Mr. Speaker, the supreme court rendered its decision on the Donald Marshall Jr. case on September 17. Almost a month has gone by and only now has the government recognized the seriousness of this particular ruling.
Tonight's emergency debate is focused primarily on the fishery and more specifically on the lucrative Atlantic lobster fishery. Yet the supreme court ruling will have far greater implications for all future federal government negotiations with our aboriginal peoples.
As my hon. colleague from south shore has mentioned, this ruling will most definitely be used as a benchmark for future discussions over such things as logging rights, mineral rights and even land claims.
Despite the importance of this decision, the government chose to postpone the opening of parliament by three weeks to introduce a new throne speech rather than reconvene parliament to address this situation. Shame.
What is more disturbing about the government's obvious contempt for the parliamentary process is the fact that Canada's fishery industry was almost totally ignored in the Speech from the Throne. Except for a very brief mention in the speech, it would appear that this Liberal government could not care less about what happens to Atlantic Canada or the fishery.
After watching the aftermath of the supreme court decision, can there be any doubt that the government was totally and utterly ill prepared to respond to the violent reaction among fishers that such a decision was bound to create? It is absolutely unbelievable that the government did not have a strategy prepared for whether or not the supreme court ruled in favour of Mr. Marshall. That was exactly what happened. Instead of being a leader in this dispute, the minister has left it to the affected parties to come up with their own solutions to this impasse.
Native leaders have just come up with their own solution. Following an emergency debate this afternoon, it was reported that native leaders have now decided to withdraw their support for a 30 day moratorium. This means that native fishers will once again take to the waters without any government restrictions. Such action will certainly heighten tensions in an already hostile environment.
Native leaders are charging the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with negotiating in bad faith by imposing trap limits on two native reserves in Burnt Church and Indian Brook who refused to enter into a moratorium agreement along with the 33 other band members.
Native leaders went to great pains to explain to the media that their original decision to agree to the moratorium was taken of their own accord and was not influenced by the request of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It would appear as though they do not recognize the authority of the minister to impose a solution to this impending crisis in the fishery. And why should they? The minister and his own senior officials have shown clearly that they have no solution to offer either native or non-native fishers with regard to this dispute.
In light of the decision taken by native leaders today, it is vital that this minister and this government act immediately to establish at least a short term solution until a long term solution can be negotiated.
What was this government thinking? Why was it so cocky that it could not even fathom the possibility of losing this case before the supreme court? On what did it base this arrogance? It could not be based on the Sparrow decision. It could not be based on the recent logging disputes in New Brunswick. The rulings in these cases should have triggered some kind of warning bell within the government. Let me ask the question millions of Canadians have been asking themselves, one that our party repeated in the House today. Why was the government not prepared to respond to this situation? Why?
This case has been ongoing since 1993. It is now 1999 and this government is acting as though the situation suddenly appeared from nowhere. I have been in the House asking questions on the illegal lobster fishery that has been going on for the past two years. The minister and his officials knew that was happening. He cannot say that he did not know. He should have had a plan in place. It is not acceptable.
Our West Nova fishers perhaps are victims of their own success. Not so many years ago a lobster fisher was said to be involved in a poor man's profession. There were virtually no markets for lobster. Lobsters were used as fertilizers on our fields.
The lucrative lobster industry did not just happen overnight. Through conservation, dedication and a lot of hard work, industry leaders slowly began developing markets for this crustacean. We have gone from exporting lobster to the U.S. to opening lucrative markets in Europe. A lobster licence that may have sold for $5 30 years ago is now worth $250,000 in some cases.
Lobster fishers risk huge amounts of money to participate in this lucrative fishery. Besides the expense of a fishing licence, investments include the purchase of a vessel, fishing traps, bait, fuel and wages for their employees. There is a huge overhead involved in this industry. So much money is tied up in their investment that any major decrease in catches or a significant reduction in the price received for lobster would be catastrophic for many fishers, particularly those who have just recently entered into the fishery.
Let us face it. The government was caught with its pants down by not having a strategy in place to address the supreme court ruling. Rather than admit its lack of preparedness and thereby ask the supreme court to grant a temporary stay of its ruling until new regulations could be established, the minister simply allowed a free for all within the Atlantic fishery which led to fear and ultimately violence. This could all have been avoided had the minister of fisheries taken a leadership role in establishing temporary rules and regulations that would have encouraged dialogue leading to long term solutions.
As tensions continued to rise, the minister kept telling Atlantic Canadians that he had the authority to impose restrictions based on conservation. I asked the minister why, if he were legitimately concerned with conservation, he would allow anyone, native or non-native, to fish out of season.
The supreme court has rendered its decision. The native people's right to participate in the fishery has been upheld by Canada's highest court. However, the decision did not clearly define how the fishery was to be conducted. The supreme court decision left many questions unanswered, such as what constitutes a moderate livelihood and how those displaced by this decision will be compensated.
Many non-native fishers are frustrated by the lack of leadership coming from the minister's office. The minister's initial reaction to the supreme court decision was to allow native fishers to participate in an unregulated, unrestricted fishery. Naturally, tensions were bound to escalate as commercial fishers feared the potential loss of their livelihoods.
The Atlantic fishery is worth over $1 billion to our economy. I would consider that quite significant, yet this government has responded with a casual air of indifference toward this crisis.
The fishers of West Nova are some of the finest fishers in the world. Although the minister and his government colleague appear ready to turn their respective backs on the industry, I want them to know that I will not. I will continue to demand from the government that we work with the stakeholders to come to an acceptable solution of this serious issue.
On behalf of our fishers I implore that the minister begins addressing the issue immediately before the lobster industry is damaged beyond repair.
