Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for his lengthy questions, I am not surprised to hear that he does not agree with me as I of course am opposing something that his government has put forward.
I do not think I need to explain a Supreme Court ruling to the member. I think he can read it for himself and see how definitive it is.
With regard to consultation, as I said earlier in my remarks, and as I have heard from other members in this House and from the member who asked the question, the government had consultations for six or seven years. I am not sure how many years it was, but it is interesting how no one knew that it was going on in those six or seven years. It behooves me to think about all these organizations, the fisheries groups, the environmental organizations, the sport fishers, the lodge owners and the commercial fishermen, and how they did not know about these consultations and were never consulted even if the consultations were going on for so long. Perhaps the member could provide us with a list of those he consulted with so we can see that.
As for the fisheries being a right or a privilege, I want to read something for members. It says:
The new Act considers fishing a “privilege” to be bestowed by the Minister rather than a right. It gives the Minister and his bureaucrats power and authority never contemplated by the current Fisheries Act. It unnecessarily strengthens the hand of the Minister and his bureaucrats and weakens that of fishermen who depend on the resource for their livelihood. It would extinguish the public right to fish which has existed in British constitutional law for over 800 years. It will be a sad day for fishermen if this Act ever receives royal assent.
That was said by the member for Delta—Richmond East, so obviously the member not only disagrees with me but with his colleague from Delta--Richmond East.