Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret and a deep sense of frustration that I rise before the House to denounce the government's failure to adequately respond to the growing crisis that exists within our rural areas which depend almost exclusively on Canada's food industries to earn their livelihoods.
The PC Party has consistently called upon the government to act in the best interests of our farmers and fishers, yet our calls for assistance have basically fallen upon deaf ears. Our party is using our supply day motion to once again draw the attention of the government to the economic hardships that exist within our farming and fishing communities. The farm crisis in our western provinces and the recent crisis in the Atlantic fishery are prime examples of the government's failure to address the growing crisis in these two primary industries.
In his remarks, my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris effectively identified the serious problems facing our western farmers. Without an adequate long term federal aid program, many of our western farmers will be facing economic ruin. Despite numerous pleas for help from my hon. colleague along with those coming from the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the federal government, in particular its minister of agriculture, has simply introduced a band-aid solution that will do little to ensure the long term survival of our prairie farmers.
Perhaps overshadowed during the whole debate has been the equally serious crisis facing our Nova Scotia farmers. After three consecutive seasons of drought conditions, they find themselves wondering whether they will have a future for themselves and their families in this industry.
The AIDA program looked at the last three years to determine if there would be a benefit. The farmers who live in my constituency have been experiencing drought conditions for the last three years, but they have been unable to get any benefits from the AIDA program. That is only one of the issues and one of the examples of what is facing our farmers in southwestern Nova Scotia. That is not acceptable. What is being produced by these farmers is valuable not just from a food point of view but as an economic benefit as well.
Many Canadians are alarmed by the constant brain drain that is occurring in this country. There has been a continuous exodus of some of Canada's finest young minds who see a better future for themselves in the U.S. This situation is having a profound effect on our farming community. Our youth must see a future for themselves within the farming industry, yet this will only happen if the government starts to take the problem facing our farming industry seriously.
I do not think anything could epitomize more the government's lack of leadership than its recent handling of the supreme court decision in the Donald Marshall Jr. case. Despite having years to prepare for any consequences the supreme court decision would have, we sadly witnessed a total lack of understanding of this situation by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who was undoubtedly misguided and ill prepared to respond to the fear and anger that accompanied the court decision.
Why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was not prepared to immediately respond to the Donald Marshall decision continues to baffle everyone involved in the industry. It is beyond all comprehension why the minister failed to have a plan in place that would have responded to the decision. Now the minister would argue that he was prepared and that he did have a solution in hand, but the facts would tend to show otherwise.
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on September 17 yet the minister only released a statement on September 20, which in effect says he did not know he had to study it. For three days there were no comments. Obviously native fishers were more prepared for the decision than the minister as they began setting lobster traps almost immediately following the decision.
While tensions in Atlantic Canada continued to rise as a result of the supreme court decision, the minister of fisheries continued to reassure us that a solution was in hand. On October 1 he announced that he would seek a short term deal with the native community for a moratorium that would not rule out acting unilaterally if a decision was not reached. The chiefs acted on their own without the minister's assistance and introduced their own moratorium, which in most instances was maintained throughout the crisis.
Native chiefs, like our fisheries representatives, recognized the inability of the minister to show any kind of leadership in the dispute. Even the Prime Minister recognized the seriousness of the situation when he suggested that the government could ask the supreme court to suspend its decision. Obviously he realized that his minister of fisheries had fumbled the ball on this very serious issue and was looking for a way out of a very tense situation that was threatening to erupt into violence in the Atlantic provinces.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans openly disagreed regarding the solution to the Atlantic fishery crisis. If native and non-native fishers were looking for any type of leadership following the supreme court decision, they quickly realized that they were not going to find it within the ranks of the federal government.
On October 15 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the appointment of Mr. James MacKenzie to negotiate an agreement that would allow native and non-native fishers to share the resource. Almost a full month after the decision we discovered that the only solution that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had in response to the crisis was to appoint an independent negotiator. If this was the best the minister could offer, why did he not appoint this individual immediately following the ruling? Why did he only act following unfortunate acts of violence?
Native and non-native leaders within my constituency deserve much credit for coming to a temporary agreement over the fishery in lobster fishing area 34. They recognized that the government was either ill prepared, or even worse, did not care what happened to the fishery. They agreed to solve the problems themselves and they deserve much credit for reducing the tensions that exist in our area.
It is obvious that the minister of fisheries has no idea how to resolve the fisheries crisis and now he appoints Mr. MacKenzie to try to defuse the growing tension among native and non-native groups. Unfortunately he failed to provide Mr. MacKenzie with any terms of reference. It was almost seven weeks before Mr. MacKenzie's terms of reference were made public. That again shows the total lack of preparedness.
Why should the industry respect anything that comes out of the minister's mouth when he continues to show his total ineptitude in handling the situation? The minister of fisheries continues to say that this situation can only be resolved through consultation. I agree, but what is consultation worth if the minister refuses to listen to any of it?
For instance, over the last few years the minister has been threatening to increase the size of lobster to protect stocks. Our fishery representatives have agreed to do V-notching instead until such time and further scientific evidence can show that this system is not effective. The minister has yet to agree to this request but instead appears willing to put further hardship on our fishers by unilaterally imposing an increased lobster size. Now our fishers are faced with an increase in the number of fishers plus an increase in the size of lobsters which could result in a serious decline in revenue.
The lobster fishery is vital to our local economy as is our farming industry. It is time that our government began recognizing the importance of the food industry to the overall economy before it is too late.
I would like to conclude my remarks by moving an amendment to the opposition motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word “provide” the following: “strong”.