Charles Hubbard

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the leadership was very evident. I was satisfied with the leadership the minister provided. I am glad to see the hon. member opposite, who has a very large native community of her own, speaking up for them and representing them in the House. I thank her for that.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in New Jersey on Thursday of last week I met with a number of people and I visited the Burnt Church reserve a short time later. I made a statement that generally all people are good people but there are people in every group who want to create major problems.

I know that in terms of what happened there, we were unfortunate to have outsiders come to Burnt Church. It was also unfortunate that some of the fishermen did what they did.

On the afternoon in question, members of the MFU and I spoke with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I called him on the phone and he was readily available. We discussed the problem in the presence of the MFU representatives. We said to them that there should be a solution early next week.

That the boats came from outside the constituency on the weekend certainly was a major factor. From that, the Sunday morning episode resulted and then the Sunday night episode shortly after I visited. I was down there that evening from about 6.30 to 7 p.m. and shortly toward dark those vehicles were destroyed. It is a very unfortunate thing, but the point is that it happened and we all have to live with it. Hopefully the minister in the fine efforts he made in the week since has brought some resolution to it. He has met with the 30 chiefs. He certainly had great courage in doing so and I want to commend him for it. He met with the MFU and hopefully we can resolve this.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I certainly have to take under advisement what the hon. member has asked.

The conclusion I come to is that since the early 1980s we have brought the Constitution home and the supreme court is the supreme court. Certainly the Department of Justice may work out with members of the court an interpretation of some of their statements in terms of that judgment, but we cannot turn our backs on a supreme court decision.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Miramichi, as the hon. member opposite noted, is where Burnt Church is, where Red Bank is and where Eel Ground is, three of the reserves that I represent in the House. Listening to some of the debate tonight I wonder how well some of our native people are being represented in the House.

Across this country there are nearly one million status and non-status people who were the original people of this country. I take affront with some of the statements made in the House in terms of the rights those native people have and should have under the agreements our ancestors made with them.

I also have a very valuable industry in my constituency, which is fishing. Tonight we are talking about lobsters, but in terms of the fishery it is a much broader issue than just lobsters. Lobsters over the last 40 to 50 years have become one of our most valuable species, along with our snow crabs. Those two species provide a lot of income to the people along the Baie de Chaleurs and Miramichi Bay areas.

We also have to recognize what happened and be very aware of the situation that developed which pitted one group of people against another group, the commercial fishermen. I would like to point out to the House that some commercial fishermen are natives.

The aboriginal fishery strategy over the past decade has offered fishing licences and in fact the Burnt Church reserve has approximately 10 licences. It is the same with the reserve at Big Cove where they have fishing licences and also with Indian Island.

It was a very unfortunate incident that happened on that Sunday some weeks ago when fishermen decided to take the law into their own hands. There was a certain degree of frustration because they saw, in terms of the supreme court ruling, that their industry and their livelihood was at stake. I met with some of those fishermen. They came to my office in great numbers on the Wednesday prior to the incident that happened on Sunday. It seems that there were other people who came into our area. There were lobster boats and commercial boats that came from outside the Miramichi constituency to fish on the shores of Burnt Church.

We have to recognize the value of conservation. The inner Miramichi Bay in the fall of the year has very warm water. The lobsters come to change their shells, to moult. It is a nursery where the lobsters procreate and develop for the next season ahead. With that, the commercial fishermen saw a danger to their industry.

We also have to recognize that for the native people of Atlantic Canada the treaty rights they obtained as a result of the Marshall decision created a great period of exhilaration, a great victory they had won, a point they had been striving for and reaching for over many years. Many of the native people took to the shores to set their pots and fishing traps to see what lobsters they could obtain.

We talk of this in terms of wisdom. Many of us are pointing at certain people who have made mistakes. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when I point at you with one finger, I am actually pointing back at myself with my other three. I think a lot of us in the House tonight, as we try to find some villain in this, are actually doing three times as much damage to ourselves as we are to the people we are pointing toward.

Some will criticize the supreme court. They feel that the supreme court did not have enough wisdom in terms of the outcome of the decision it rendered. The court might have stated in its own behalf that it recognized rural Canada and especially the Atlantic provinces if it had foreseen the difficulties, but that wisdom was not seen by the supreme court.

Some will criticize the minister, but the minister has to look at those judgments. He and his staff and the Department of Justice have to decide just what is said in those pages that have been written by the justices. It takes some time for that to be brought to light and for the proper decisions to be made.

Some will criticize the fishermen who were taken back by the decision. They were very much concerned that an immediate process should evolve and that the minister should simply say “no native fishermen”. That would not be a wise decision. The native people have as much right to the resources of the country as anyone else.

In terms of perspective, we must mention that the fishery has grown over the years. In the 1960s a commercial lobster licence could be obtained for about 25 cents. Today licences are worth somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000.

We also have to recognize that over the years the lobster industry has been developed.

I read an article some years ago about teachers being sought in the southern part of New Brunswick. At that time, during the great depression, teachers often boarded with parents in the community. One promise that one school board made in southern New Brunswick was that no one boarding at their house would have to eat lobsters more than twice a week. Lobsters were frowned upon in terms of being a commodity and only poor people ate lobsters. Today, of course, such is not the case.

We have to recognize that in Atlantic Canada the fishery has been developed. The various species all have different values. We talk about smelts, clams, oysters and the list goes on. In fact, the Marshall case dealt with eels. The fact is that all of them will have to eventually be translated into accommodations in terms of how native and non-native fishermen will approach the fishery.

The point is that not only have native people been restricted in terms of the fishery; the people on the west coast talk about the public right to fish. On the Atlantic side we do not have the public right to fish. Fishing has been closely regulated and people have obtained fishing licences as a result of having paid fees over the years which have been applied by certain regulations.

I hope that in some way this matter can be resolved. In the Miramichi constituency we have people with fear. People are afraid that others may infringe on their rights. We have had burnings, we have had trucks destroyed. There was a special healing site that the native people in Burnt Church burned by fire. A house has been destroyed. All of those things have created great problems in our community. With it, people who have lived side by side for some 200 years are suddenly no longer great friends.

I hope that in the debate tonight we can bring some reason to this problem that has been created in the Atlantic fishery, that people can restore some faith in their ability to relate and understand other people and that, above all, in the near future we can develop a fishery which can accommodate people, both native and non-native, and that the fishery can work in the best interests of the economy of Atlantic Canada.

I also wish to point out one final point. Burnt Church is a very isolated reserve. It consists of between 900 and 1,100 people, depending upon the season. The people of Burnt Church have great economic needs. I think that is true of a great number of reserves across the country. There are some 600 of them. Many of them lack the economic resources to develop their own people and to provide a livelihood for their children.

Let us put all of that into perspective and hope that we as Canadians and as parliamentarians can join together to see a resolution to this great problem that will accommodate most of our people.

[Petitions, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today in which the petitioners request that parliament enact legislation to define marriage as a union between a single male and a single female.

[Committees Of The House, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertook a study on sealing issues. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response from the minister to this report within 150 days.

[Petitions, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition from hundreds of people in New Brunswick who express concerns about the condition of work and contracting arrangements between Canada Post and the rural mail carriers group.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amazed to hear the hon. member. He may recall last fall when he and I had a lengthy conversation on the farming problems in the province of Saskatchewan. Following that we implemented a program which provided some $900 million to help the farmers across this country. Where does the member think that $900 million came from? Was there some magic pot or was it from taxation?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of discussion, debate and lectures on taxation and on monetary and fiscal policy, but I have never heard such a rambling diatribe of information as I have just heard in the House.

We have to come reality. We are not here to speak for 10 minutes and consume the 10 minutes. We are here to present facts, realities and some conclusions to the Canadian people.

After listening to the member talking about the two families, I cannot help but wonder what the attitude and policy is of the Reform Party. It seems to show that two low income families should pay the same amount of taxes as one major income earner family.

Would the member comment on how his party could come to the conclusion that two families, being compared in terms of total income, one where two people each earn $20,000 a year, should pay the same income tax as a single earner earning $40,000 per year. Could the member please inform the House of his thinking, his logic in coming to that conclusion?

[Committees Of The House, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 1, 1999, your committee has considered the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

In conclusion, the committee was somewhat taken aback by the small allocation of moneys this year for the small craft harbours and those used by our fishery people.