Mr. Speaker, it was quite evident by the minister's comments that to bring an bill of this nature before fishermen and their families is simply not on. I simply could not believe that the Minister of Fisheries, who is responsible for the protection of fish and fish habitat, would not allow proper consultative input from fishermen prior to the tabling of a bill, or even after second reading.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked what he would like to see that could not be done after second reading. Allow me to give him a classic example.
First of all, the 1997 Supreme Court decision of Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada should be verbatim in the preamble.
As well, clause 37(1) of the bill states:
For any species of fish that is not managed by a province, the Minister may by order, with respect to any area that the order specifies and subject to any condition that the order specifies, allocate any combination of quantities or shares of the fish that may be fished among any groups or communities that the order specifies--
This means that if the bill goes through the way it is, the minister could designate fish to anybody he or she deemed likely. We would like to see something in the preamble of the bill to prevent that from happening. The parliamentary secretary can take note of this, bring it to the lawyers and see if we are right or wrong. We would like to see something of this nature stated, “Nothing in the act or the amendments made by the act shall be construed to require a reallocation or re-evaluation of individual quota shares, processor quota shares, cooperative programs or any other programs, including sector allocations”.
I would like to have the hon. member's comments on it, because we do not want to see fish transferred from one area to another on the whim of the minister.