Debates of Oct. 13th, 1999

Special Debate

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not think the member opposite can accuse the minister of inaction. He went down and visited with the native community and the commercial fishers. He said very clearly that there will be a regulated fishery or no fishery at all. What he tried to achieve through goodwill and discussion was to keep people off the water until the proper regulatory regime could be put in place. He has the authority under the Fisheries Act to act if the conservation is jeopardized. I think we will see he will take that kind of action if necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have to share my time with my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, unless the House gives us more time. The motion says that speeches cannot exceed 20 minutes, but if I can have more time, I will take it.

I took a few notes during the minister's speech, and since he has not yet left to catch a plane despite the advice he was given, I will take this opportunity to tell him what I think. We like having the opportunity to talk to him, but when there is an emergency, he should be there where he is most needed.

The minister recognized right from the start that the natives have rights, which were confirmed by the supreme court, and that these rights are subject to regulations.

All we need to do next is to define the words “moderate livelihood”. It is unfortunate that at this stage I am the one who has to answer the questions. However, I will ask a series of questions he can answer in the questions and comments period if he wants to.

What we are trying to get a definition of is the expression “moderate livelihood”. That is the hardest thing to do here. And I know that the minister, who was a businessman, knows that. For a businessman, the hardest thing to do is to bring people to the negotiation table, but the minister's experience could be helpful in this instance.

I think that the court gave some useful indications. I mean that when one does not want to be stuck, as we are, with a bad judgement, one tries to negotiate an agreement, even a bad one.

In the present situation, the minister will have the opportunity to introduce legislation, to regulate fisheries. I recognize that the other party will not like the first set of rules. However, the only way to settle the issue is to go to court or sit down and negotiate.

I imagine I am not telling the minister anything new this evening, but I am keen to see the agenda he will set. All we saw on the television was the minister calling for a 30 day moratorium. We were not told who he would be sitting down with to negotiate.

I also noted in my speech today the fact that he intends to negotiate with the current beneficiaries, and mentioned that they are the current incarnations of the treaty signatories. I would like to get to know this better in good French or in business language, but I would like a complete list to be sure that there will not be other players joining a month after negotiations have begun.

I would also like the minister to take note when I ask what he is going to do during his 30 days. We would need to know his agenda, what will be negotiated and who will be sitting around the table. Certainly, there will be representatives of the fishers, other federal ministers and provincial ones too, I hope. The House must be reminded that, for every seafaring man, there are, as a rule of thumb, five people working on land. Thought must be given as well to the consequences of processing.

Still in the context of what is to be prepared, when will we know exactly who will be involved in the negotiations? Negotiations must deal with “moderate livelihood”, but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans signed the UN fishing agreement this summer. Article 5 pertains to commercial fishers as we know them and mentions that the signatory countries are committed to establishing and developing sustainable and profitable fishing.

In this international agreement definition, I do not see the beginnings of the definition of profitable in the vocabulary of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans here in Canada. It is an international agreement in which all the UN countries say, each time the development of fisheries is discussed, “without subsidies”.

What does “without subsidies”, as used internationally, mean in Canadian terms? Does it include EI? Does it include the interest deductions allowed by certain provinces on boats?

I need to know what form the profitable fisheries the minister has already administered would take, because I already imagine the moderate livelihood they have in mind for aboriginals is at least one step up from the threshold of profitability.

I would also like to see a start made on defining the level of profitability as understood by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

One thing that worried me about the minister's remarks was his comment that they had not yet taken in all the implications of the decision. I would have preferred not to harangue the minister unduly when he is new to the job, but it is unfortunate that his department did not have a plan B, particularly when they lost.

Out of respect for native and non-native fishers, I will perhaps avoid trite plays on words here this evening but, in some cases, they have a plan B ready, and in some cases they do not.

I would also like to know what the minister thinks about the different management styles throughout the world because, while we are on the aboriginal problem, I think that the 1867 legislation as it pertains to fisheries should also be revisited because, under the treaties, the discretionary nature of licences does not meet the aboriginal criterion.

We should take this opportunity to dust off Canada's old fisheries act. But the most serious problem is the historic sharing between the provinces.

If we end up having to define the resources we are going to have to give the native fishers, we will need to know where those resources are coming from. Rather than get into individual calculations, why not take the opportunity to look into some form of sharing?

There are management systems and Canada is part of one in which the percentage of each participant is determined before the total allowable catch is calculated each year. I refer to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, to which Canada belongs.

Why could what is good for Canada when it seeks to reach agreement with its colleagues outside its borders not be good for working with colleagues within its borders? I ask the minister that.

If my choice of vocabulary happens to grate on the ears of the minister or his officials, I would invite them to re-examine the French model, which speaks of stabilization criteria rather than historical share. In other words, I am appealing to a quality in the minister that can sometimes be a defect, but in this case can be positive.

A businessman needs tools if he is to manage. In order to manage, he must be able to plan, and to know how he is going to pay for his boat and for his groceries. The same thing goes for an aboriginal fisher, who has to know how and where he is going to fish, and in what quantities.

Meanwhile, there are short term tools to determine what is needed to buy social peace. Second, the government must make it known to the fishers that it intends to make long term plans and it can take advantage of this winter season to start a permit buy-back program. There are some people who need to make decisions about investing in a boat this winter. They may say to themselves that it is better for them to sell their fishing licence to Fisheries and Oceans because the size of the quota for the coming years is too unpredictable. The government needs to take all of this into account.

If it does not do so as soon as possible, I think it will be irresponsible, and things will be worse than they were right after September 17.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague who sits on the fisheries committee, who is from the beautiful area of the Gaspé, one very simple question.

Prior to my colleague's speech we heard the speech of a member of the Liberal Party, the governing party, and I am singing hallelujah for this. They have finally recognized and are starting to believe exactly what the auditor general said last April, that shellfish stocks, mainly lobsters, are in trouble. This was back in April, long before the Marshall decision was rendered.

Who does the member think is responsible for the downturn in the lobster fishery which the auditor general pointed out and which DFO itself still does not recognize as a very serious problem in Atlantic Canada?

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

I am glad the member has raised this point. This is something the auditor general raised. I know the representatives of some fishers' associations believe the auditor general is not really the one who should decide this. However, there is a problem. The member's question was right and very much to the point. It is up to us now to look into all this. I would remind the House that what the auditor general said and what is contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans about the situation on the Atlantic coast— and this was a unanimous all-party report—is that everybody agrees that there is a management problem at Fisheries and Oceans and that things have to change. If the Marshall decision is the opportunity to start anew, I think we should seize it.

What is being pointed out is significant. However, what is going on in one lobster fishery differs from what is going on in another. There is a management problem. I am tired of hearing the same worn out old record to the effect that it is a conservation problem when it is in fact a management problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in the Chamber tonight and he has listened to the to and fro of the debate. There has been a lot of discussion about the Nisga'a treaty and about the supreme court. These are two issues upon which we need to shed more light.

First of all, as was said earlier, the supreme court said in many of its earlier rulings that it does not see this as its job. The supreme court sees this as the job of the government. That is the first point.

The second point is that the Nisga'a treaty will bring consistency to that area of the west coast, to B.C. in particular. What we have now are inconsistencies. We do not have a modern day treaty. We are dependent upon supreme court judgments, which have caused serious confusion, and we have also had a lack of response from the government on this issue.

Would the member prefer a modern day treaty and consistency, or would he prefer that the supreme court deal with this so that we would have inconsistencies and a lack of response from the government? What is his feeling on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question, the member is asking me whether I prefer to go back to the courts or put up with further laxity and carelessness from the other side of the House.

Pardon the expression, but there is a French saying about it not mattering whether one is bitten by a dog or a bitch. I would not like to give the judges this responsibility, and I see that there is a lack of leadership on the other side. How will we, on this side of the House, find a way to put pressure on them so that they come to their senses? I do not know.

Many people have suggested that the truth or the way to get out of this mess might well come from the grassroots, and I believe that. Once the stunned reaction of our non-native fishers has passed— I believe them to be very peaceful people—they will be able to come up with solutions. We must have confidence in eastern Canadians. We have always overcome crises, and we will again.

Together, with the communities involved, we must find a way to get the government to take its responsibilities. But, I repeat, Grit or Tory, the problem always remains the same. There is a management problem at Fisheries and Oceans, and it is not for nothing that the standing committee unanimously pointed the finger not necessarily at the government but at the management style in that department.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to breathe a bit of life into this debate in spite of the late hour.

I am pleased to rise after my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who also speaks with so much conviction when he deals with fishery matters and when he talks on our party's behalf on those subjects that interest him so much and for which he serves his constituency so well.

I was also pleased to hear my colleague from Saint-Jean, our critic for aboriginal affairs, who presented his concerns on the subject debated tonight.

I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois is really interested in this subject because of its constitutional aspect. It is a matter that touches on the relations between the native people, or nations as we prefer to call them in Quebec, and the other inhabitants of the country. We now have to participate in a debate that will have consequences for our future, the future of Quebec and the future of Canada, the relations between Quebec, Canada and the natives people who belong to one or the other of those jurisdictions.

I believe that this kind of debate was fully justified, especially as a solution must be arrived at quickly. There is increasing urgency, given the well-known facts that seem to have deepened the crisis, which gave rise to violence and to behaviours that are unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

I have had the opportunity to hear part of the debate and I would now like to talk about constitutional issues and the Constitution, and mention that in a sovereign Quebec we will avoid problems such as those faced today by Canada as a result of the laissez-faire attitude of this government, and of its failure to truly follow through on its constitutional commitment as stated in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which says, and I quote the first subsection “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed”.

Enshrining things in the Constitution is not enough. Native peoples know full well it is not enough to have their rights recognized and affirmed in the Constitution. These rights must be implemented and exercised; the existing laws, the laws which were in force when this section came into force in 1982 must be reviewed and amended to reflect those rights. This is the root cause of the problem we are facing today and which is the topic of the motion before us.

Nothing has been done for 17 years. This provision came into force 17 years ago and successive governments have failed to implement it properly.

As a matter of fact, if one looks at the Marshall decision, the court says something very telling about the refusal to recognize the treaty rights at issue in this case.

The court said, and I quote:

“Mi'kmaq treaty rights were not accommodated in the regulations because presumably the crown's position was and continues to be that no such treaty rights existed”.

The court affirms that such were the position and the views of the crown. This clearly explains why regulations were adopted to give total discretion, and that discretion was exercised to deny rights granted by treaties that were, appropriately, widely and liberally interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, it is carelessness on the part of the government that has put citizens, people sharing the land who also want to share the resource, in a crisis situation.

We Quebecers experiencing this constitutional crisis fully understand and share the concerns of aboriginal nations, which have seen their constitutional rights trampled, a government hesitate and refuse to sit down and negotiate in good faith not only as regards the way their rights are recognized, but also the limitations that can be imposed on these rights, since the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada has led to the adoption of restrictions that are reasonable when it comes to the treaty rights of aboriginal nations.

All this to say that, from a constitutional point of view, this shows once again the flaws of our constitution when dealing with one of the peoples of Canada, with aboriginal peoples in general.

We are here not only to discuss and to protect the interests of Quebec, but also to promote the sovereignty project, which is the reason for the presence of Bloc Quebecois members in this house. I simply want to solemnly reiterate to Quebec's 11 aboriginal nations, that the Quebec government pledged long before other governments to recognize aboriginal nations. It did so in 1985 for 10 of them, and in 1987 for the Malecite nation. Not only did the Quebec government recognize their existence, it also indicated its determination to conclude agreements with each of the aboriginal nations.

In the 1985 motion, these agreements guaranteed the right to hunt, fish, trap, harvest and participate in the management of wildlife resources. This explicit recognition of the right to fish was expressed in a motion dating back to 1985.

Since then, negotiations have been carried out in good faith to follow up on these commitments. Sovereignist parties and members of this sovereignist coalition have also re-iterated the commitment they made in the 1990s to ensure that aboriginal people would be entitled to self-government within a sovereign Quebec and would even be able to take part in the drafting of a constitution where their autonomy would be recognized.

As we have so clearly said before, once the draft legislation on sovereignty has been proposed to Quebecers, once the bill on Quebec's future has been drafted, following numerous consultations of Quebecers through regional and national commissions, the Parti Quebecois's current agenda provides that:

—the constitution of a sovereign Quebec recognize the right of the native people to govern themselves on lands belonging to their people and to take part in the development of Quebec. Also the current constitutional rights of aboriginal people, their treaty rights and their aboriginal titles would also be confirmed by a sovereign Quebec.

Lastly, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois is currently considering a major proposal in which its members are also urged to re-iterate their commitment to recognizing the existing rights of the aboriginal people, to confirming these rights and to ensuring that negotiations are carried out with the native people of Quebec in order to recognize their right to self-government.

We also stipulate in this major proposal that the relationship between the native people, a sovereign Quebec and Canada could be governed by a partnership agreement that would ensure that these people and nations continue to enjoy a friendly relationship and that the native people would not, as the supreme court said in the Marshall judgement, be considered as “citizens minus”, but as first-class citizens in a sovereign Quebec and a sovereign Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned that in terms of long term solutions the executive legislature and the judiciary of the supreme court should get together to work toward solutions or come up with definitive reasoning for long term solutions not only in this particular instance but in other instances.

Would the hon. member from the Bloc agree that there needs to be a joint effort between the elected officials of parliament who represent Canada and the supreme court to come to reasonable conclusions in this particular instance?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the supreme court has done its job. My colleague from Saint-Jean set out the decisions that attempted to interpret section 35 and give it content. The supreme court told the government that it could limit rights in order to manage and conserve the resource.

It might be advisable for the legislators in this House to revise old legislation on fishing, as my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok proposed, to incorporate the full scope of the ancestral and treaty rights of the aboriginal nations in a broader fishing policy.

That seems more preferable to me than a regulation that would be adopted and selected by the government and only the government. I can see a role for this House in implementing ancestral and sub-treaty rights for other aboriginal nations.

In my opinion, this House must assume its responsibilities. It is up to the government especially to ensure that this House assumes its responsibilities, something it does not seem to want to do at the moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the NDP member and the reply from the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry brings me to another point.

What other skeletons are the Liberals hiding in their closet? Are there other costs like this that we are not aware of? I do not mean to describe the aboriginal nations as skeletons. What I mean is that the truth is being withheld from parliamentarians and non-native fishers. People have a right to know. All of us, myself included, were kept in the dark.

When I was a little boy, I played with friends, not knowing that they would have more rights than I do today. I am very glad for them, but I did not know. Canadians should be told once and for all what other swords of Damocles are hanging over their heads, and not necessarily just in the fishery.

This evening, we are looking at the native problem in the context of the Maritime fisheries crisis. But to use a good old Maritime expression, this is perhaps just the tip of the iceberg.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will only remind the House that the present crisis seems to be triggering other crises, since the Innu said that they could have additional claims relating to the Churchill Falls project. In British Columbia, the chief of the Nanoose first nation would like the confirmed or at least claimed rights of his people reviewed in light of the Marshall decision.

Like my colleagues, I will say that there is a transparency problem; the government is not telling all and prefers to keep the information for itself for all kind of reasons. The House is often consulted only for appearances and I do not think that it is an acceptable way to govern.

Earlier today, we heard the Prime Minister say in his speech that Canada was a country about which many people dream. However, I do not think that it is the case of the Mi'kmaqs today. Canada probably gives them nightmares. This is unacceptable in a country that some people boast about being the best country in the world.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is getting late. It is 11.25 p.m. here and it is 12.25 a.m. in my riding. However, knowing that there are quite a few night owls among Acadians, I am sure some of them are listening to me right now.

It is a pleasure for me to say a few words tonight about the decision handed down by the supreme court in the Marshall case. This decision has been taken seriously by all Canadians, and we have been hearing about it for several weeks.

The peace treaty was signed in 1760 and, 250 years later, we have to interpret what happened. We must not forget that, in those 250 years, the Conservatives were often in office, including for a period of nine years mostly in the 1980s. They cannot stand up and blame the Liberals, because problems occurred when both parties formed the government.

But, tonight, we can blame everybody. One thing we know is that there was a treaty. We can say that governments did not respond to the requests made by aboriginal people after the treaty. Today, we have to deal with a decision which was brought about by the inaction of governments.

Burnt Church is very close to my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, which means that people in my riding are also deeply affected by this decision.

Fishers from my riding have contacted me to tell me that they are willing to recognize the rights of native fishers, but that we must negotiate.

The more we wait, the harder these negotiations will be and the more it will hurt. An aboriginal woman from Burnt Church was quoted last week as saying that native-white relations had been developing in the right direction over the past hundred years. Today it seems to her that everything has to be started all over again.

We have some responsibility in all that. When the decision was released, I recall that my colleague, the fisheries critic, sent a letter to the minister asking him to summon the all-party standing committee to a meeting in Ottawa in order to discuss the situation.

Last week, I myself sent a letter to the minister, with no reply. He is asking us all to work together. Even today, as we speak, the all-party committee has not yet been called together to discuss the situation.

The only thing, then, is that violence is a possibility. All sorts of things can happen, but in the end it is negotiation that will solve these problems.

Therefore, I am calling upon the people in my riding, as well as those in the neighbouring riding of Miramichi, to take things calmly, and to enter into negotiations in order to solve the problem. That is the only means to settlement.

Judging from my labour union experience, regardless of what conflicts have taken place, regardless of whether it took three months to settle them, or six, the only place there was a settlement was at the negotiating table.

This invitation must therefore be responded to. The two groups, native and non-native, must be invited to the negotiating table, and it must be done as soon as possible. Not a week from today. Let the invitation go out tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning the two groups need to sit down at the table: the aboriginal people and the unions representing the coastal fishers.

I will go even farther. I will tell you that I have concerns. You know why? The people at home tell us, for example, that crab fishers are now beginning to be concerned.

Are we going to wait yet again to have a crisis in the lobster industry and after that another crisis in the crab industry? And after that we will respond to that crisis and then we will have another one in the herring industry and after that we will respond to the crisis in the herring industry.

I say no. I say the industry must be brought to the bargaining table. This applies to all of the fishing industries, be it herring, groundfish or crab.

We must find a solution together. We must find a solution for everyone. Otherwise, we will end up with the violence that has been going on in recent weeks, and this is unacceptable in 1999.

The government is capable of choosing an approach the fishers would agree to. Some fishers might be ready to sell their license. Some people who have reached the age of 55 or 60 would be prepared to retire. So the government could become involved in buying back their licenses and make these licenses available to the native bands in order to resolve this problem that has gone on unresolved for 250 years. We have a 250 year old treaty, with all the lawyers we have in Canada. They are intelligent enough to be in the House of Commons?

I am happy today not to be a lawyer. I am also happy that the minister is not a lawyer. So, perhaps we can solve the problem today.

It took 250 years to interpret a peace treaty signed with the aboriginals. Today, we are all panicking and we are not prepared to react after 250 years. We should be ashamed of our governments.

This is why I urge you not to wait for a week. We cannot wait until people fight with one another. We cannot wait until violence erupts. People are concerned. They want to sit down, negotiate and find a solution.

It takes leadership to achieve that. When a party steps forward and says it wants to form the government, that means that it has leadership and that it is capable of leading the country. It should be able to manage the crises that we are facing today. There are crises everywhere these days. There is a problem with the airlines. There are two airlines in Canada, Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, and the government does not even know how to deal with this issue. There is a problem with the immigrants arriving in the Vancouver area. Again, the government does not know how to deal with this issue.

There are problems everywhere. It is time to act before we lose control of our country. The federal government and the Liberals have that responsibility that Canadians have given them.

The government waits for weeks on end, but the aboriginal people have been saying for years that they want a solution to their problems.

When the Conservatives signed the free trade agreement, it did not take them long to adjust the whole Canadian program to free trade. It did not take them years to do that.

It seems as if the issue between aboriginal and white peoples could take a year or two to solve. This is not true. We cannot have such an attitude. We must settle the issue now. We must not wait a year to do that. We must sit with these people and solve the problem. There are solutions.

I am convinced that when fishers, aboriginals and a government that shows leadership sit together at the table, solutions will be found.

I urge the government, I urge the minister, who just got the job, to make a name for himself by being a good Minister of Fisheries and solving the problems we are facing in Canada. This is what I ask him to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, because I see that members still have many questions to ask.

I would like to tell my colleague that he is right when he says that our constituents are wondering what they will be allowed to fish, even if they are not fishing lobster right now. He mentioned those who fish herring or crab.

He is right to say that some of them are wondering whether they will be able to go on fishing with the uncertain quotas the minister is offering, or whether they are ready to retire. I think the member is quite right, and knows whereof he speaks.

I would like the member to tell us what we can do to get the Liberals to see reason. At the same time, I would like to draw a parallel with what he said about their dealing with problems on a timely fashion. Let us not forget that, in the Atlantic provinces alone, it cost $1 billion to harmonize the GST. They sorted that out one spring.

This time, people need to understand that a similar amount is involved, even more than with the moratorium on the fishery, with the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, or TAGS. This program cost $2 billion. The ineptitude and negligence have been going on for 240 years and that is going to cost something. The sooner we tackle the problem, the less painful it will be.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

He spoke about the harmonized GST and said that the matter was settled quickly. It does not mean, however, that we, the people of the Atlantic, welcomed it. But they did it anyway and it did not take long.

I wish to thank the government for having allowed us, tonight, to discuss part of the problem. After all, I hope the minister, who is here tonight, who is listening to what we have to say, can react.

I agree with my colleague who said that it will cost money and that the government must be ready to invest, but, then again, I would like to reiterate that the only place where it can be solved is at the negotiating table, and immediately—tomorrow morning, if necessary. We must act now and force the government to act and tell it that if it does not, it should not ask us to work with it.

It wants us to work with it. Therefore, we will make suggestions tonight and then we tell it to act. If it does not act, it should not tell us that we are unwilling to co-operate because, tonight, we are working with it and offering solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard a fair amount of discussion tonight from the NDP members who rose to speak. There was discussion earlier that they had been in contact with fishermen who live in the South Shore riding and in West Nova riding.

I was at the meeting in Yarmouth. I was at the meeting in Shelburne. I was at the meeting in Lunenburg. I did not see any NDP members of Parliament there. I have talked with hundreds of fishermen and I have not talked to one who has been in contact with these NDP members of Parliament.

I have listened to what these members have said, which is little better than nothing. What I now want to know is simple and I want a straightforward answer. Would the New Democratic Party support a moratorium on this decision immediately to allow time for first nations, fishers and DFO to sit down and formulate a plan for the peaceful integration of first nations into the fishery? Will it support an immediate moratorium on this decision?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that after 250 years these members still cannot recognize that we have a problem and at the Supreme Court of Canada has made a decision. That is why I am recommending that we be at the negotiating table tomorrow morning to negotiate something with the two groups who are the non-natives and the native people.

The member talked about the NDP not doing or saying anything. I was on a radio station the other day when my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said that it was not the government's responsibility to resolve the problem but the responsibility of the community and that the community was destroying itself right now. It is the responsibility of the government to come down and resolve the problem with the people down home and get to the table. We have spoken to more fishermen than you ever have as a Conservative.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would like to remind hon. members to address each other through the Chair please.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is getting late in the evening and it looks as if I may be the last speaker on this very valuable debate.

I want to thank the Conservative Party's House leader for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing forward this issue for a take note debate. It is too bad it is not an emergency debate. I also wish to thank the government for allowing us this take note debate. Unfortunately it is just a take note debate. I hope the government is doing more than just taking notes. I hope the it is understanding the very serious nature of this issue.

My colleague from New Brunswick mentioned that this is not just about lobsters. This is about every single fish species that we have, not only in Atlantic Canada but clearly right across the country.

Aboriginal people in our prairie provinces are looking at the Marshall decision to see what it means to their role at the FFMC that they have in Winnipeg. They have great problems with that. Aboriginal people on the west coast are looking at this decision in terms of what they believe are their timber rights and their fishing rights. People across the country are very seriously concerned about what this decision means in their lives. It is not just about lobsters.

We are talking about the lobster issue right now because tomorrow morning area 35, the Bay of Fundy region in Nova Scotia—New Brunswick, will be opening up to the commercial fishery which normally opens up this time of year.

Those men and women will be putting out their boats and going out to catch lobsters. We have still not heard a word from the government on how it plans to incorporate the Marshall decision with the aboriginal people to get them into this fishery.

We have heard from people like Mr. Arthur Bull of the Coastal Community Network of Digby who said they have been working overtime, literally day and night since this decision, to come up with reasonable compromises so that both sides, the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people, can work together. Unfortunately there is nothing but silence from the minister's department and the government.

We must bear in mind, for those who do not know it, that the minister was recently appointed to his position at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The people he has around him are fairly new to the portfolio as well. Therein lies the problem. Obviously the minister is getting his advice from what I consider to be very elderly and tired people on the east coast in terms of DFO, people I have had many concerns about in terms of their management policies. They are the policies of this government and previous governments. It is interesting to hear the Conservatives talk about concerns when the Conservative government from 1984 to 1993 did absolutely nothing to deal with the issue. The Liberal government from 1993 to 1999 has done absolutely nothing.

The attitudes of the Conservative government and the Liberal government toward aboriginal people in the nation have been very much paternalistic. They have told the aboriginal people time and time again that they refuse to negotiate and refuse to legislate. In fact they are telling them to spend taxpayers dollars and go to court.

That is exactly what the aboriginal people have done. They have gone to court and now the court has rendered its decision. Whether or not we like it, it is the legal opinion of the country. The supreme court has ordered it. It is not parliament's obligation and it is not the right of parliamentarians to tell the supreme court that we do not like the decision so it should be stayed, got rid of, changed or whatever. If we start doing that to the Supreme Court of Canada within our constitution we are opening up a bigger can of worms than opposition members or anyone else who is claiming that would be the solution.

I am going to give the minister four very concrete points on how he could come up with a short term solution. One is to immediately reconvene the all party standing committee of fisheries and oceans down in the maritime region. The minister and his department obviously refuse to go down there on a long term basis to deal with the issue. Perception is everyone's reality. They cannot be seen to be making decisions from Ottawa for Atlantic Canada. They must be in Atlantic Canada to put the human and financial resources on the table.

The grassroots people who work the resource know the resource better than the minister and most politicians in this room. They know what the short and long term solutions are. The minister must commit the human and financial resources for them to carry on their work.

Second, the minister must consider a voluntary buyout package and a transfer of the licences over to the Mi'kmaq nation to include them in the fishery. There are about 6,300 licences in the maritime region right now. Roughly 10% of those people would be willing to sell their licences tomorrow morning. The government must find out exactly how many licences would be required on the short term to bring the aboriginal people into the fishery. This is very important because conservation is the key. Everybody must fish under the same conservation guidelines. I do not think there is any debate on that.

The auditor general said last April that lobster stocks, and in fact all shellfish stocks, were in trouble in Atlantic Canada. Many people criticize the auditor general and me for espousing those views. The fact is the auditor general was absolutely correct. Last April he said that the management policies which caused the cod collapse in 1992 were the same policies in place to handle the groundfish stocks.

Let us not forget that in the spring the Mi'kmaq asked the Government of Canada to sit at the table to come up with solutions for the short term because they suspected that the Marshall decision would go in their favour. They came with an open hand to government asking it to come up with solutions so we can evade the problems that are happening now.

My colleague from South Shore and my colleague from West Nova are absolutely correct when they say they have never felt the tensions greater than they are now. They are absolutely correct when they say that.

The fact is that the government by sitting back in Ottawa trying to come up with some solution it can grab out of the sky or grab out of the air will not solve the problems. Government members have to go down there and talk directly to the people involved. They must do that in order to add calm to the equation of the argument that is happening right now.

Another thing that has happened within DFO is severe budget cuts to the department itself. The department does not have the human or financial resources to monitor enforcement policies, so it calls upon the RCMP to help. However, that department's resources were cut as well. The fact is that we do not even have the proper resources allocated right now in order to protect the stock. That is the most important thing. It is not just lobster stock but all other shellfish species out there as well. If the auditor general was correct and they do collapse, it will make the cod prices look like a drop in the bucket. Again, the responsibility falls upon this government.

Every single member in this argument today, my colleagues in the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and ourselves, has asked for and demanded leadership on this issue. It is imperative that the minister show leadership. He should get down there and start talking to these people. He should not do it from Ottawa. This is very important. While he is down there discussing this issue, he should seriously consider a community based allocation of these stocks.

Mr. Arthur Bull of Digby has asked many, many times of the Coastal Community Network of Atlantic Canada and those in western Canada as well to get away from the corporatization of our fish stocks which have concentrated the wealth of the fish stocks in very few hands. It is time to start looking at a community based strategy so that all people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, can work together for the long term benefit of this resource.

We also have to include what the corporate sector is saying right now. The one thing missing in this debate right now is what Clearwater, Highliner Foods and Donna Rae Limited are saying. What are these big corporations that have huge access to fish resources saying in this debate? They have been very, very silent. We have all been working very hard trying to concentrate on protecting the interests of the inshore fishermen.

What is needed now is leadership from this government. This government should not be an ostrich and put its head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. Government members must get down there and work with the people toward immediate short term solutions that have been presented by all members of the House today. They must incorporate those ideas so that we can have a calm fishery. We will all benefit in the long term.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to questions and comments, I want to remind everyone once again to address each other through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of liking a decision or not liking a decision. The reason for going back to the court is to get some guidance on what the court meant by the decision. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada failed to accurately describe moderate living. Some native advocates contend that a net annual income of $80,000 is a moderate living.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not say whether the aboriginal tax free status which exists would reduce needed fishery earnings. The Supreme Court of Canada did not say whether government contributions to aboriginal communities through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can offset earnings required from the fishery. The Supreme Court of Canada did not determine whether non-status Mi'kmaq or Maliseet are legally able to participate in the fishery. There are an unknown number of non-status Mi'kmaq or Maliseet, but it is estimated in the tens of thousands. DFO is determined that non-status Mi'kmaq or Maliseet are not eligible under the treaty. This will probably be met with a court challenge.

All I am saying is that these issues will come before the court sooner or later. Why not do it sooner? Why not get the answers now before we go down a garden path that we do not want to be going down?

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.

We are the elected officials of this country. My colleagues from the Reform Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the Liberal Party, we are the ones who are responsible ultimately to answer to the constituents of this country for legislation.

If previous Conservative governments and the current Liberal government have refused to negotiate and to legislate, then it is quite obvious that the supreme court will dictate to us what it interprets as the rules and what it interprets as the law. Once it does this, whether we like the decision or not, we have to live with it.

We find ourselves in the pickle we are in today because of the failed policies of the current Liberal government and past Conservative governments where they have refused to negotiate long term solutions for the resources of this country. It is up to parliament to finally decide this issue. It is not up to the supreme court. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to take this issue very seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. It is up to parliament. I will ask the hon. member the same question I asked of the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. Would the NDP support a moratorium on the decision to allow time for first nations, fishers and DFO to sit down and formulate a plan for the peaceful integration of first nations into the licensed fishery?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may throw the question back so he can ask it of me again. Is the member for South Shore asking me about a moratorium on the aboriginal fishery or about a moratorium on the non-aboriginal fishery?

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

Mr. Speaker, right now we have a supreme court decision dealing with the aboriginal fishery. I suggested a moratorium on the aboriginal fishery because that is the only non-licensed fishery out there. Any licensed fishery, any aboriginal boats that are involved in the licensed fishery would not be subject to it. We are only dealing with what the supreme court decision brought down. Will the NDP support that? I see no other way or plan to bring everyone to the table to allow for the resolution of this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as I would like to say yes to that solution in order to bring some calm to the irrationality, I cannot. It is not up to us to break the law. The fact is that the supreme court has ordered that. It has laid down quite clearly that the aboriginal people have the right to fish in this regard. I do not like the idea of their fishing without proper conservation guidelines and without working under the same rules everyone else does. However the fact is we cannot override the supreme court decision and say quite clearly that because we are in a mess and a pickle and because parliamentarians and government have screwed this issue up so badly that we are now going to say to the aboriginal people who have waited 240 years for their right that they can no longer do what the supreme court has said they can do.

The majority of people I have spoken to down there are willing to incorporate the aboriginal fishery into the fishery. This is what needs to happen, dialogue and conversation and not useless rhetoric.