moved:
That this House take note of the difficulties in Canadian fisheries, especially as complicated by the Queen and Marshall case and its implications for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples and for the future management of natural resources.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I appreciate this opportunity to bring members of parliament up to date on the developments in Atlantic Canada following a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Many members have been following the story in media reports over the past four weeks, but this is the first chance I have had to tell the House personally what is happening.
I think it is important for members of parliament to understand the background to this issue and what I am going to do to resolve it. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall case is an important judgment that affirms certain rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet peoples flowing from the historical treaties with the crown. In short, the supreme court decision affirms a treaty right that deserves our respect; but that right is a regulated right, it is not a blank cheque to fish anywhere at any time.
As a result of this judgment we will have to consider a number of fundamental questions about the management of the fishery. In this new reality our challenge is to find ways to work together to secure the future of the fishery for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. We must formulate a process for integrating fishing under the treaty right in the overall fishery. We need to develop a management scheme that will respect the treaty right described by the court while being sensitive to the social and economic realities of the Atlantic fishery and those who depend on it.
When the supreme court handed down its judgment on September 17, the issue had my immediate and full attention. We have been working with federal departments to analyse the implications of the judgment. In addition, we engaged in immediate and continuous dialogue with aboriginal communities, provincial governments and other stakeholders in the fisheries. Throughout this past month I have been heartened to hear the clear commitment to conservation and to co-operation expressed by the Mi'kmaq chiefs.
From the beginning our objective has been to achieve an effective management regime which represents a supreme court judgment and is fair to the interest in the fisheries. Through the goodwill, patience and restraint that has been demonstrated by all participants, we have made considerable progress toward this goal. The treaty signed in 1760 between the British and the Mi'kmaq was called the Peace and Friendship Treaty. We should keep those words in mind, peace and friendship, as we work together toward the long term solution.
The supreme court decision is complex and its full implications are not yet totally clear. However, since September 17 we have clarified a number of issues raised. Let me summarize what we understand about the judgment.
The court has affirmed that the beneficiaries of the treaty have a right to, among other things, fish, hunt and gather and trade the products of these activities for necessaries. Translated into modern terms the judgment indicates this right entitles the beneficiaries to have the opportunity to gain a moderate livelihood from the exercise of their fishing, hunting and gathering activities.
The court has also told us that right is limited. It does not extend to the open-ended accumulation of wealth, nor does it provide for an unregulated harvest. While the court has made it clear that there is a treaty right to fish, it has also made it clear the exercise of the right is subject to regulation by government. Catch limits that would reasonably be expected to provide a moderate livelihood can be enforced without infringing the treaty rights.
There are many considerations that will be central to our efforts as we move forward in concert with all the parties. For example, we consider this to be a communal right and not an individual right. To be clear, even though the right is exercised by individuals, it is for the benefit of the collective.
Another issue that is fundamental to the interpretation of the judgment is that in order to accommodate the treaty right, we must understand who are the current beneficiaries of that right. It is our view that the treaty applies to the aboriginal communities that best represent the modern manifestation of the original signatories. Our initial assessment is that the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet Indian bands in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Listiguj first nation in Quebec are the modern manifestations of the collectives that benefited from the treaties. We now need to focus on a process that will allow us to accommodate the treaty right. We will involve in this process all who are directly concerned with the sustainability and the viability of the Atlantic fishery.
I became involved earlier on this issue and I have worked closely with natives, with commercial fishers, with federal departments and with provincial premiers to find short and long term solutions.
When the supreme court judgment was delivered on September 17 and others in government sought a clear understanding of the implications, we worked quickly to analyse some fundamental questions about the management of the fishery and how to address them.
There may be some critics who think we should have been able to guess what the court would say and that we should have jumped immediately into action, but it is difficult to predict the supreme court decisions and the terms used within the judgments. Some court decisions take years to interpret. In this case we had a preliminary assessment in less than two weeks' time. Unfortunately, emotions ran high in some communities which resulted in serious property damage, injuries and violence. Those events deeply saddened me and many other Canadians across the country.
It is important for us to work together. We must not allow hot tempers and poor judgment to tarnish Canada's reputation for tolerance, for generosity and respect for the law. I am encouraged to see that calm and goodwill have returned to most areas of Atlantic Canada. In the meantime we are working on a process that will accommodate both commercial and native fisheries for years to come.
I would like to extend my personal thanks to all the chiefs and members of the industry who took the time to meet with me to share their views and concerns. Since the beginning I have said that I would respect the decisions of the chiefs, and that continues to be my position.
I also want to commend the people in area 35 who together, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, found community based solutions.
The decision that was handed down on September 17 by the supreme court left many unanswered questions. We need time to work together. But thanks to the willingness of all those who keep the lines of communication open, we have made progress. Aboriginal members of the fishing sector, the province, the federal government have all shown a strong will to resolve this issue.
What was really important when I met with the chiefs in Atlantic Canada was the long term issue. Many of the chiefs felt that we must not focus on the short term and detract from what are the real issues, which is a long term issue. That is what I hope to focus on, that we begin a process, a comprehensive plan of progress with all those parties that are affected by the fisheries issues, to bring them together and talk about real solutions. Real solutions can come about through dialogue and through co-operation, with people working together, sitting around the table looking at each other eye to eye and talking about the problems and how they can resolve them.
We have been working on a short term solution. I know the chiefs are meeting today. Until I hear from them directly, I will not comment whether they in fact have decided to lift the moratorium or not, because this is something that they have done on a voluntary basis. Certainly I would be disappointed if that is the decision they have made, but I will wait until they have directly contacted me before I comment on that. An hon. member has said that I have not had contact. I will wait to see if that is the case.
We must go back to the fact that this treaty was a peace and friendship treaty. It was signed more than two centuries ago. Natives and non-natives have lived and worked together for generations since that time in peace and harmony. Together with patience, restraint, respect for the law and with the co-operation of everyone, we can turn the spirit for the next century.
