Debates of Oct. 13th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago, the throne speech was being touted as the opportunity for the Prime Minister to demonstrate a vision of Canada for the 21st century, as we enter a new millennium.

It is a pretty unsubstantial vision: what it treats us to is more of an invasion by the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Instead of a vision, we have an invasion. For Quebec this throne speech is fraught with meaning and with consequences.

So much for Plan A, if ever there was such a thing as Plan A. Bad news for the Quebec federalists, moreover. This prime ministerial vision of the future is one of a Canada that excludes Quebec, that thumbs its nose at Quebec's concerns and traditional demands.

The Prime Minister is now putting into practice his famous statement made just before the last election in Quebec “The general store is now closed”. With this throne speech, the federal government is slamming the door closed on all the commitments toward Quebec that were made leading up to the 1995 referendum.

There is also a message for all Quebec federalists in this speech: this is the end of renewed federalism, of Quebec's traditional demands, this is the end of the concept of founding people, of distinct character, all those formulas that were found in an attempt to renew Canadian federalism.

From now on everything is clear: one country, one people, one government. All the rest is nothing but public administration, nothing more than public administration and the implementation of a social union, an agreement that once again excludes Quebec. All political parties in the National Assembly have rejected the social union framework agreement. Mr. Dumont and Mr. Charest have made it clear that they would not have signed it either.

In the throne speech, the federal government indicated both its intention to work in collaboration with its partners and its intention to do without their approval. Where exactly does this leave us?

The answer is blatantly obvious when we read the Speech from the Throne. Let me quote an extract from it from page 5. The speech talks of national will, of national strategies and of the partnerships across the country that are required. That are required—that is the word, the essence of the Speech from the Throne.

How will federal government go about achieving this? It tells us that it is going to establish standards of its choosing, since it is omnipotent. The government talks about operating on the basis of the social union agreement. What does this agreement on social union say? There is discussion, but if no agreement is reached, the federal government—Ottawa knows best— announces three months in advance that it will intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction where direct services are provided to the public, and the provinces are requested to take note. This is what Ottawa calls partnerships.

In what areas will it impose its standards and set up its programs? National defence or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or air transportation come to mind. There is no shortage of problems in these sectors, which are under federal jurisdiction.

The federal government could ensure pay equity in its own public service or correct the huge injustices caused by the employment insurance reform, which is nothing more than government robbery on the backs of society's most disadvantaged.

Instead, it is in areas of provincial jurisdiction that it intends to impose its standards. For example, in family law; in family policy or in policy on childhood; in the area of culture; in the area of language, especially language of work. In fact, this afternoon the Prime Minister could not deny that, under the social union and the unjustified barriers to mobility, he could take action regarding Bill 101, regarding the language of work in Quebec. This is serious stuff. It jeopardizes a vital prerogative in Quebec.

The Prime Minister also talks about getting involved in Quebec's environmental sector, as if his government had lived up to its commitments in its own jurisdictions, including air pollution.

The government talks about justice. It claims that it will reform family law. Does it intend to tamper with the Civil Code, which is the foundation of the Quebec law and an exclusive Quebec jurisdiction, as was the case even before the Constitution, in 1867?

On page 23, the government reiterates its intention to impose a repressive act on young offenders, an act that no one in Quebec wants. The government is prepared to sacrifice the future of hundreds of young Quebecers to gain a few votes in western Canada. This issue does not fall under its jurisdiction. The government could have acted through the Criminal Code, it could have taken action against organized crime, which is corrupting our young people and our economic institutions, both in Quebec and across the country, which is going after farmers, and which has even targeted my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It could have tabled anti-gang legislation.

But there is not one word about the fight against criminals. Yet, in order to get some votes in western Canada, the government does not hesitate to jeopardize Quebec's rehabilitation program for young offenders. This is an unacceptable, shameful and cowardly attitude.

The government also talks about families and young children. It now wants to help families and children after having drastically cut employment insurance, health, education and income support. The government wants to impose, and I am quoting from page 7, “common principles, objectives and fiscal parameters for all governments”.

This government is so arrogant that it is trying to impose policy by stating that the provinces, and Quebec is in the forefront with its exemplary policies on daycare and early childhood, will be able to provide additional services in their own areas of jurisdiction.

It takes no little arrogance, indeed a lot of it, to say that the provinces will nevertheless be entitled, in their fields of jurisdiction, to propose policy that is complementary to that decided here in Ottawa.

In the cultural sector, the federal government mentions Quebec only once. We will see later on that it is in order to threaten it. Otherwise, nothing. As if Quebec and Quebec culture did not exist.

The government has announced a whole series of new cultural programs, but it is also promising an approach that it calls encompassing for national unity. We know what that means. It means submitting cultural institutions and programs to propaganda on national unity.

The government will, I imagine, ask book publishers receiving a subsidy from the federal government to put the maple leaf on the first page and the last page and why not on the theatre curtains. The maple leaf could appear after the first act even. That is totally crazy, but I know just how much that inspires the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The government talks about the environment as well. However, this government's performance in this area is disastrous. It has failed to achieve the very modest objectives it set for itself in Kyoto. It refuses to sign the protocol on biodiversity that 140 countries have already signed. So much for the federal government's jurisdictions.

What is it doing? Well, once again in the provinces' jurisdictions it will try to impose bills and programs on endangered species and habitats, two areas under provincial jurisdiction.

This government, from one end of the speech to the other, is ignoring the existence of Quebec and making a mockery of its powers. A head-on collision is in the works. Plan A is not just being ended, it is being buried.

When I speak of head-on collision, I refer particularly to the area of education. Naturally, nowhere in the text of the speech does the word education appear. I am sure the thesaurus was well used in the writing of this text. It mentions knowledge, skills, learning, training, but this is not education. Of course not. Everyone knows that. It probably refers to agriculture when using those terms.

Ottawa is therefore announcing a national plan related to skills and learning for the 21st century, with a one-stop entry point, one marked “made in Ottawa”. This means that Ottawa is announcing no more and no less than a national policy for education, a provincial area of jurisdiction if ever there was one, one that has been recognized as exclusive to them since this country began back in 1867.

A vision of the future? More of a systematic invasion plan into areas of provincial jurisdiction, with or without the provinces' consent. This means the end of Plan A, but it gives a good idea of what Plan B will or may be, thus leaving Quebec with the sword of Damocles hanging over its head.

There is of course reference to the referendum process, to rules of clarity. As far as the rule of 50% plus one is concerned, which is a democratic rule recognized even here in Canada, it seems to me that this ought to be clear. There cannot be two rules, one for Newfoundland, where it was 50% plus one, and where the outcome was just a touch above 52% after two referendums, and another rule for Quebec in a third referendum, whereas in the first two, where the federal government was involved, it was 50% plus one. It is a pretty strange game when one player wants to change the rules partway through.

As for the matter of the referendum question itself, that is a prerogative of the National Assembly. I would remind you that, right before the last referendum, the Prime Minister himself said “The question is clear. If you vote no, you stay in Canada. Vote yes, and you leave Canada.” I would submit that if the Prime Minister understood it, then everybody understood it.

In conclusion, as far as plan B is concerned, although I am not sure that is what it should be called since there is no longer a Plan A, I would say that the government ought to start by applying to itself the clarity it demands of others.

It will have to tell us clearly whether it intends to honour a majority that is democratic and recognized by the people of Quebec in a referendum and whether it intends to negotiate with Quebec, as the supreme court requires it to do, the terms of its departure from the federation.

I challenged the government to state clearly what place Quebec has in this country called Canada, where the government talks of the quality of life of Canadians, as in the throne speech. At a time when Canada is enjoying one of the largest surpluses in a number of generations, according to the Prime Minister himself, nothing has been announced to lighten the tax burden of Canadians and Quebecers, particularly that of middle class families, which represent 27% of the population and pay 50% of what goes to Revenue Canada. There is a significant imbalance.

The Speech from the Throne should have served as the government's opportunity to make a solemn commitment in this regard. However, we got simply a vague promise that there may be something in the upcoming budget without anything specific being indicated. So it is very vague, wishful thinking, general remarks.

We were promised vision, we got repetition, and especially no specific action in order to ensure and develop Canadians' quality of life. This theme of the Canadians' quality of life appears as a leitmotif throughout the throne speech, as if it only needed repeating in order to convince Canadians and Quebecers that they live in the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister puts it.

Let us talk about the quality of life of Canadians. Quality of life involves, first, direct services to the public, primarily in health and education. It also includes income support. In this area, the provinces provide the services to the public. And herein lies the contradiction in this country of Canada in which, on the one hand, those who provide direct services to the public do not have the means to do so and, on the other, the government that does not provide these direct services has all the money in its pockets. Herein lies the contradiction.

One would expect the government, which will have cut $33 billion between 1994 and 2004, to restore transfer payments to the provinces, precisely to improve health and education services. Yet, there is not a word about this in the throne speech. The only thing one sees is the old Liberal habit of getting involved in provincial jurisdictions as soon as they have money. The government is now promising a pharmacare plan, something which already exists in Quebec, homecare and help for families and young children, instead of giving back the money to those who provide the direct services to help them fulfil their responsibilities.

The federal government is collecting too much money, given its own jurisdictions. It is the provinces that are responsible for the programs whose costs are skyrocketing, primarily because the population is aging. The federal government does not provide these direct services to the public.

It is more than an imbalance, it is a profound injustice, a major dysfunction in the federal system. This imbalance leads the federal government to establish new programs to gain greater political visibility. This is the whole issue.

The Liberals see the federal government as the major league. To them, the provinces are mere junior partners they consult when they see fit to do so and on whom they impose their will, with money taken from the citizens of those provinces, and often from budgets that should have been given to these provinces.

As I said earlier, the federal government is not proposing anything to correct the major flaws in employment insurance. Indeed, 60% of those who contribute to the program are not eligible for benefits if they become unemployed. This is highway robbery. An insurance agent who behaved like the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development would be taken to court and at risk of being sent to jail. This is fraud, no more and no less.

People were expecting tax cuts for middle income families. Nothing, once again. Nothing about re-establishing transfer payments. They talk of poor children. Tears are shed about the fate of the poor children. Might people not realize that there are far more poor children since this government has been in power? Are people going to finally realize that, if there are poor children, it is perhaps because they have poor parents, and the parents are poor as a result of this government's policies? That is why there are poor children. It seems to me this is easy to understand. Perhaps there would be less visibility but greater responsibility.

Let us look at problems of immediate concern to the government, for instance air transportation. At the present time, there are between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs at stake, in Quebec in particular.

Does the buddy-buddy relationship between certain members of government and the main stakeholders in this matter have anything to do with this? According to the Minister of Transport himself, this afternoon, this is a highly important question, one he described as too important to be in a throne speech. I imagine he took a page from the book of Kim Campbell, she who did not want to discuss important issues during the 1993 election campaign. Too important to discuss—better to discuss such things behind closed doors at fundraising dinners.

There is nothing about shipbuilding either, yet the Bloc Quebecois had made some proposals, supported by the other three opposition parties, for a serious and rigorous shipbuilding policy. On the other side they are constantly boasting about this country reaching from sea to sea to sea—three oceans but no shipbuilding policy. They do not have much imagination.

All of the premiers who met together in Quebec City last August supported the shipbuilding policy we proposed. Yet there is no reference to it in this Speech from the Throne.

And what about the situation of aboriginal people and the fisheries issue? There is a mess in both cases, and now the two messes are combining into one big one. There is a major crisis and even if one reads this speech from start to finish, there is nothing to be found about this problem.

I am thinking of mobility, —because we heard about mobility for citizens and students, —and because we are required to eliminate unjustified barriers to that mobility. This afternoon the Prime Minister was asked whether this meant that the federal government could intervene—because Ottawa knows best—in disputes such as the one between the construction industries of Ontario and Quebec. He left the door open. Can we expect to see the federal government blunder into this sector?

And can we expect it to meddle in the loans and scholarships issue? We were told that someone should look into all the people from Vancouver who go to Montreal, and all the people from Montreal who go to Vancouver. Come on.

As for language of work, is Bill 101 a barrier to mobility? Your guess is as good as ours. It is to weep. I knew that the ambassadors have their little question and answer books, but now the Prime Minister and his ministers will be able to spread the good word throughout the country. It could go something like this: Where is Ottawa? Ottawa is everywhere. Why is Ottawa everywhere? Because it has money. Why does Ottawa have money? Because it made extensive cuts. What does Ottawa do with its money? It does wonderful things and establishes new programs everywhere in order to enhance its visibility. This sounds silly, but it gives the idea.

Obviously, this government has too much money for its areas of jurisdiction, views the provinces as mere intendants, and denies the existence of the Quebec culture and people.

Therefore, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding, between the words “powers” and “; and therefore”, the following:

“, especially by failing to recognize the existence of the Quebec people; failed to carry out its responsibilities in the area of social welfare by not re-establishing transfer payments for programs relating to healthcare, postsecondary education and social assistance, while maintaining an inequitable and unjust employment insurance scheme”.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that this afternoon's speech by the Prime Minister is one of the more revealing deathbed repentances I have ever witnessed in my 20 years in political life.

After so many years of the federal Liberal government tearing down, backing away from commitments and creating crises for many Canadians and many Canadian communities, what we heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon was potentially very good news, and I say that quite sincerely. It is also a reminder of why it serves Canadians well to have sufficient numbers of New Democrats back in parliament to be able to push back against that reform dominance of the federal Liberal government's efforts over the last six years.

On that very positive note I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate this afternoon on the throne speech that we heard yesterday.

The throne speech is an important opportunity for members of parliament to speak about their own constituencies. I will say a few words about my constituency of Halifax that I am privileged to represent in parliament. A portion of that constituency has been responsible for electing and re-electing me to public office for almost 20 years.

I am immensely grateful for the privilege my constituents have bestowed upon me and for the trust they have placed in me. I take that trust very seriously. I believe that it is my responsibility to gain and regain that trust each and every day I have the privilege to remain in office and to serve as their representative in the House of Commons.

The throne speech offers members an opportunity to note some of the particular contributions one's constituents have made to one's community and province. I will say a few words this afternoon about the sadness I feel, and I know the great sadness that many Canadians feel, about the recent deaths over the last 10 days of three very distinguished Canadians, Nova Scotians who have contributed enormously to the life of my province.

One was the long serving conductor of the Atlantic Symphony and more recently the Nova Scotia Symphony, Georg Tintner. He was a marvellous man who came to Canada as a refugee. He created joy and harmony in the community through the music that he contributed and through a wonderful philosophy on life. He was truly a leader who provided inspiration to all of us.

Second, I was very saddened to learn yesterday of the death of Reverend Donald Skeir, a leader in Nova Scotia and particularly on behalf of black Nova Scotians for over 40 years. He was someone whom I had the privilege of knowing personally and of observing his terrific commitment to creating harmonious race relations and advancing the status of black Nova Scotians. He will be sorely missed, but he has left a great legacy for all Nova Scotians.

Third, I was very saddened this morning to open my newspaper and find that Lee Creemo had passed away on the weekend as well. He will be known certainly to Nova Scotians who serve with me here in the House of Commons as a great Cape Bretoner, a wonderful Mi'kmaw who also provided music that will long be remembered. He was a fiddler, a champion in Canada and internationally. He will be missed sorely. I want to express my condolences to his family and to his community of Eskasoni.

I also want to take a few moments to speak about what for me have been several highlights in my past year. I will long remember them as among the most inspirational in my 20 years of political life.

We have many things that we are privileged to participate in as members of parliament in our own communities and across the country. For me it was a privilege that I will never forget to have been present in Nunavut on April 1, 1999 for the official launching of the newest member of the Canadian family, the territory of Nunavut. I was accompanied by my colleague from Churchill River who had many friendships and relationships over the years with some of those I had the privilege to meet while in Nunavut on that special occasion.

I think it was one of the happiest and most promising things that happened in the past year. It really is a testament to the many years of patient, persistent struggle by Inuit Canadians in working toward a dream that would not only provide for some reconciliation after literally centuries, of 400 years of exploitation and hardship, but would serve as a model of what people can achieve if they come together, if they work together toward a dream that they share. It was indeed a privilege for me to be in attendance at that very exciting event.

I want to make mention of an event that took place on Canada Day in my riding of Halifax. That was the official opening of Pier 21. Pier 21 will be known to many members of the House and certainly to millions of Canadians as the point of entry for over one million immigrants, many of them refugees, to Canada between the years of 1921 and 1973. My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is a member of one of the immigrant families that came through Pier 21.

That occasion was a wonderful celebration of the contributions immigrant Canadians have made to Canadian society over not just that period of 52 years during which many immigrants and refugees came through the Halifax harbour, but the past, present and continuing contributions of the millions of immigrants and refugees who have come to Canada throughout all of our history.

Pier 21 is a very important living, breathing memorial to the contribution immigrants have made. It is a very timely reminder of that important immigrant history and that reality in Canada at a time when there have been some very unhappy sentiments aroused and fears generated around the arrival of Chinese refugees on our shores over the last several months. We have seen less than a welcoming, compassionate response to the plight of many of those people who in some cases are young children who have been exploited by a criminal element for reasons of profiteering. We need to be very much on guard against the kind of fearmongering that has been generated toward many of those exploited and desperate people.

Finally, I want to speak about a more recent event, the installation of Canada's newest Governor General on October 7, 1999. If I am honest about it, I attended that event without any terrific expectations. I attended it because that is one of the things one does as a member of parliament. I want to take this occasion to say that I found it to be a tremendously inspirational event. I believe the speech delivered by Canada's newest Governor General on that occasion was a great moment for Canada.

What we saw in the vision put forward by Canada's newest Governor General was one that will be long remembered. We would all do well to keep in mind the very powerful message she delivered about how there are two kinds of societies in this world, forgiving societies and punishing societies. She urged that Canada always remain and continue to strive to be a forgiving society in every sense of the word.

It brought to mind a similar image that I have always carried with me. Stanley Knowles used to express it when he talked about how one can accomplish much more with an open hand than with a closed fist. I think it is the same concept. Sometimes we do not build enough on those positive images as we try to go about dealing with the major challenges we face in contemporary political life.

It struck me that it was somewhat ironic, in a way a sad irony, but also a telling disappointment that a woman who came to Canada as a refugee, who has never held political office in this country and who has never to my knowledge sought political office nevertheless was able to put forward in her speech to Canadians last week a more compelling vision for the future of Canada, a more profound appreciation of Canadian history and Canadian culture and a better grasp of the challenges that we face in this country today than the current Prime Minister who has actually held office for over 30 years, and the current government that by my calculation has actually been in power in the country for 63 years during this century. One has to wonder what that says about the current government and the lack of leadership we have seen from the government over the six years since it was elected to office in 1993.

When I spoke in the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne on my first occasion in this House in 1997, I quoted from one of my favourite passages and one of my favourite authors and also a very accomplished actress, Anne-Marie MacDonald. She is best known perhaps for her epic novel Fall on Your Knees . Like all good literary references, I will again quote briefly from that book because it bears repeating:

There is nothing so congenial to lucid thought as a clear view of the sea: it airs the mind, tunes the nerves, scours the soul.

For a maritimer there is no question that references to the ocean, to the seaside, to our marine heritage are always very positive, particularly when one comes from a riding where so much of the way of life depends on our proximity to the ocean. There is shipbuilding, shipping, our naval history, marine related industries and so on, and of course fishing.

It occurred to me that maybe part of the problem with the lack of vision from the government and the Prime Minister is the fact that he spends too much time on landlocked golf courses and not enough time beside the sea where he could gain the kind of inspiration that is very much needed today in public office.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he intends to remain at the helm. Some of his colleagues would say it would appear to be forever. It is certainly creating some difficulties and some manoeuvring below decks among his colleagues. But he has made it clear that he wants to continue to be at the helm. It is becoming something of a long running soap opera, not to be outdone by the continuing national soap opera between the Reform Party and the Conservative Party in trying to decide whether they want to be a divided alternative, a united alterative, or split off in three different directions.

The Prime Minister wants to remain at the helm, but he is a bad captain. He has no vision and no idea of which direction to take. Consequently, he relies on pollsters and uses taxpayers' money to determine Canada's destinations for the 21st century.

Unfortunately, even with the range of destinations identified by pollsters and hoped for by Canadians, the Prime Minister and his Liberal crew are unable to safely take Canadians there, as they have demonstrated in the past.

Seven years ago, the Liberals told Canadians “Put us at the helm and we will set the course”, a course which was supposed to lead to the abolition of the GST. Not only have we not arrived at our destination, but Canadians continue to pay this charge, which is particularly unfair to the poor.

In 1993 Canadians were told that if they put Liberals at the helm, they would launch a national child care program. They said that they would add new child care spaces, 50,000 new child care spaces for every year in which economic growth exceeded 3%. In three out of four of the subsequent years, economic growth has attained or exceeded 3% yet we do not have one single solitary additional child care space as a result of the initiatives of the federal government. The result is that hundreds of thousands of children and their families remain stranded when it comes to access to affordable, safe and quality child care.

We were promised that we were on our way to home care so that families could care for their loved ones. We were promised that we were on our way to pharmacare so that families without drug plans could cope with inflated prescription drug costs. That ship has not even set sail. No wonder Canadians do not believe that Liberals can be trusted to keep their promises that have been set out in the throne speech.

Liberals pretend to care about our children. They talk in the throne speech about the importance of the early years of a child's life, to his or her own well-being. I want to say that we welcome the Prime Minister's announcement this afternoon of extending parental leave and maternity benefits. I congratulate my colleagues from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and Acadie—Bathurst for having worked strenuously to achieve that kind of commitment from the government.

The question is what has the government actually done about children who are living in grinding poverty in this country? There were close to one million children living in poverty already when this Prime Minister came to office. What has the government done? It has added 500,000 more children to the ranks of poverty in Canada. When did the Liberal government decide that 1.5 million poor kids do not count in this country?

The throne speech shows clearly that the Liberal government has no intention of acting to help our young people gain access to the higher education they need.

The Liberals' laissez-faire attitude means more debt for our young people and more profits for the banks that finance their education.

Last year, the average debt of a graduate was $25,000. Yet, there is no mention in the throne speech of reducing students' indebtedness or of reducing tuition fees to make education more accessible.

Could it be that the government does not care about young people?

The government pretends that it wants to help Canadians flourish in a dynamic economy. Yet there is not one single solitary mention in the throne speech about the greatest crisis in farm income, the worse agricultural crisis experienced in the country since the Great Depression. When did the government decide that farm children and farm communities did not count?

There was not a word in the throne speech about the upheaval in families and communities in Cape Breton that are facing the shutdown of the coal mining industry or those who are facing uncertain futures in the steel industry. When did the government decide that the families in those communities do not count?

The government pretends that it cares about Canada's physical infrastructure. Yet we are experiencing a severe crisis with respect to the future of our airline industry. The government has decided to abandon any leadership. It has decided to allow the shareholders to determine absolutely the future of our airline industry. It has shown no leadership to bring together the other stakeholders in our airline industry: the travelling public, airline employees, and small and remote communities that need the assurance of continued service.

[The Speaker]

I think we might have a solution to continuing a bit longer. We have just a few more minutes and I will go to questions and comments. A member came up and asked me if she could ask a question so I will give her the floor to do so.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to my leader, the member for Halifax, pertaining to the very difficult economic situation facing many families and communities everywhere in the country. I would like to ask the member to respond to what is in the Speech from the Throne for that situation and what solutions she sees.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already heard that a number of Canadian families have been completely ignored by the government. Let me speak about the complete lack of leadership by the government with respect to those who do not have a family with whom they can find a home, with whom they are able to live, the homeless.

We have watched the government completely abandon any responsibility to put in place a national housing strategy, the only industrial nation in the world which does not have a national housing strategy. When did the government decide that the homeless did not count?

The government pretends that it cares about aboriginal families. Yet we have seen the government virtually turn its back on many of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People.

One of the most important principles of the recommendations in that commission's report was that treaty rights should be negotiated, not litigated. Yet it is the lack of leadership by the government which has driven many aboriginal people into the courts to seek justice and to seek their rights. The result is that many tensions have been created by a government absolutely not prepared to provide any leadership in dealing with the inevitability of finally addressing treaty rights long overdue and disregarded.

Later this evening we are to have a take note debate on some of the tensions created in the fishery industry. Again it is important to note that the Union of Nova Scotia Indians began to provide leadership six months ago on April 29 around the failure of the federal government to address what kinds of tensions would be created by a favourable decision on the Marshall case when it came before the supreme court. We now have to repair the damage done by that lack of leadership.

There are many other areas in which the government has disregarded its responsibility to provide leadership. The government says that it cares about the environment all of a sudden, and thank goodness it is back on the agenda. However, let me say that it is very difficult for Canadians to be confident that the government will deliver on any new commitments to the environment when it has done nothing to put an end to the export of our most precious resource, our water.

It has done nothing to address the concerns of communities in Ontario in speaking out against the importation of MOx plutonium, MOx fuel, with all the implications both short term and long term that holds for damage to our environment.

Having gutted the most important provisions and improvements to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canadians are wondering how they can trust the government to make a priority of the environment.

Before I wrap up I want to make one further brief mention of the complete absence in the Speech from the Throne of any commitment to meaningful electoral reform or parliamentary reform. The government knows and understands how serious it is in a democracy to have more and more cynicism toward politics, more and more people feeling that their vote does not count and they cannot hear their voice in parliament. It is a privilege to live in a democracy. We understand that politics is the lifeblood of a free and democratic society.

The New Democratic Party absolutely believes in the importance of modernizing our electoral processes and our democratic institutions to ensure that they remain responsive, effective and accountable. The federal Liberal government has delivered many promises in its Speech from the Throne, but Canadians can be forgiven for not trusting the Liberals to deliver on those promises because of their dismal record of not doing so.

My colleagues and I will use every opportunity available to us inside and outside of parliament to act on the concerns of ordinary Canadians to push the government to address the concerns of working people because we believe in a responsive, positive and proactive role for government.

We believe in a vision for 21st century Canada which includes the notion of political leadership not just by the federal government but by all levels of government working in effective partnerships with the private sector, the non-profit and co-operative sector, labour representatives, and primary producers for something that is bigger than ourselves. That is the legacy of my party's contribution to Canada. That is what inspired each and every one of my colleagues to seek public office and to represent our constituents and our communities as New Democrats.

In conclusion, that is what will inspire our every move as we go about our work on behalf of our constituents. As Tommy Douglas once said, it is never too late to build a better world. Let us get on with the task of working together on behalf of all constituents to build a better Canada and a better world as we go into the 21st century.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the leader of the New Democratic Party in her response to the throne speech. I would like to ask one brief question. We heard the leader of the NDP talk about the programs and the spending which the federal government plans to undertake. We also heard of some programs that she and her party would like to see added to that list.

Exactly how much higher would the leader of the New Democratic Party like to see Canadian taxes go?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very unhelpful question which breeds much cynicism toward politics in a lot of Canadians who look at what goes on in parliament today with some distress.

Let me say very clearly that we believe the federal government or any government has a responsibility to act in a fiscally responsible manner. It is very difficult for the vast majority of Canadians to understand how the party the member represents can on one hand say that it is committed to reinvesting in health care and to ensuring that the agricultural crisis which many families and communities are experiencing are addressed with public dollars. On the other hand, that party talks about the kind of across the board tax cuts which would give millions and millions of dollars to the wealthy and absolutely nothing, or pennies, to those who need assistance most.

That is what the Reform Party stands for. That is why my party is very happy to be here with sufficient force to stand and not only push against the Reform Party agenda but finally begin to push the Liberal Party back toward a more responsible stand on some of these issues than the dominance it has had over its actions over last six years.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I begin on a congratulatory note. I extend my congratulations to all previous speakers and leaders. I also extend congratulations on behalf of the party to the new governor general, Madam Adrienne Clarkson, and offer our best wishes to the outgoing governor general, Mr. LeBlanc. Some congratulations are also in order with respect to the Speech from the Throne which broadly and vaguely stated the government's willingness to look to the future.

It is necessary to compliment the Liberal government for finally recognizing that the modern economy exists, for showing an awareness for the next century and for spending some time in the throne speech telling Canadians that new technologies will play a larger role in all our lives. These are penetrating statements of the obvious, yet it marks a shift in simply following the policies of a previous Conservative government and reaping the benefit of those visionary initiatives.

We are on the verge of the 21st century; that is an undeniable fact. The Liberals acknowledge it, and that is encouraging. They may have taken six years to do so, but finally the government has taken the risk of stating that the country is in a period of transition and that there are a number of challenges ahead on the horizon. Yet there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne that helps Canadians understand the direction in which the Liberals wish to steer Canada. Nothing in the throne speech assures Canadians that the country is going in the right direction. The Speech from the Throne says nothing about all the complicated workings of governmental affairs.

I compliment the government for making a grand gesture to the Canadian public yesterday, a gesture that exhibited supreme confidence in the future of the country and the ability of Canadians to respond to future challenges. Unfortunately it was an empty and shallow gesture, one which offered no vision and no leadership. This was not a blueprint of where the country is headed. It was a pencil sketch or connect the dots. Sadly it showed a government with no ideas, no focus and no sense of how we move the country forward, only vague notions of what the future might look like.

Canadians want some serious issues addressed, issues like increasing the tax burden, the agricultural crisis in western Canada, the issue of immigration, or the consequences of a hostile takeover resulting in a single national airline. Those looking for these issues to be addressed in the throne speech were sadly disappointed.

There were a lot of right sounding words in the throne speech, words like knowledge economy, building a higher quality of life, technology and advancing Canada's place in the world. These are all important issues that this parliament will have to address, but beyond the catch phrases themselves there was nothing, nothing new and nothing that explains the purpose of the government.

It is disheartening to see over the course of several months that the federal government failed to prepare itself for this new parliament, even with the three-week delay in the opening. It failed to meet the demands of Canadians for a responsible government and for the delivery of a vigorous new plan for this parliament.

It has also failed to anticipate the Supreme Court decision in Marshall, the void that it would create and the chaos it would initiate.

It is appropriate now to quote a respected Canadian philosopher, John Ralston Saul, who wrote:

The modern tools of communication become the tools of propaganda. And fear of the consequences of non-conformity is propagated.

This statement takes on a wonderful clarity and irony in the context of yesterday's throne speech. What was the meaning behind the promises we heard? Were they one line promises with little if any detail on how exactly these promises were to be implemented? It was much like we have seen from previous throne speeches from the government. Much of what we heard were ideas generated by the PC Party of Canada or ideas that have been long media tested, words that sound wonderful and warm people's hearts but do not amount to much.

No one would deny that we need to improve our commitment on children's issues, to a stronger economy, to a quality health care, to aboriginal peoples amongst other issues. These we can all agree on but where were the details? When can Canadians count on the government to explain its vision in a manner that provides answers rather than more questions?

We have heard much about the Liberal's concept of diversity. We heard it many times in yesterday's speech. How can the government speak of respecting diversity when it chooses to antagonize Quebec, when it chooses to antagonize Atlantic Canada, the west and other regions and when it chooses to antagonize every region of the country with alienating provocative approaches to federalism?

When the government boldly states that the supreme court decision on the clarity of the referendum question must be respected it makes clear that the goal is to provoke Quebec. The Liberal plan B approach has done nothing but antagonize Quebec and is completely unconstructive.

We need to encourage Canadians if we are to evolve as a strong and united country. When the government ignores the plight of western farmers or Atlantic fishers it shows that it respects diversity only when it falls within the Liberal agenda. It demonstrates that it is only a true crisis that evokes a response and even then the government responds slowly and inadequately.

It is heartening to know that the government has finally recognized the priority that needs to be given to environmental issues, six years too late, I might add. And still the Liberals have done nothing more than to affirm and reaffirm Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocols and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The government speaks of a children's agenda but it has not taken any meaningful action to protect the environment in which our children will live. Thankfully, some industries have stepped up the challenge and have taken meaningful steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to do so from their factories. Others have not been so noble. The government needs to stop talking about the reduction of harmful greenhouse emissions and start meaningful implementation of those commitments.

I talked about what was in the throne speech. What we uncover more about the government is in discussing what was left out of the document.

The throne speech delivered the message of the new economy, of high technology and of the Internet, but here we have a government that has abandoned the country's traditional industries, industries that have powered our economy for more than a century, industries such as forestry, fishing, oil and gas, mining, farming and shipbuilding. These industries continue to play an invaluable role in keeping our communities alive, prosperous and thriving, traditional industries that have sustained Canadians and provided not only income and occupation but also pride and purpose. They continue to do so. They continue to be a part of Canada's overall economy despite Liberal government indifference. Where on earth was the commitment to our brave men and women of the armed forces for equipment and resources to ensure their safety and success? This glaring omission speaks volumes.

Within the pages of the speech there was a flavour of the abandonment of the past. While the push to the future is a noble ideal, we cannot forget the fact that our traditional industries continue to provide meaningful work in areas of high unemployment. The speech was littered with reaffirmations of previously unfulfilled promises or commitments.

As a Maritime member, it becomes obvious that the lack of focus on significant industries will have a negative impact. It sends a message to Atlantic Canadians and others that they are not a high priority for the Liberal government. One only has to look at the results of the last federal election and two recent provincial elections in the Atlantic provinces to know how Atlantic Canadians react when ignored.

When the Liberal government speaks of high technology and of the knowledge based economy bringing a higher quality of life to Canadians, it neglects to mention that the costs to the quality of life in our smaller communities amongst fishers, farmers and miners will be hurt. Let us build a stronger future by encouraging and connecting Canadians from coast to coast. Let us not disconnect from the important industries that continue to drive the economy.

It is appropriate tonight that we in the House will be participating in a debate on the crisis emerging in the commercial fishing industry between native and non-native fishers. The government has tiptoed around this critical issue for weeks allowing it to fester and grow to the point of confrontation and violence.

Let us hope that the government uses tonight's debate as an opportunity to reset its priorities and focus on the necessity of finding a swift and long term resolution to this crisis. This must be an inclusive focus on consensus building and it must avoid the base political antagonism that has been practised by some.

We have learned recently that aboriginal chiefs, including those who have until now supported the moratorium, have just left the meeting in New Brunswick and that the fisheries self-imposed moratorium is now off. This means that boats and traps will be put back in the water and there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and addressed quickly.

Across the country other crises emerge. The crisis faced by the western farm families went literally and figuratively unnoticed in yesterday's throne speech. The low agricultural prices caused by subsidies among our trading partners threatens to put many Canadian farmers out of business completely. This issue needs government action before it is too late.

There is nothing in the throne speech that will stem the brain drain. The government must move to keep highly skilled Canadians from emigrating to the United States. As well, there is nothing to stem interprovincial brain drain. Far too many young Canadians are forced to move away from home and family depriving their communities of the knowledge and the skills necessary to build a strong foundation for the country in the 21st century.

We cannot wait for more Centres of Excellence to be established and more implementations of millennium scholarships. A focus on research and development and the improvement for our children is laudable. However, if our children are to simply grow up, become well educated, armed with skills and then move to the United States what have we accomplished and what have we gained?

We can do more than simply applaud the government's commitment to a free trade arena or area of the Americas by the year 2005. We can do that but it is finally heartening to see that free trade has become a government priority. Free trade is something that this party initiated. I would certainly like to see the Liberal government undertake this effort with as much vigour and tenacity as it did with its anti-free trade efforts in 1993.

It may have taken the Liberal government six years but it appears that it has finally realized that for Canadians to succeed they must be innovative and productive. They must invest in skills development and they must seek new opportunities around the world.

The reality is that the Liberal track record has been about declining productivity and investment, record levels of taxation and punishing regulations and red tape. Pie in the sky platitudes are not enough for Canadians and after six years they should and do expect more.

The Liberals are simply paying lip service to increasing our quality of life. Under this Prime Minister, Canadians have seen their federal tax revenues go up while their disposable incomes and revenues go down. At best, we have seen incomes decline. The Liberal government's lack of vision and leadership is actually destroying and undermining Canadians' quality of life not improving it as the throne speech would have us believe.

The government needs to cut taxes starting with personal income taxes and capital gains taxes. We must put money back in the pockets of those who have earned it and allow them to generate economic growth. The government must set firm, achievable debt reduction targets.

The PC Party of Canada has given specifics about where it stands on tax issues such as the decrease in the capital gains tax and a full indexation of tax brackets. The Liberal government has remained silent. Our party will continue to consult with experts and Canadians on this matter. Our federal government chooses to avoid consultation.

This reluctance to put forward a plan for tax cuts is part of a trend. We have not seen any ground-breaking initiatives in the last six years that would reverse the trend. The government's commitment to seasonal workers is abysmal. Agriculture, natural resource workers, middle class families and scores of other Canadians have been ignored and undercut by the government.

Tax reduction is fundamental to the economic well being of Canadians and tax relief, more dollars being left in the hands of families with children, would be a step in that direction. To help children, the government must help parents of those children with meaningful tax relief. In the throne speech, the government said it would make a third significant investment in the national child benefit but there are no details of exactly how much the government will invest nor are there any contingency plans should the provinces and territories choose not to co-operate.

Just as it has done with a series of other issues, issues such as poverty where the Liberals identified a problem that was obvious to all and then provided Canadians with false hope. Canadians are becoming cynical and despondent. The government even created a separate ministry aimed at poverty but with no budget and no mandate and then tried to convince Canadians that it had addressed the problem. Canadians will not be fooled.

There are more examples of more promises and no action. The government's day to day management of native issues contradicts the promise that aboriginal people will be able to more fully participate and contribute to Canada's economy. This paternalistic attitude flies in the face of the government's pledge to promote greater aboriginal self-reliance.

The government's attempt to present itself in a caring and compassionate way as a government that helps families and children in particular is a sham. However, in the Year of Older Persons nowhere was there even a mention of seniors. To quote my colleague from Saint John:

Too often in our society today, seniors are overlooked and ignored. Our society is aging, and as it does, more and more seniors are falling through the cracks—substandard housing, inadequate health care, and in many cases, just plain neglect. Yet this government didn't see fit to mention them even once in their blueprint for the new millennium.

Whether I speak of families, children or of the elderly, it is obvious that when it comes time to implement legislation that would be truly beneficial the government has constantly failed to deliver. One need only look at the government's chance to reform family law and strengthen support with the joint common senate committee on child custody in 1997. The government ignored its report and the justice minister has already indicated that she wants more consultations that will last until the year 2002.

Another area where the Liberal government has failed to deliver has been with the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. It has called this legislation a priority yet it has refused to acknowledge how it is going to pay for this when it is already not living up to the monetary commitments under the old young offenders act.

The lack of attention to youth crime has spilled over into other areas of law enforcement. An abysmal lack of funding for the RCMP has constantly forced our Mounties to do more with less. This has literally endangered the officers and the public at large. Bowing to public pressure, the government is now expecting the already overworked members of our national police force to combat high tech crimes such as money laundering, organized crime and the smuggling of people, guns and drugs.

The government speaks of public safety as its number one priority yet it continues to release dangerous offenders into our communities.

Finally we have more Liberal rhetoric regarding the future of health care. It is fine for Liberals to talk about improving our health care system but it cannot be forgotten that the dire straits of health care in the country was created by this government. By simply putting money back in when it does not even equal the amount of money that was taken out, our health care system will not improve.

This approach simply will not cut it. Accessible and universal health care is one of the things for which Canadians take the most amount of pride. We are very anxious to see how this government plans to keep the proud tradition of our health care system alive. Certainly this throne speech gives no hint. Medical research is vital. If the government intends to foster an international reputation as a world leader in this field, we cannot continue to ignore the daily health care needs of Canadians. They are sadly off course.

The Throne Speech represents a government whose vision is a mile wide and an inch deep. There were some fine platitudes about this country's potential but there was nothing that provided Canadians with an understanding of where this government is coming from, and where it is going.

With the dawn of the new millennium, this Liberal government had a golden opportunity to present a comprehensive plan on the path that the country should take. Sadly that opportunity was missed and the government has traded vision for vagueness at the expense of all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I thank you for the opportunity to present our response to the throne speech.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, something was left out of the throne speech. I am wondering what my colleague feels about the situation with regard to the aboriginal chiefs, our native people and the lobster industry at the present time and what is happening with the fishery.

I am not sure about this, but my understanding is that there was a meeting held in Moncton, New Brunswick today and the chiefs have decided to put their traps back in the water tomorrow. These are not just the New Brunswick chiefs, but the Atlantic chiefs.

What the government did with regard to the fishing situation in all of Canada from coast to coast was not addressed. I would like to hear from the hon. member as to what he thinks should have been in that speech.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, it has become obvious that not only was there an omission in the throne speech but also there was a lax approach by the government to this emerging crisis. It was two weeks before the government chose to act. Going back even further, it is shocking to think that the government did not anticipate or foresee that this was one of the possible scenarios the supreme court could follow in its decision in the Marshall case.

I know that members of this party, members from South Shore, West Nova, Southwest Nova, Petitcodiac, Beauséjour, our newest member, and Saint John have worked very diligently to meet with both the native and non-native fishers to get their ideas and input. I am encouraged to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has followed that tack. Now the time has come to sit down with these members to try to come up with a solution that is going to work respecting the need for conservation and respecting what the supreme court has done in a meaningful but measured way to avoid violence or possible death in this issue. It has to be done quickly.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion concerning Canadian fisheries.

Special Debate

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved:

That this House take note of the difficulties in Canadian fisheries, especially as complicated by the Queen and Marshall case and its implications for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples and for the future management of natural resources.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I appreciate this opportunity to bring members of parliament up to date on the developments in Atlantic Canada following a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Many members have been following the story in media reports over the past four weeks, but this is the first chance I have had to tell the House personally what is happening.

I think it is important for members of parliament to understand the background to this issue and what I am going to do to resolve it. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall case is an important judgment that affirms certain rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet peoples flowing from the historical treaties with the crown. In short, the supreme court decision affirms a treaty right that deserves our respect; but that right is a regulated right, it is not a blank cheque to fish anywhere at any time.

As a result of this judgment we will have to consider a number of fundamental questions about the management of the fishery. In this new reality our challenge is to find ways to work together to secure the future of the fishery for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. We must formulate a process for integrating fishing under the treaty right in the overall fishery. We need to develop a management scheme that will respect the treaty right described by the court while being sensitive to the social and economic realities of the Atlantic fishery and those who depend on it.

When the supreme court handed down its judgment on September 17, the issue had my immediate and full attention. We have been working with federal departments to analyse the implications of the judgment. In addition, we engaged in immediate and continuous dialogue with aboriginal communities, provincial governments and other stakeholders in the fisheries. Throughout this past month I have been heartened to hear the clear commitment to conservation and to co-operation expressed by the Mi'kmaq chiefs.

From the beginning our objective has been to achieve an effective management regime which represents a supreme court judgment and is fair to the interest in the fisheries. Through the goodwill, patience and restraint that has been demonstrated by all participants, we have made considerable progress toward this goal. The treaty signed in 1760 between the British and the Mi'kmaq was called the Peace and Friendship Treaty. We should keep those words in mind, peace and friendship, as we work together toward the long term solution.

The supreme court decision is complex and its full implications are not yet totally clear. However, since September 17 we have clarified a number of issues raised. Let me summarize what we understand about the judgment.

The court has affirmed that the beneficiaries of the treaty have a right to, among other things, fish, hunt and gather and trade the products of these activities for necessaries. Translated into modern terms the judgment indicates this right entitles the beneficiaries to have the opportunity to gain a moderate livelihood from the exercise of their fishing, hunting and gathering activities.

The court has also told us that right is limited. It does not extend to the open-ended accumulation of wealth, nor does it provide for an unregulated harvest. While the court has made it clear that there is a treaty right to fish, it has also made it clear the exercise of the right is subject to regulation by government. Catch limits that would reasonably be expected to provide a moderate livelihood can be enforced without infringing the treaty rights.

There are many considerations that will be central to our efforts as we move forward in concert with all the parties. For example, we consider this to be a communal right and not an individual right. To be clear, even though the right is exercised by individuals, it is for the benefit of the collective.

Another issue that is fundamental to the interpretation of the judgment is that in order to accommodate the treaty right, we must understand who are the current beneficiaries of that right. It is our view that the treaty applies to the aboriginal communities that best represent the modern manifestation of the original signatories. Our initial assessment is that the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet Indian bands in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Listiguj first nation in Quebec are the modern manifestations of the collectives that benefited from the treaties. We now need to focus on a process that will allow us to accommodate the treaty right. We will involve in this process all who are directly concerned with the sustainability and the viability of the Atlantic fishery.

I became involved earlier on this issue and I have worked closely with natives, with commercial fishers, with federal departments and with provincial premiers to find short and long term solutions.

When the supreme court judgment was delivered on September 17 and others in government sought a clear understanding of the implications, we worked quickly to analyse some fundamental questions about the management of the fishery and how to address them.

There may be some critics who think we should have been able to guess what the court would say and that we should have jumped immediately into action, but it is difficult to predict the supreme court decisions and the terms used within the judgments. Some court decisions take years to interpret. In this case we had a preliminary assessment in less than two weeks' time. Unfortunately, emotions ran high in some communities which resulted in serious property damage, injuries and violence. Those events deeply saddened me and many other Canadians across the country.

It is important for us to work together. We must not allow hot tempers and poor judgment to tarnish Canada's reputation for tolerance, for generosity and respect for the law. I am encouraged to see that calm and goodwill have returned to most areas of Atlantic Canada. In the meantime we are working on a process that will accommodate both commercial and native fisheries for years to come.

I would like to extend my personal thanks to all the chiefs and members of the industry who took the time to meet with me to share their views and concerns. Since the beginning I have said that I would respect the decisions of the chiefs, and that continues to be my position.

I also want to commend the people in area 35 who together, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, found community based solutions.

The decision that was handed down on September 17 by the supreme court left many unanswered questions. We need time to work together. But thanks to the willingness of all those who keep the lines of communication open, we have made progress. Aboriginal members of the fishing sector, the province, the federal government have all shown a strong will to resolve this issue.

What was really important when I met with the chiefs in Atlantic Canada was the long term issue. Many of the chiefs felt that we must not focus on the short term and detract from what are the real issues, which is a long term issue. That is what I hope to focus on, that we begin a process, a comprehensive plan of progress with all those parties that are affected by the fisheries issues, to bring them together and talk about real solutions. Real solutions can come about through dialogue and through co-operation, with people working together, sitting around the table looking at each other eye to eye and talking about the problems and how they can resolve them.

We have been working on a short term solution. I know the chiefs are meeting today. Until I hear from them directly, I will not comment whether they in fact have decided to lift the moratorium or not, because this is something that they have done on a voluntary basis. Certainly I would be disappointed if that is the decision they have made, but I will wait until they have directly contacted me before I comment on that. An hon. member has said that I have not had contact. I will wait to see if that is the case.

We must go back to the fact that this treaty was a peace and friendship treaty. It was signed more than two centuries ago. Natives and non-natives have lived and worked together for generations since that time in peace and harmony. Together with patience, restraint, respect for the law and with the co-operation of everyone, we can turn the spirit for the next century.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the Q and A of the minister to allow the House to fully question him about this issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House order made earlier today provides that there shall be no request for unanimous consent, so I am afraid that request cannot be granted. We will proceed to questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, the government failed to obtain the court's objectives in the Marshall ruling. It had no management plan in place in the event of a decision in favour of this treaty right and it has made no attempt either in its presentation to the court or since to balance the interests of other Canadians in the face of the treaty right granted by the court.

The minister has suggested in his speech and elsewhere that he will apply this treaty right as a communal right. He has said that the communal right will be exercised by individuals for the benefit of all. I would like to know how he will be able to determine a moderate living if he is going to apply this as a communal right. If we consider a moderate living for all of the Mi'kmaq, if that is his objective, it is obvious that there will be nothing left for anybody else.

I would like the minister, very clearly, to answer the question of how a moderate living could be determined if the treaty right is applied as a communal right.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the communal right is seen as a collective right. I am sure the hon. member is very much aware of what that means.

How we define a moderate livelihood, as described by the courts, is something that we have to sit around the table on. We have to work with the aboriginal community and with all the parties together. We must ask how we can ensure that the aboriginal people who are the beneficiaries of this treaty right are going to exercise it. We need to define those terms, but we need to define them in conjunction with the aboriginal people, by sitting around the table and talking with them.

If we were to ask everybody in this room how to define that we would have 30 different definitions. It is something that has to be negotiated. We have to sit at the table and do it.

I have always felt that it is better to negotiate than to go to the courts, but there are others out there who refuse to move forward. Even when we introduced the aboriginal fishing strategy after Sparrow many said that we could not move forward. The last Conservative government was not any better at predicting what the supreme court was going to do with respect to Sparrow. However, we were trying to bring the aboriginal community into the fishery. Buying up licences was one way we were doing it. We have already tried to work things out through negotiation.

We have to negotiate. At the end of the day, if we cannot find some sort of mediation, we will have to go back to the courts. However, when we go to the courts we have to go by what they put forward and we have to live with their views.

One of the challenges we have is to define a moderate livelihood. It is something we will have to sit around the table to deal with. That is why we need to focus on the long term and not on the short term issues that distract us. The courts have recognized it as a treaty right and we have to ensure that we work together so they can exercise that right by taking due consideration of the interests and being sensitive to the other interests in the fisheries.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let the record show that there was not one mention by the minister of the people who are going to be displaced.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the brand new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the portfolio. I was glad to hear him tell the House and all Canadians listening that it is indeed better to negotiate than it is to litigate.

We know the historical aspect. The previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government told the aboriginal people “Take your cases to court”. In the Bay of Fundy region, District 35 opens up its commercial offshore season tomorrow. The Bay of Fundy inshore fishermen are working very closely with the aboriginal people to come up with a long term solution. The problem is, they are doing it on their own with no help at all from DFO officials.

Will the minister commit the necessary human and financial resources to aid those people in their co-operative effort toward a long term solution?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's comments. What we want to do is start working as soon as possible on a long term solution by bringing people together. In the next weeks I will come forward with a plan, which will include all parties, to bring everyone around the table. We want to make sure that we start as soon as possible. Certainly the input of the member will be very valuable as we move forward.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to Reform members' interventions in this debate. It is always very interesting to see where they are coming from.

I am pleased to join my hon. colleague in debating this motion.

The supreme court has provided valuable guidance on how an agreement between two parties, the 1760-61 Mi'kmaq treaty, should be interpreted as we enter the 21st century. However, the court did not specify how those treaty rights are to be implemented and respected both now and in the future.

It is very important for people to understand that the court's decision is complex and far-reaching. There are no quick and easy solutions, as has been suggested by some people already this evening. A constructive resolution requires that all parties work together to respect an affirmed treaty right in a way that is sensitive to the interests of all those who rely on the fishery for their livelihood.

We have much more work ahead of us—governments, first nations and non-first nations—to reconcile and understand the court's interpretation of this and other historic treaties. The process by which we can work together toward finding a settlement is not new. In fact, it is well under way. Our commitment to negotiate with first nations in the spirit of partnership is ongoing. So too is our commitment to finding settlements to legitimate outstanding first nations obligations. These commitments were reconfirmed last year with the launch of “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”.

The government's response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples affirmed that agreements are best negotiated in a way that respects the rights and concerns of first nations and those of their neighbours.

This is nothing new. We see it taking place across the country every day. On the west coast the British Columbia Treaty Commission is negotiating modern day treaties with 51 first nations where no settlements were negotiated. In the Yukon, comprehensive claim settlements, self-government and shared resource management are returning certainty to the territory. In the Atlantic region a process is under way with first nations to find approaches to identify and settle legitimate outstanding obligations to first nations. The same spirit of partnership will be needed to understand historic treaties.

In “Gathering Strength” we said that the continuing treaty relationship provides the context of mutual rights and responsibilities which will ensure that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can together enjoy the benefits of this great land.

Unfortunately, for too many years first nations have not fully enjoyed the benefits of this great land, in part because they have had limited access to fish, forests, minerals and other natural resources. Yet, court rulings have consistently and clearly demonstrated that first nations do indeed have rights. They have worked relentlessly to have aboriginal and treaty rights recognized.

I would like to quote from a letter to the editor in today's edition of the Vancouver Sun . Miles Richardson, the chief commissioner of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, writes: “Aboriginal rights exist whether or not they are set out in a treaty or agreed to by anyone. But without a treaty it is unclear about how and where those treaties apply. The courts have continually said that the best way to resolve these issues is through good faith negotiations with give and take on all sides”.

I agree completely with those words. I can confirm that my department is working in partnership with first nations and other governments across Canada to ensure that treaties are fully respected.

It is clear that the supreme court ruling on the Marshall case has implications for the people of Atlantic Canada, both first nations and non-first nations. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is working very hard to arrive at a fair and equitable solution involving access to Atlantic fishery resources in light of the Marshall decision.

The impact of the Marshall case likely will not be confined to fish and it likely will not be confined to Atlantic Canada. I will be reviewing with others involved how these broader issues should be addressed. After all, this is a shared responsibility among all parties. It is up to all of us to help explain to all Canadians the meaning of treaties and the treaty relationship.

I think we are seeing that the days are gone when one minister, the minister of Indian affairs, is the only one working on or speaking to aboriginal issues. These issues are of significant importance to all ministers and I commend and support my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, for his efforts.

My role is broader. I see it as having the federal lead to work closely with first nation leaders, my provincial counterparts and my cabinet colleagues to explore together an overall approach to the broader question of the treaty relationship and aboriginal access to resources.

As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I am just one person among many who is working on or speaking to aboriginal issues. These issues are of significant importance to all ministers. Again, I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his efforts. Together we will explore an overall approach to the broader question of the treaty relationship and aboriginal access to resources.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There are many members who wish to ask questions tonight. Therefore I suggest that we limit our questions and answers to one minute in order to give as many members as possible the chance to intervene.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to get the opportunity to ask a question tonight and I will keep it to one minute.

With regard to the minister's statement there is one looming question that needs to be asked. We all know that there is no plan by the department of Indian affairs and there is no plan by the minister of fisheries to integrate natives into the fishery, but I want to know the minister's reasoning behind his statement when he said that natives were kept out of this fishery in the past.

In the 1950s and 1960s a lobster licence in southwest Nova Scotia could be bought for $1. I believe prior to that a licence was 25 cents.

What kept any first nations from the lobster fishery at that time?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously members who have a preoccupation with the fishing strategy are asking very specific questions, but they seem to have lost the gist of the speech and what I was trying to suggest.

I want to make it very clear to members that when the courts rule on particular rights of first nations they rule with the intent of saying to Canadians and to governments, provincial and federal, that the rights exist. Then they suggest to parliamentarians and members who are on the government side that they sit down with the aboriginal people to negotiate how those benefits from the treaty will flow, and they flow in a number of ways: from the economic development side of the issue, which was mentioned by my colleague earlier in his question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; the issue of how first nations people would be involved in the regulatory regime of the fishery itself; how they would be involved in other resources; and in gathering, which was part of the statement that was made by the court. Those issues were not defined. That was the whole issue. For someone to be as simplistic as to say that we should be prepared and coming out with a plan tomorrow and saying here it is, that is not what the courts asked us to do. The courts have asked us to sit down with the first nations and to define exactly how that treaty right will benefit them.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of words over there about how the government will try to work to effect a compromise between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen on the east coast. For the benefit of those listening or watching the debate tonight, I would like them to know that this is the same minister, when push came to shove on the Musqueam reserve, who sent eviction notices to all non-aboriginal leaseholders on that reserve because the insensitive and belligerent chief of the Musqueam insisted that be done.

Could the minister tell us what comfort the fishermen on the east coast can take by his words and those of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when this is the kind of action we have seen from the government consistently, time after time, when it has come down to an issue between aboriginal and non-aboriginal rights?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, any time an aboriginal community tries to create an economic development opportunity for themselves it becomes a win-lose for the Reform Party.

I see the Musqueam issue as a win-win in the sense that first nations people will make economic benefit from this legally binding contract. I do not know what the Reform Party would like to see the Government of Canada do. If its members would give us their position on that particular file, if they would like us to subsidize the first nations to the tune of $7 million to deal with it, I would be prepared to look at it. So far all the Reform Party is doing is running at aboriginal people but not giving us solutions as to how we deal with the situation.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I will be setting up a number of tables. Those tables will be like any other negotiation that we have done in B.C. or across the country, as I have mentioned earlier. We will sit down with the people, the chiefs of the Atlantic region and other interest groups, and we will then come up with a resolution as to how best to proceed with the treaty right confirmed by the court.

That will not happen tomorrow, next week or the week after. We will set up these tables and we will work through it over the winter. We hope that in the short term, which is in the next year, we will have some solutions to the issues. That is how it will be done. It is not the simplistic view of some members opposite that we should just go out there and ask people to break the law or change the law because we do not like the results of what the courts have ruled.