Debates of Nov. 16th, 1999

Supply

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the NDP for the comments about the Royal Bank and the Liberal government. The Liberals do seem to listen to the opinions of the Royal Bank when it serves their purpose, but when the bank had opinions with respect to mergers I do not believe they listened.

The minister talked about provincial-federal co-operation. Would the member agree that in this particular circumstance, with respect to AIDA being foisted on the provincial governments, that there was a lack of interest by the federal government when Premier Romanow and Premier Doer came here to speak about the crisis? Does the hon. member see a growing sense of federal-provincial co-operation?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, no, there does not appear to be any sense of federal-provincial co-operation when two sitting premiers go back and are critical. These two premiers arrived with all good intentions and were prepared to negotiate knowing the ins and outs of negotiation. They are two experienced representatives of the people who went back to their provinces discounting the federal government. No, I do not think it says much for federal-provincial co-operation.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to be able to address the issues brought forward by my colleague from the Conservative Party regarding the agrifood industry and agriculture in general.

The only problem with the wording of the supply motion “That this House regrets the failure of the government—”, is that it should be replaced with that this House is downright angry with this government for its absolute failure to recognize the importance of agriculture and the food industries in the country. It has failed desperately to show any leadership.

This was demonstrated just recently when two premiers from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba met with the government in all sincerity doing their utmost to try to help the situations in their provinces and were literally snubbed by the Liberal government and our Prime Minister. I think that is totally disgraceful and it should make us all very angry.

The government does not have any long term vision whatsoever. It is bouncing around all over the place with different little programs that never seem to quite work and never seem to fill the bill of what needs to happen.

The one thing that needs to happen more than anything else is that the government, for heaven's sake, must start to realize the importance and significance of the food and agricultural industries.

I am really tired of sitting in the House of Commons and voting on agricultural issues that would be of benefit to our farmers and fishermen and listening to courts making decisions, such as the Marshall decision. The House sits here and votes on what should happen, while 70 or 80 highfalutin Bay Street lawyers, who probably do not realize that milk does come from a cow and not from a carton, or that cereal is made from grain and does not come out of a box, simply sit on that side of the House and vote according to the wishes of their leader. They do not even know what the issue really is. They do not realize how serious the problem is.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Reformers aren't the only ones who are farmers, you know.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Maybe the hon. member who is mouthing off on that side of the House would like to talk about the 18 or 20 suicides that have occurred in the last few weeks in those western provinces. Maybe he would like to mouth off about that and talk about how insignificant what I am saying is or how we are trying to support our agricultural industry and our farmers in the west.

One thing the Liberal government is very good at is sitting in the House of Commons and criticizing this side of the House anytime we may wish to oppose its methods or its ways of handling any kind of a crisis.

The government has not prepared for this kind of an issue. It has not made any preparation at all except to put a pile of money on the table under a program that requires an absolute genius accountant to fill out the forms.

I have gone over these forms with several farmers in my riding and they are wondering what in the world they are to do with them. The farmers have made an effort. Some of them have spent $1,600 to $1,700 to hire an accountant to fill in the form and mail it off, only to be rejected. I should not say they were all rejected, because in the brilliance of the Liberal government, I know of two farmers who received aid under the AIDA program. One farmer received $9.05 and another received $3.60. Nobody really understands what this program is all about.

I fail to understand why year after year we have to contend with our products on the west coast not moving. I wonder if the Liberal government is aware that many of the people who we do our marketing with, in particular Japan, do a great deal of business with farmers in my riding. Farmers ship various types of goods in containers to Japan but Japan does not buy goods to store and save for a rainy day. It does not have a storage system. It buys on a continual basis. In other words, the flow of these products must happen regularly and without a stoppage of any kind.

The Japanese people sent a document to my office indicating that they were getting very tired of our country constantly stopping the necessary flow of billions of dollars worth of goods that we market. We are not satisfying our people on the other end because we do not have a government that recognizes the importance of keeping agricultural produce flowing to other parts of the world and keeping the markets alive and well.

Instead, we go through motions year after year in the House to try to put an end to work stoppages, lockouts or whatever the case might be in order to get the ships loaded and the produce out. Instead of addressing the issue as we should have done year after year, for at least 20 years that I know of, we have to deal with it on an as-it-happens basis. It continually hurts us. We are now at the point where ships flag into the country before ever arriving at port wanting to know exactly what the situation is because they do not want to arrive if there is going to be any kind of stoppage.

We are not protecting the industry at all. We do not have their best interests at heart when we allow this to continually happen year after year. It is on record.

Last week, Lynn Hardy, one of my constituents from Carstairs, contacted my office with some very interesting information. During a conversation with a Statistics Canada employee, her husband asked the individual about statistics being touted by both the Prime Minister and the agricultural minister as proof that there is not a farm crisis. Mr. Hardy hoped to learn the origin of these stats.

As it turned out, the employee said that they were very disappointed in the Prime Minister and the agricultural minister for using these stats since they dated back to 1997 and obviously had nothing to do with today's crisis. For those who do not remember, 1997 was a little better than average year, not to mention that it was three years ago.

When will the Liberal government wake up and realize that first, it is 1999 almost 2000, and second, there is a farm crisis? These bogus excuses and these dated stats can no longer be used to deny our farmers the much needed help that they need at this time of crisis.

The very first thing the Liberal government must do is recognize that the agricultural and food industries are the most important industries in the land. That would really be a good start.

Many farmers in my riding would like to know if some people are turning down some of the things they voted on. I think of Bill C-4 of a year or so ago when the government was adamant it was doing the right thing and the farmers cried out that it was not doing the right thing.

Why are they being ignored? They would like to know why their voices are being ignored by the government. My only answer was that 70 or 80 highfalutin Bay Street lawyers do not know what they are doing and vote according to the wishes of their leader instead of the wishes of the farming industry. That is the only solution I could come up with.

Why have they not sent the Prime Minister, the agriculture minister and the strongest contingent of cabinet ministers to the WTO talks? They should go their with a firm hand demanding a level playing field in the agricultural market. Why do we send all the chief bureaucrats and all the do-little nothings in these departments to handle the major task of getting a message out that we care and are concerned about our farmers?

They sent a committee to the west to find out why Liberals are not getting much support there. They did not listen very well. We gave about a billions reasons when it came to wasteful spending. We gave another billion reasons on overtaxation. The final reason we gave them, in the words of farmers, was that obviously we had a government that just did not care. I would like to see that attitude changed.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my fellow colleague from Sydney—Victoria mentioned, both of us represent ridings that mirror each other in terms of urban and rural.

When I talk with farmers in my constituency they talk about the lack of commitment and leadership. Unfortunately for us in Cape Breton we have been affected by the government's so-called commitment to fishermen and its so-called commitment to farmers. What we are told is that maybe we should broaden our tourism base. I can see it now. We will have a tourist attraction where rich Americans can drive by and look at our abandoned farms and the way things used to be.

Some would say that there is and has been for a very long time a serious attack on rural communities by starving them to death. Does the member believe that the recent results of the byelection in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is a clear message to the Liberal government from rural communities?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party certainly did not do very well in that byelection. That should be a message of some sort.

I will comment on the fact the government would like to make a tourist industry out of a lot of these areas. In order to get a good chunk of money in my riding for the agricultural industry we only need to get a group of people together to haul in a bunch of old machinery, old thrashing machines and equipment that is outdated and maybe horse drawn. We would need a bunch of money to refurbish them, paint them and put them in some kind of a museum, and we would have dollars flowing like we would not believe.

To prevent a disaster such as the suicides that are taking place in the west because of the lack of concern and lack of care by the government, there seems to be a real struggle to get any recognition at all.

Let us paint our old thrashing machines, do all this fancy-dancy stuff, put up a nice little museum in the name of the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party—we might even put the Prime Minister's name on it—and the dollars will flow, especially if we send the heritage minister out there. We will get the dollars going then. She is a good spender.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was the one who made the remark from this side on the member's speech, but only because he was suggesting that some of us on this side do not have farmers in our ridings that are in trouble, and we do. I appreciate the passion with which he spoke to this issue, but I want him to know that on this side of the House we feel the same passion.

I want to take issue with another point in the hon. member's speech. That is the suggestion that the fault of the problems with the farmers is entirely that of the federal government. I point out to him that the Saskatchewan auditor general recently released a report that showed that the province of Saskatchewan is claiming to be spending over $300 million on farm aid when in fact half of that money is actually coming from the federal government and from the producers. The auditor general pointed out that many of the Saskatchewan government's claims of aid to farmers is more than half in contributions coming from the federal government.

Is it not possible that part of the problem, part of the difficulty in which the farmers find themselves in Saskatchewan, is due to their own government in Saskatchewan?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose anything is possible. One thing that is not possible, it seems, is that it is very difficult to get the actual amount of dollars brought to the federal government through some form of taxation or another of our farmers.

This is Ottawa. This is the federal government. We have a very strong purpose in the food industry in protecting our farmers as best we can and in providing for level playing fields. We are not doing a very good job. We are not taking the leadership in WTO with the firmness that we ought to be taking. We are not negotiating for our people with the strength that we should be able to do.

The government has not prepared a vision. It does not show leadership and has failed to do so. Even the Government of Saskatchewan has outshone the federal Liberal government. The provincial governments have outshone it on a number of occasions. I can guarantee the hon. member that this is true in Alberta.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Fundy—Royal.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to my party's motion urging the government to give urgent consideration to the immediate and long term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing industries. The livelihood of many families in my riding depends a lot on our natural resources.

The Liberal government has ignored the rural communities far too long. Members on the other side of the House have waited for crises to go on and on before trying inadequately to resolve them. Rural Canadians have had enough. It is time for the government to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors.

The government did not prepare for the Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal people. The government should have prepared a plan for this decision.

We all knew the supreme court was to make a decision on this case. This decision has effectively pitted native and non-native fishers against each other as their leaders try to determine how the lucrative lobster fishery should be regulated in light of the recent supreme court ruling. Actually it has gone beyond native and non-native fishers to communities fighting each other. That is the sad situation we are seeing in Atlantic Canada right now.

Conservation is an important issue. We should not forget the auditor general's warning last spring that the shellfish fishery is in danger.

Chapter 4 of the auditor general's report tabled on April 20 voiced some serious concerns about the way Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been managing the lobster, scallop, snow crab and shrimp fisheries.

According to the auditor general:

The absence of a formal fisheries policy that fully reflects sustainability concepts means that decisions on resource use are made on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis rather than as part of an overall framework for achieving a sustainable fishery.

As we are doing here today, the auditor general decries the government's lack of vision in the fisheries industry. In 1997 he expressed similar concerns about groundfish stocks. The government did not learn a lesson from this, and now the shellfish and crustacean fisheries are involved.

It is important for the government to realize that everything is interrelated and that whole communities suffer when the crops or the catches are poor. The fishermen, farmers and other workers in these industries are seasonal workers and are therefore victims of discrimination by our employment insurance system.

As if it were not enough to place these industries in a precarious position, the government then refuses to give the workers in them any proper assistance. These workers, who pay into the program, often live in regions where the economy is not active enough to allow them to find work in the off season.

In my riding, there are a number of cases where people have no income from January on. They have worked long and hard during the season but do not have any money coming in for long periods of time and cannot support their families because of the discrimination this government practices toward them.

I recently visited the food banks in my riding of Beauséjour-Petitcodiac. Everyone involved blamed the cuts to employment insurance for the increase in users. This is a serious situation.

I am urging the government to have a vision for rural Canada. I realize it cannot have a vision for rural Canada until it understands what rural Canada means, and it does not care enough to try to learn. It does not have a vision.

Even if the government had a vision for rural Canada right now I would be afraid of what that vision would be because until it goes out to see what is happening in rural Canada it cannot have a vision. We cannot treat with something that is not working. We cannot treat sick people with medication if we do not know what we are treating them for. We have to find out what is the problem.

That is what we see going on in our regions and in our rural communities. This is why the employment insurance program was destroyed, was run in a way that no longer takes the needs of our people into account. These people include fishers and workers in factories, tourism and construction.

This government is refusing to understand what is going on. My colleague from the Reform Party spoke of suicide among farmers. It is sad to see that happening, and I can understand how sad it is in the west at the moment with the suicide rate. I have seen that happening in the Atlantic region since the start of the employment insurance reforms. I know of people no longer with us today, who killed themselves or whose heart gave out because they no longer had an income and no longer met the requirements to qualify for employment insurance.

There are now two major problems, and I wonder just when the Liberal government is going to realize that we do not all live in major urban centres. There is a Canada outside these centres, rural Canada. The government has to accept and recognize that and work with these communities. It is time this government showed some leadership. This is what we need, and the fact that we do not have it is sad.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member opposite that the two lower courts ruled the other way in the Marshall decision. They ruled in the same direction as the minority decision which decreed that aboriginals did not have a treaty right to fish and hunt regardless of the laws of the Government of Canada.

That aside, I would like to ask the member opposite, just as I asked the member for West Nova, were this an issue that had come before this parliament for debate rather than before the supreme court, how would she have voted? Would she have voted that the aboriginals had unlimited rights to fish and hunt regardless of the laws of the land, or would she have voted with the minority judge of the supreme court and said that they did not have that right? How would she have voted?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that what we should have been doing is negotiating it here. We should not let the courts decide everything for us. What are we here for? We have to listen to both sides. I do not think that only the politicians sitting in here trying to decide for the rest of the country is the way to go either. We have to negotiate outside.

The government had a chance to do that in February and again in June. When the representative, Mr. Christmas, was here to negotiate with the government, it refused to negotiate. The government put all its eggs in the same basket and said the supreme court will rule the other way. It did not happen that way and the government did not have a plan B . That is why we are in this situation today.

It is clear there could have been a very peaceful solution to this but the government refused to look that way.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to listen to the comments of my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. She pointed out how ill prepared the federal government has been on just about everything it has done in general.

In particular, does the hon. member believe that it was complete shortsightedness, if not blindness, for the federal government not to have had in place interim regulations just in case the Marshall decision went the other way?

Does the hon. member think that the government should have had interim measures in place? Does the hon. member think that the present Minister of the Environment, the then minister of fisheries, should have given a political heads up to the now Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by saying that the Marshall case might be a problem? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that he had never heard of the Marshall decision until the day that it was announced.

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

Mr. Speaker, it shows again a lack of understanding. Let us face it, the government has been ruling with an iron fist. The Liberals are doing it their way or no way at all and they do not really care what is happening across the country. We have seen it with other portfolios. We have seen how they have abandoned rural Canada, and let us face it, fishing is in rural Canada. Did they care enough to have a plan B ? No, they did not and that is what we saw again. They could have had something in place, but there was nothing. There was no plan A , there was no plan B , there was no plan at all because they just did not care.

To think that a minister was able to say “I did not know that this was actually coming down”. When ministers change ministries do they just leave and there is no adjustment period with the work, especially with something as important as the whole livelihood of our fishing industry and communities?

I am wondering what the government is doing now that we know that the aboriginal peoples have on the table that they are going after 30% to 50% of the Atlantic fishery. Is the government aware of this? Is the government actually at the table? We have been made aware by the representative for the aboriginal peoples that they are going after 30% to 50% of the Atlantic fishery. That is a very scary thought. I wonder what the government is doing about it.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate. Every time I have the opportunity to participate in debate and represent those constituents who live in Fundy—Royal I am pleased to do so.

The problem is that the debate we are engaging in today is essentially the abdication of government. It is a lack of planning by the Liberal government particularly in two sectors, fisheries and agriculture, and with respect to all the difficult decisions which governments have to undertake.

I would like to begin my speech by quoting Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail on October 28, 1998. The Liberals have no compass, no direction and no idea of where to take the country. This intellectually lifeless government believes all politics is administration, whereas it should be about policies, ideas and values.

That is the debate we are engaging in today. The government uses a 911 style of management, “We have a crisis, now we have to deal with it”.

My father Murray Herron is a fine man. My father said the best way to deal with a crisis was to avoid it in the first place by having a plan to address it. I want to talk about the systematic abdication and lack of planning of the Liberal government.

Almost two years ago to the day there were debates in the House with respect to the Kyoto climate change conference. Two years ago to the day this House admitted that we were not prepared with a pan-Canadian position on targets, timelines and an implementation strategy to address the serious issue of climate change and how Canada would make its contribution. We went to Kyoto with no plan. We came back with no plan. Two years later in 1999, we still have not seen any sort of implementation strategy from the Liberal government.

The Alberta government of Ralph Klein is one government that has actually shown some leadership in getting the process to address the issue of climate change going. It has taken some initiatives.

Why do we not see some aggressive tax incentives to address climate change? Why do we not see research and development dollars for renewable sources of energy, or tax incentives for energy efficiency initiatives? Those are things we could be doing today so that industry could start delivering some early action on that issue. The government has done nothing for two years in that regard.

We also saw a systematic abdication of leadership in planning with respect to the Marshall decision. We saw this two times, first in February and later on in June when first nations from Atlantic Canada approached officials in Ottawa to negotiate a systematic and peaceful integration into the fishery as opposed to going to the supreme court. The government loves to govern by courts, not by parliament and not by letting elected officials make the decisions. It would rather abdicate its role and let the courts decide. Sometimes the courts decide things that make it very difficult for us to manage.

On first nations issues in particular, there are three ways some individuals might consider when dealing with treaty rights and the rightful role first nations have in our society. First, some individuals on the very extreme edge would advocate violence on both sides. I am proud to say our society has advanced beyond that stage. The second method is to let the courts decide things. Sometimes we do not like the way the courts solve things. The third way and the best way is to do it by peaceful negotiation. The government had an opportunity to do this twice, in February and in June when Mr. Christmas came to Ottawa for a peaceful integration into the fishery, but again the Liberals ducked it. They always duck hard issues.

Long gone are the days when we actually took on the hard and difficult issues in order to build this nation. Long gone are the days of leadership that brought forth initiatives like free trade which took our trade ratio with the Americans from $90 billion in 1988 to well over $260 billion today. That was the result of leadership. Long gone are the days when we had initiatives in terms of privatization, deregulation and free trade. Now we have abdication and government by the courts.

We have also seen probably the most catastrophic incident in terms of the federal government not having a plan on serious issues. I am sure everyone remembers October 30, 1995, the date of the referendum in the province of Quebec. Leading up to that referendum the Prime Minister said “We have no problem. Everything is under control. Don't worry, be happy”. We almost lost our country. If it had not been for the positive initiative of our former leader, the Hon. Jean J. Charest and his contribution in that debate, we might have had a more serious result.

When it comes to planning, the Prime Minister said that he would take the initiative to recognize that Quebec was in fact a distinct society, that we needed to recognize something that we cherish which is two centuries old with respect to the language, culture and civil code of the six million francophones who live in the province of Quebec. That promise was made that night on television. Since then the Liberals' plan for unifying our country has been to take this issue to court, to make it a legal issue as opposed to a political issue.

When our founding fathers built this country, they built it because they knew we would be stronger together. A country is built through common will and not through a legal decision about whether or not we should exist. Do we have the right to break up? The best thing the government could have done would be to have had some very direct leadership in that regard.

We saw it in the currency crisis last year. When the commodity crash took place primarily along the Pacific Rim, there were negative implications for our country. The reaction of the Prime Minister and the finance minister in terms of the currency crisis was that it was not their fault, that things happen in the world.

I know my friends in the Reform Party, especially the member for Lethbridge, very much agree with me that we could have sent some very positive signals. Instead of saying that we would have a surplus and put 50% on new spending and 50% on tax and debt reduction, we could have made a very serious and deliberate plan to reduce our debt to GDP ratio. We could have paid down the debt in a very serious way which would have added ongoing value to our currency and we could have been far more competitive in that regard.

There is a trend happening. The Liberals were not ready for the climate change initiative. They almost lost our country with respect to the referendum. They were not prepared for the Marshall decision. There was the currency crisis. Recently it has been 911 management. We are heading into an election.

My friends on the Liberal side who are primarily from Atlantic Canada came out with a report entitled “Catching the Wave: How to Build a Better Atlantic Canada”. After they have been defeated on an issue with respect to abandoning the tolls on a toll highway which this federal government collaborated on, they are saying that maybe tolls are not such a good idea. Again, they make it up as they go.

We need a government of leadership, a government that actually plans. We do not need initiatives that deal with issues as they come up as crises. We need to deal with the very hard issues that face this country. Let us pay down the debt. Let us lower taxes. Let us grow this economy so we can compete in the next millennium.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering when I was listening to the speeches by the member for Fundy—Royal and the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac what would have been their reaction if last February the government had reacted to Mr. Christmas' request to open up the fishery to the first nations of Atlantic Canada.

Can we imagine the howls of derision from members on that side of the House, or from that member when she was on the other side the House, if the government unilaterally gave away the fishing rights to the aboriginals? Can we imagine the howls and screaming that would be coming from the opposite benches that we should be able to read the minds of the supreme court justices the same as they were able to read the minds of the lower court justices in Nova Scotia?

They are standing up holier than thou to say that we should have been prepared, that we should have been able to read the minds of the supreme court justices and that we should have shared earlier, and maybe we should have, with the aboriginals.

Can we imagine what would have happened if DFO had called a meeting to bring all sides together and said they would be sharing the Atlantic fishery because Donald Marshall has a case going to the courts and may lose it? Can we imagine what would have happened if DFO pre-empted that decision by negotiating something before the courts had a chance to see it? Can we imagine what the reaction would have been from over there?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us right now is to be able to say that it was okay not to be prepared, that it was all right not to have a plan, that it was okay not to have regulations in place just in case the Marshall decision went in a direction the federal government was not happy with.

I am confused and a little worried about what the hon. member is actually advocating. He is saying that the best way to deal with the crisis is to let the courts decide and not have a plan. There are bags of lawyers running around Ottawa all the time. I want to say as well that it is an admirable profession, but the government should not even ask any of them whether it should actually have some regulations in place in case it goes sour. The parliamentary secretary is advocating right now that not having a plan is really the Liberal plan.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington. I will address only the second paragraph of the motion by the member for Brandon—Souris, that is to say the issues concerning the supreme court, the Marshall decision on fishing and other rights of aboriginal people.

The member for Brandon—Souris has distinguished himself in the House as a member who has a whimsical sense of humour. It is much appreciated. I wonder if perhaps some of his polemics in the motion should not be interpreted in that light.

I would remind the hon. member concerned, however, that his party was in office during the crucial period of nine years almost immediately after the adoption of the charter of rights, which included the saving of aboriginal rights still to be defined by virtue of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. There was a wonderful opportunity in a period of historical transition to set in place sophisticated processes for the elaboration and definition of those rights and of dispute settlement and other machinery. It was an opportunity missed. Somebody was asleep. It was the Rip Van Winkle philosophy.

The process has been engaged upon and for better or worse we have to deal with it as it now arises. The motion, however, and I accept it in this spirit, is directed toward trying to establish policies, policy constructs, for the future in relation to aboriginal and other rights.

We need a debate on this issue. The last great venture was the white paper of 1969 which had many brilliant and imaginative ideas but for a number of reasons in the political climate at the time it was judged unadoptable. It just did not command the community support necessary to get it through.

In the intervening time a too pre-emptive concern with special constitutional issues thought to relate to Quebec tended to kill off discussion of other issues. I do not believe there is any incompatibility between the two.

Although his purpose was directed toward Quebec provincial politics, I signal in this regard the announcement yesterday by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve of a new plan for Quebec constitutionalism. He recognized, for the first time explicitly by a member of his party, that Quebec issues cannot be divorced from issues of the aboriginal communities within Quebec. They are part of the general society and must be part of the process.

My basic comment on this general issue is that it is illusory to believe that any one federal institution, whether the courts, the legislature, the executive, the administration and the civil service separate from that, can have a monopoly of problem solving powers or can even function usefully operating in isolation from other institutions.

We are reminded of Jeremy Bentham's basic point, to which I have had occasion to refer in other debates in the House, that there is a constitutional company and that judges, cabinet ministers, parliamentarians and administrators all function together. The federal government has given an emphasis to consensual solutions of the definition, extension and concretization of aboriginal rights, and that means an emphasis on interpartes negotiations.

We have to recognize the practical limits to powers of negotiation which go to issues of expertise, time and continuity. There has always been a place for courts in the finding and limiting the constitutional parameters in which any decisions must be made.

Some issues, on examination, require very specific and detailed research and weighing of complicated economic evidence. This normally transcends the possibilities of parliamentarians, even operating in standing committees. I would note the difficulties of both the aboriginal affairs committee and the fisheries committee in handling these technical issues.

These are issues that can be well addressed and may best be addressed in courts, provided the lawyers are up to the task. We need a better standard of performance by the lawyers presenting cases before the court.

I do not see the sophistication in presentation of briefs. The Brandeis Brief, named after the great Mr. Justice Brandeis, details social and economic evidence of the implications of court decisions including the practical consequences of those decisions. If that is missing in judicial decisions, one of the points to recognize is that it is missing because it is not properly presented by the parties. The Brandeis Brief starts first of all with the lawyers before the court and the judges have to respond to that.

There is an opportunity for a more confident judicial role in these matters. It is to be noted that the judges were not called upon for advice when the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was first considered. They were not asked about their new role. It was inevitable a species of judicial legislation would emerge, but they were not consulted. It is a learning process.

Among changes for the future that I would like my colleagues in the party opposite to address would be whether a contribution could be made by creating specialized tribunals of first instance. There is some unhappiness with the federal court in its various divisions because it is viewed as an Ottawa body composed of ex-civil servants and often ex-politicians but with an eastern Canadian orientation.

Would it be better to have special mixed claims tribunals as we have internationally? Would it be better to endow provincial supreme courts, which represent and reflect and understand local opinion and issues, with the primary authority, subject to appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada? This is where in a larger policy context we could invite and receive contributions in the debate as it continues before us.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to address all my remarks in this debate to the proposition in the motion that the government should have known that this decision with respect to the Marshall case would be coming down.

The Marshall case, as members will recall, was the decision of the supremem court, a majority decision whereby aboriginals were given the right to fish commercially, rights that transcend the laws that may apply to non-aboriginals, the laws of the land. Of course we know the upshot. There was conflict and strife on the east coast. I suggest that as a result of this decision of the supreme court there will continue to be conflict and strife.

Earlier in this debate I asked the member for West Nova, who is a member of the party that introduced this motion, how he would have voted had this issue been debated in this House, in parliament, rather than being dealt with and decided upon by the supreme court. He dodged the question, I have to say. He did not reply.

I submit that if the Marshall issue had come before this parliament instead of before the supreme court, this parliament would have decided against the decision that the supreme court eventually came down with. I submit that this parliament assembled, indeed I would suggest even the majority of members on this side, would not have countenanced the decision that we have from the supreme court which gives one group of people special rights over the general population based, at the very best, on a very facile and simplified reading of the historical accounts. The very historian who came before the supreme court on which the supreme court based its decision has said that his remarks were taken entirely out of context by the supreme court.

What do we have here? We have a situation where five individuals have come to a decision that has a profound impact on the rest of Canadians. Indeed we have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saying that he thinks this decision will extend to all resources, to mines, to hunting, to anything imaginable. Of course that is going to lead to a lot of problems, but we are led to understand that when the supreme court rules it is a decision that we must abide by. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that it is not quite like that at all.

I have done a bit of research over the last few weeks. What I have discovered is that Canada as a constitutional parliamentary democracy does not have the supreme court in its constitution. Unlike the United States, unlike India or Australia or New Zealand or even Germany, for that matter, the supreme court is not in the constitution. There is a passing reference to the supreme court only in the charter of rights which says basically that if the composition of the supreme court is to be changed there has to be agreement by the two houses of this parliament.

The power of the supreme court, which we are led to believe we as parliament cannot change, comes from an act of parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada act. This act was passed in 1875. At the time the constitution was being re-examined in 1982 this parliament chose not to put the supreme court in the constitution as it is in the United States, as it is in India, as it is in just about every other democracy that has a constitution.

What that means, Madam Speaker, is the fathers of confederation, circa 1982, were uncomfortable with the fact that if you put the supreme court in the constitution then it becomes equally powerful to parliament. That is always the debate when it comes to democracies that have constitutions and democracies that have parliamentary rule, as in the case of Britain, the idea being that if there is not a constitution, then parliament is supreme; if there is a constitution, that divides the power, as happens under the constitution of the United States where power is shared equally by the legislature, the executive branch—that is, the president—and the supreme court of the United States.

In Canada we have no such thing because the supreme court is in an act of the Parliament of Canada. It is not in the constitution. Its powers are spelled out by an act of this legislature, this House of Commons. That means that no matter what, when the supreme court comes down with a decision it is a decision in the context of this parliament. I would submit that that decision at any time can be overruled by this parliament because this parliament is supreme. It is above the supreme court because the supreme court is a creature of this parliament and not a creature of the constitution.

What do we have with this decision by the supreme court? We have a decision in which only seven out of nine judges sat because the court has the privilege to set its quorum. That is in the legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada act. What we have is a decision based on five members of the court ruling one way and two members of the court ruling the other.

We are led to believe that this is a binding judgment of the court, that we have to obey it, that this parliament is required to obey that decision. But, Madam Speaker, would it surprise you if I told you that in the Supreme Court of Canada act there is no mention of a binding judgment? There is no mention of what constitutes a binding judgment. There is no mention of whether a judgment should be by majority, by minority, or whatever. We can assume that if all judges agree, that would be a binding judgement. But, when there is division, when they do not all agree, particularly on a constitutional matter, then surely it should be a subject for debate in this parliament.

Surely, when it is a constitutional issue affecting all Canadians we cannot leave it. We cannot passively sit by and let the supreme court judges rule, who control whom they hear, who control the hours they sit, who control their quorum, who do not have to consult parliament and, indeed, under the rules of parliamentary privilege, do not even have to pay any attention to anything that I say in the House. Because according to the rules of parliamentary privilege, as interpreted by the supreme court, an MP's opinion of the law does not affect the court's judgement and the court does not have to take that opinion into account.

Thus we have a situation where we have a body of five—seven individuals in this case—making a profound decision with respect to all Canadians, a decision that is supposed to be binding on this parliament, but in fact cannot be binding on parliament because the Supreme Court of Canada act is legislation which was created by parliament. While I would not want to overturn the Marshall decision as it stands now with respect to the particular incident, I submit that this parliament always has the power to interpret the constitution.

I will make one other point. Madam Speaker, if you look at the Supreme Court of Canada act, just to make sure you see where I am coming from, you will see that the only mention in the Supreme Court Act, as revised in 1983, to the supreme court judges considering the constitution is when there are references by the government to the court on constitutional matters. Those references ask simply for an opinion. In the drafting of the revised Supreme Court of Canada act this parliament was not prepared to say that the Supreme Court of Canada, when it was considering a reference from the government, would be a binding judgment, and that, Madam Speaker, is the only section 53 of the Supreme Court of Canada act.

I submit that the reason is, that particular section also allows the Supreme Court of Canada to make judgments or express opinions with respect to parliament.

Madam Speaker, you have a situation where the fathers of confederation, circa 1982, obviously perceived that this parliament could not be subject to the Supreme Court of Canada, it could not be below the Supreme Court of Canada, so they ensured that when the Supreme Court of Canada made decisions with respect to parliament or the constitution they were only expressions of opinion. I suggest that parliament should take the message from its predecessors, those who framed the Supreme Court of Canada act as it exists now, and consider the supreme court decisions when they are only majority decisions as being for guidance only.

In the end, it is this parliament, this parliament, that has to decide on constitutional issues.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the lesson on the history of the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the last time I read this motion it dealt with two principal issues concerning the importance of Canada's food industry, namely the family farm and fishers who earn their living fishing along our coasts.

The problem with the speech just given is that the government would rather talk about bureaucracy and how court decisions are made as opposed to providing leadership in terms of long term safety nets and dealing with the farm income crisis. The government should have been prepared for the Marshall decision in the first place.

Can the member say the words farm and fishers?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member should know, I began my remarks by saying that I would confine them to the Marshall decision.

I point out to him that paragraph (b) of the motion states that the government did not adequately prepare for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada v Marshall which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal peoples.

That is precisely what I spoke about. I wish the member would have at least had the decency to listen.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Fundy—Royal has it all wrong.

The speech made by the member for Wentworth—Burlington is probably one of the finest speeches I have heard in the House in a long time. He has gone right to the nub of the issue. It is a matter which is of great consequence to fishermen, not only on the east coast but also on the west coast, and that is the impact of the Marshall decision which was brought down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

That decision has the ability to replace the existing fishermen, especially in the lobster fishery on the east coast, with members of the Mi'kmaq community. I do not think that was the intention of the court necessarily, but certainly that has been the interpretation of it.

What the member is contributing to the debate is very valuable and worthwhile because he is addressing the key issue of how this place can address that critical decision of the court and whether there is room for the government to manoeuvre on this issue, and manoeuvre it should for two very good reasons. One is to promote or ensure that goodwill remains between the communities affected by the decision, and the other of course is the well-being of the resource if the government does not maintain its control.

With that in mind, how does the member think the government should respond to the Marshall decision, given its impact on the fishery?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the government should regard the decision in Marshall as an appellate decision and respect the decision, but not regard it as being instructive on the broader constitutional issue.

I really do believe that the supreme court and the judges have no right to dictate to this parliament. The evidence I put forward is the very fact that the supreme court is not a constitutional entity, it is a creature of this parliament, and this parliament must make the final decisions when it comes to constitutional interpretation.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Prince Albert.

We are here today to debate a motion presented by the Conservative Party. The motion is quite wordy, as we might expect. The first part of the motion states that this government has failed to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors. The motion could have stopped at “Canada” because the government has failed to provide the leadership and long term vision for all of Canada.

I will address my remarks to the crisis facing our agriculture producers. The mismanagement we have seen on both coasts in the fishery industry, the terrible turmoil that has been created by the Marshall decision and by some of the policies put in place by the government have certainly spilled over. Its lack of determination and will to go on to the world stage to fight the subsidies of the European Union and the protectionism of the Americans has created a huge problem in our agriculture sector right across the country.

There seems to be a genuine lack of understanding on the part of the government concerning this situation. It took us a long time, as the official opposition pounded away at the government, to get it to realize there was a problem and to bring that issue to the House. We did that through the form of a debate a year ago and it continues to be a huge problem.

The premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Ottawa a week or so ago. They do not do that very often. They came to explain to the government that there is a huge crisis on the prairies in agriculture. When they got here they were presented with some new facts from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada saying that its new numbers indicate there is no crisis. Numbers are numbers.

Even if we use these numbers, the projections for the year 2000 for total net income have declined from the 1994-98 average, which was a $760 million return in Saskatchewan, to a projected number of $267 million for July 2000. That is taking the total net income of a province and chopping it to a third. How can we possibly exist in the agricultural industry, in agricultural provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and others, when our net incomes are being cut to a third of what they were?

Getting past numbers, we are talking about the ability of our family farms to sustain their livelihood, to feed their families and to feed Canadians.

There was an article printed in the Minnedosa Tribune in September that gives an idea of what has happened to the business aspect of our family farms. There were comparisons made between 1974 and 1998 which relate everything back to bushels of grain. In 1974 10 bushels of grain would buy 200 gallons of gas. In 1998 155 bushels of grain would buy 200 gallons of gas. To buy a grain truck in 1974 cost 1,400 bushels. In 1998 16,000 bushels of grain bought the same truck. To buy a combine in 1974 cost 6,500 bushels of grain. In 1998 it cost 96,000 bushels. How are we supposed to maintain an agriculture industry with those kinds of figures?

Subsidies in Europe and protectionism in the United States have increased production so that the value of the crops produced is lower. Had we not had bumper crops for many areas in the farm sector this year things would be compounded severely. Thank goodness we had bumper crops for many areas because they will help us get through this terrible dip. However, it will not be a long term solution.

Another aspect of this, brought to my attention by one of my constituents a while ago, is the amount of money that is generated by selling beer. This goes on quite a bit but I just want to get this on the record. One bushel of malt barley sells for $2.15. That is what I sold my barley for this year. I sold it for feed, but it was $2.15 a bushel. That bushel of malt barley makes 333 bottles. A dozen beers sell for $17.50 a case, so 333 bottles would be 27 cases. That means a $485 return from one bushel of barley. At 50 bushels per acre, $24,000 per acre is being returned. On a quarter section of land, that is almost $4 million that has been created from the barley that the farmers get $2.15 a bushel for.

Let us look at taxes. The NDP member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has put forward a motion that the GST collected on the sale of beer should be donated or directed toward National Hockey League clubs. The GST generated on the beer produced from one bushel is a little over $20 and he suggested that this money should go to National Hockey League teams and to multimillionaire players.

Would it not be nice if some of that money could be directed back to the farmer? Would it not be nice if we could take the $2.15 a bushel return to the farmer, take some of the GST and give it back to the farmer and tell him he will now get $5 a bushel? Instead, the hon. member suggested that it go to NHL hockey players.

The government has put in place the AIDA program. I have more figures. It is really interesting because some of the AIDA programs are being administered by the provinces and some are being administered by the federal government. The programs that are being administered by the provinces have processed and paid on 58% of the claims, whereas the ones administered by the federal government have only paid on 37% of the claims put in.

It is almost a joke that the programs being administered by the provinces are doing a better job of getting the money out to the farmers than the federal government is. Why that should be is beyond me, but I believe it is because of the bureaucracy. The federal government has trouble handling these situations, whereas the provinces are closer to the people and better able to administer and are doing a far better job at getting the money out to where it belongs.

Another issue I would like to put into this equation is the fuel tax that comes out of the prairies every year and goes into the federal treasury and does not come back.

In fiscal year 1998-99 the federal government collected approximately $4.4 billion in transportation fuel taxes. Federal expenditures on road infrastructure in the same year are estimated at $198 million. That is a nickel back for every dollar it collects in fuel tax to put into the roads. There is another area where the government could do something to improve the roads. Maybe it should not take that money if it will not put it into roads. It should leave it in the pockets of the producers.

A number of things need to be done to address the problems in the agriculture sector. The first thing we need to do is to use the federal safety net programs to support Canadian food producers who are struggling and cannot make ends meet on a short term basis as a result of natural hazards or whatever. We need to have a program in place to get people through those times.

We need to have an AIDA program that works, that gets the money out to the people and gets it to where the hurt is. The government has failed to fulfil its promise to get those funds delivered.

We need to look at the root causes of the income crisis. We need to look at safety net programs that work and are in place to take care of these crises.

We need to look at reducing the European and U.S. subsidies. We need to go to the next round of WTO and NAFTA talks, which is happening this month, to fight for our farmers. We need to beat those subsidies down so that we are in a position to help our producers. We cannot as a country support the level of subsidy that these other countries do, so our method of fighting that has to get tougher at the negotiating table.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I note from the supply day motion that the Progressive Conservatives have attempted to cover all of the hot button issues they think are facing Canada today. They have certainly hit a couple of them. They start by excoriating the government for failing to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agricultural sectors. Then they move on to the recent supreme court decision on the Marshall case which threw the Atlantic fishing community into turmoil. Then they go back to Canada's agricultural producers and urge the government to give urgent consideration to the immediate and long term needs of Canada's agricultural and fishing industries.

While they are busy bringing together a stew of a motion, Reform members are out in western Canada visiting about 60 communities. They are talking to farmers, municipal leaders, provincial politicians, anyone who has been hurt by the agricultural crisis, anyone who has a proposed solution to the agricultural crisis or who has information that would be useful in developing policy. It is not necessarily to address it so much as to answer how we are going to get the Liberals to even listen, how are we going to get them to know. The Liberals threw their high profile candidate in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar to the wolves. They made no effort whatsoever to help him out. I think he got his deposit back, but that was it. The Reform Party is out there working.

The Liberal Party treated our agricultural and political leaders very poorly during their last visit to the national capital. They presented their case. They were basically shown some figures and then shown the door. Thanks for coming, don't call us, we'll call you is the attitude toward western Canadian leaders, and the Liberals wonder why they are unpopular out there. My stars, they have no idea at all.

The Liberals are improvising on agriculture. They are also improvising on Indian affairs, for instance on the Marshall decision.

I find it ironic that the Progressive Conservatives would express concern over the Marshall decision. They bandy about terms in the House such as “first nation”, “nation to nation”, “government to government”, “inherent right” and “sovereignty”, while they do not have a clue what they mean. They do not even try to find out what they mean. They just roll on talking with no concern that the words they use actually have legal meanings, that they create expectations and environments in which we end up with these types of Marshall decisions.

We ended up in a situation where fisheries managers have to allow the Mi'kmaq in eastern Canada to fully satisfy their right to fish for a moderate livelihood before anyone else can. They have priority over all other claims on the fishery no matter how long they were established, notwithstanding the ownership of a valid licence whether commercial or sport and no matter which level of government issues the licence. These priority rights mean that someone standing there fishing could well be moved along.

Is this supposed to create an environment where we get along with one another, where we care for one another, where there is equality? Not likely. That is not the way I see it. That is not the way most people see it. That is only the way those blinkered people who create such policies see it.

Part of the decision talked about a moderate livelihood. What is a moderate livelihood? Does anyone in this House presume to know what a moderate livelihood is? I do not. Before I became a member of parliament I had one idea of a moderate livelihood; now I have another. I presume people who own large and successful corporations have another. What would Bill Gates call a moderate livelihood? What would a person on welfare call a moderate livelihood? Is this to be decided in the House? Is it to be decided in Atlantic Canada? Is it to be decided back in the supreme court with another case which will really solve nothing? It will be sent back saying to go negotiate it.

Moderate livelihood, what does it do? Will it exclude the accumulation of wealth and buy only the basics such as food, clothing and housing, as they say? I heard it said the other day in New Brunswick that $80,000 is a moderate livelihood. The average income in my riding of Prince Albert is around $36,000. That means just about everyone in the riding is not making a moderate livelihood. If those are the numbers, what are we supposed to make of any kind of decisions that arise?

If it is only a moderate livelihood, day to day, a small house and enough food to get through today and not tomorrow, why would anyone make significant investments in fishing gear if they are only going to make what is called a day to day living and not accumulate wealth? After all, people want to lead a prosperous lifestyle. They want to look after their children, pass something along. That is accumulation of wealth.

The Nisga'a leaders who appeared before the standing committee stated that they wanted their children to live in dignity, respect and prosperity. They did not want a hand to mouth existence. They wanted prosperity. I do not agree that what is in the Nisga'a treaty is going to deliver it but that is their dream and their hope. I wish them well in pursuing it.

That definition of moderate livelihood is far too broad and vague to permit any definitive application.

What does it mean in the context of a native attempting to broaden the definition to cover other resource industries such as lumber which they are trying to do? For instance, if an Indian were making the so-called basic necessities or even prospering by being a member of a band government or a band administrator or a businessman, or whatever he is doing, could he then take his priority right to make a moderate livelihood out fishing for lobster, cod or whatever other species happens to be part of that priority right? Could he go into the New Brunswick forest and pick up a saw and go cutting after he was already making more than a moderate livelihood? Who figures these things out anyway? Would he be denied the right to participate in other resource industries as an Indian because that would move him beyond the basic necessities threshold?

Another point is that non-Indian fishermen do not and will not enjoy constitutional remedies for any loss of livelihood. The government therefore must compensate them fully for their loss of livelihood. But they are fishermen. Their families were fishermen for generations, going back as far as 13 generations. Most of us cannot trace our ancestry back that far. What did they do? They fished. Fishing became part of their tradition, part of their history, and they are denied it.

What are these people supposed to bother getting up in the morning for? To go down and check the bank account to see how it is doing when there is nothing in it? That is ridiculous. If they are given reasonable compensation, that is still a poor excuse for equality which would be a far better way to go.

The right to fish or gather has been defined as a communal right. An obvious question arises from that. It has always plagued socialist communal societies. If the right is communal, what does that mean? Does it mean that all can participate and must do so to benefit from the exercise of that right, or does it mean that those who do participate must share the wealth with those who do not?

We need answers to all of these questions. We cannot even begin to understand the implications of what has come down.

Unless the federal government can find a way, other than simply excluding non-Indians from participating in fisheries and other resource based industries, there will be ethnic conflict in this country now and in the future. Buy-outs are not an acceptable long term solution. It is a stop-gap measure.

In an article which everyone should read, “One country, two laws”, written by Peter Worthington in the Ottawa Sun , in speaking of Indian affairs he states:

The only federal party with a sane and workable policy on this issue is the Reform Party. It would make all Canadians equal before the law regardless of racial descent.

I say hear, hear to that and so should every other member.