurance.

How are we going to define the terms “viable” and “cost-effective”? Is the NDP prepared to team up with us to put pressure on the Liberal government to force them to develop that definition? We need it not only to solve the aboriginal crisis, but also to ensure sustainability in the fisheries of eastern Canada.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that I think the member who has raised the question would be the first to admit that the specific questions he raises are immensely complex, both in scientific and legal terms. However, I agree absolutely with the point of the member's question, which is that the federal government has to be prepared to allocate the appropriate resources to ensure that we come up with answers to those questions.

The situation that the member describes in his own riding is one that is recognized by all of us who represent coastal communities. It is a problem that results from the crisis management approach that this Liberal government and the Conservative government before it took by not recognizing that the concept of sustainability is absolutely crucial. It is not a matter of unilateral regulations imposed by the federal government; it is a matter of recognizing that there have to be appropriate restrictions on fishing efforts for the benefit of all who are involved in the current fishery and those who want to depend on the fishery in the future.

It is a matter of recognizing that solutions have to be local, regional, national and international. That is why it is so important that we have international fishery agreements such as the one that is under discussion.

It is a complicated scientific and legal issue and it is incumbent upon all of us to put pressure on the federal government to allocate the appropriate resources and to give the kind of respect that is needed to local fishers being involved in helping to devise the scheme and the regime that will govern the current and future fishery and to ensure that it is sustainable.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the emergency debate on the native commercial fishery on the east coast. I will be sharing my time with my colleague for West Nova.

I would like to thank our fisheries critic, the member for St. John's West, and our House leader, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for tabling this debate and bringing it to the floor of the House of Commons.

I tried several times to make a comment when the leader of the New Democratic Party was speaking. I will make that comment now because I am sure the member must think that this is a catch and release fishery. I would like to tell this House today that it is not a catch and release fishery. This is very real to the people in eastern Canada.

This debate comes as the result of the implications of a September 17 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada recognizing the treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people. The Marshall decision states:

The 1760 treaty does affirm the rights of the Mi'kmaq people to continue to provide for their own sustenance by taking the products of their hunting, fishing, and other gathering activities, and trading for what in 1760 was termed “necessaries”. This right was always subject to regulation.

This quote from the supreme court decision indicates that the impact of this decision could be far greater than simply fishing rights. All crown based resources in Atlantic Canada, including logging, fishing and possibly even sub-surface rights, may be affected by this decision. That is why it is imperative to have direction and leadership from the government on this issue, something that has been lacking so far.

It has been 26 days since the supreme court decision and still the federal government does not have in place any sort of long term plan for regulating a sustainable fishery. The lack of leadership the government has shown on this issue, and therefore the lack of confidence both native and non-native communities have in the minister and his department, will only worsen if we do not hear something concrete from the minister soon. As it is, there has already been violence and near chaos in the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Because the leadership has not been there to establish a clear plan for the future of the fishery this has occurred.

I would like to take a moment to reference the speech made yesterday by the member for Windsor—St. Clair. In his comments on the throne speech he spoke well and he was extremely articulate. In fact, he was too articulate. He went on, and he went on, and he went on. I thought for a moment that his grandmother had mistakenly vaccinated him with a gramophone needle. I suspect that was not the case. I reference it only because the government has been very quick to pat itself on the back whenever the occasion arises and it can find all kinds of accolades to congratulate itself with.

In comparison, I point out the lack of comments, speeches and leadership, and the lack of a plan of any type coming from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before, during or after the September 17 decision of Regina v Marshall.

It also needs to be mentioned that former Liberal cronies in the Nova Scotia government did not even see fit to represent the province of Nova Scotia as an intervenor in the supreme court case.

Indeed, it is not leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that has put in place the 30 day moratorium. Instead, this was the result of consultations and agreement among 33 of the 35 chiefs of the assembly of Atlantic Mi'kmaq chiefs who agreed to voluntarily suspend their fishing to allow all parities to reach a negotiated settlement. Not the minister but the chiefs themselves put this in place. Unfortunately, through continued government mismanagement and incompetence this is being rescinded.

Fisheries leaders have worked with native chiefs to find a way to recognize native treaty rights. The result had been this 30 day moratorium that should have given the government time to implement some plans and set in place guidelines and regulations for a long term, sustainable fishery, if we would have seen leadership. It comes back time and time again to leadership and the confidence in this minister and in the government.

All fishers recognize the need to negotiate room in the fishery for native fishers, but conservation remains a concern for everyone. The Sparrow decision acknowledged that there are arguments for limiting the aboriginal food fishery. Conservation and resource management are justification for such measures.

We have 4,900 fishing licences in the South Shore riding that I represent. We have 1,700 lobster licences in the South Shore and West Nova. All of these fishers fish under conservation. They fish under rules. They fish under management. It is now the government's responsibility to ensure that conservation remains the priority of the department and that regulations are in place and enforced against everyone involved in the fishery.

Resource management is based on conservation and regulations. Regulations were introduced back in the 1930s and continued with trap limits, size restrictions, licences, seasons and lobster fishing areas. This and only this has preserved the resource. It is due to the fishers who have followed these regulations that we have the lucrative industry we have today.

These rules apply evenly, whether they fish in Southwest Cove, Blandford, Indian Point, Port L'Hebert, Port Mouton, Little Harbour, Barrington, Clark's Harbour, Woods Harbour, Shag Harbour or Lunenburg. Every one of those licences I mentioned earlier is more than a licence. It also represents a family and in some cases two or more families.

We all know where the Reform Party will stand on this issue. It will argue that the native fishery is a fishery based on race. We must make sure that we do not fall into its trap. There are answers, but inciting racism is not one of them.

The minister still has an opportunity. It is still within his reach—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I do not think it is appropriate, especially in light of the words of the hon. member for Halifax earlier, to ascribe inciting racism to any party or any members in the House.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

I withdraw those comments, Mr. Speaker. The point is well taken.

The minister still has an opportunity to reach a settlement with native and non-native fishers, but to do so he must show leadership. Leadership requires taking a position and having a plan. The government did not have a plan A let alone a plan B.

I state once again that this is about lack of leadership and the lack of confidence fishers have that their livelihoods are being protected. It is also about lack of confidence by first nations that the government intends to integrate them into the fishery. Separate seasons, no conservation and no way to regulate the native fishery will not integrate natives and non-natives in this fishery. It will and has caused violence. Believe me when I say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I mentioned earlier that Chief Justice Binnie stated in the Marshall case that the 1760 treaty right was always subject to regulation. This is not complicated. This right was always subject to regulation. Fishery representatives have stated from the beginning that the industry can accommodate the gradual integration of first nations if they fish the same seasons and have the same licensing structure and same regulations as non-natives.

We all know that because of the supreme court ruling we now have an important new player in the fishery. If the government had shown any leadership at all, we would not be in the situation we are in tonight.