Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party on the Liberal government's failure to recognize the importance of Canada's food industry.
In the three issues that will be put before the House today, I want to stress the second one, namely, that the government was not properly prepared for the “decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Marshall, which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal peoples”. The peoples referred to are, specifically, the Malecite and the Mi'kmaq.
Looking at the events, it is true the Liberal government over there was not prepared to face the music. The proof is that the decision was brought down around the middle of September and the incidents with the native fishermen began only toward the end of September or the beginning of October.
During the hearings the Standing Committee on Fisheries started holding as soon as the House resumed in mid-October, we realized, when we heard what the aboriginal witnesses were saying, that they had approached the Canadian government many times. They had done so as early as last spring in order to be ready with a Plan B, if ever the Canadian government were to lose in court.
I also know that they did so during the summer, in order to still have the possibility of preparing a Plan B. The Canadian government rejected this each time, preferring to believe that only its version of the story would hold any weight. Now it has to be acknowledged that the Canadian government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have been left high and dry, one might say.
During last week's recess, there was another event that proved that the Canadian government is totally off track. Mr. Thériault was hired to assist Mr. MacKenzie in the negotiations, in order to provide the maritimes fishermen with representation in these negotiations, because the so-called traditional fishing communities did not feel that the chief negotiator was listening to and understanding them.
I might add that we only learned of the few lines defining the mandate of Mr. MacKenzie at the time of the announcement of his assistant's appointment. This indicates, once again, the extent of the government's lack of preparedness for the situation.
More serious in this situation is the fact that the minister is splitting the mandate to negotiate. The government is talking about trying to reach short term agreements with the aboriginal peoples on fishing starting this winter and early spring to enable aboriginal fisher to get along with traditional fishers. This is a praiseworthy goal, but the short and the long term are being totally separated, and this fact is causing concern among the fishers.
I would like to clarify something here. The government wants to introduce new players into the lobster fishing industry, which is already quite full. There is no more room, and all the industry players agree that, if new fishers are to be brought in, others must be withdrawn.
I wonder, therefore, what meaning the short term agreements with the native bands have. Fishers deciding to pull out give their most valuable possession, their fishing site, to someone else. It is a vital part of them. Who would give away a vital part of one's self just like that, when told it is just for the short term? The example is perhaps a bit strong, but, when one gives part of one's self away, it can never be replaced. It is a bit like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
An essentially irreversible process is under way. It is going to be very difficult for those fishers who voluntarily decide to return their licenses to Fisheries and Oceans to change their mind. On that basis, how will it be possible to reconcile the long term process the minister has initiated?
What I understand is that the Government of Canada is giving the Indian affairs minister the so called long term process, because, the Marshall decision, the decision by the supreme court that allows aboriginal peoples to exercise their fishing rights, provides that the fishing must be for a moderate livelihood, that fishing will enable the native bands to enjoy a moderate livelihood.
The supreme court does not define this expression. The report of the Erasmus-Dussault commission suggests some possible directions for the self-government so sought after by the first nations. Seeing the Canadian government's failure to govern when it comes to native affairs, the supreme court is giving it a little push from behind, so to speak, saying “You must ensure that native peoples have a decent livelihood, as seen through modern lenses”. This is a new management expression.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been tasked with forming a committee to look into the matter. The committee's long-term mandate contains no clues as to the nature of the short-term agreements to be worked out right now for the fishery.
For example, concerning the three things mentioned in the treaty, hunting, fishing and gathering, are we to understand that a decent livelihood, which remains to be defined by the committee led by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will represent about 30%? Will it be 25%? What will it be?
Second, will the Canadian government attempt to resolve native concerns as much as possible insofar as the fishery is concerned? Since we have no information on the progress that has been made by the other committee, it is likely that the fishing community will be asked to do a bit more.
When I refer to being asked to do more, the aboriginal people started with what are called riparian fisheries, which require less equipment. I am referring to lobster fishing, although that is not the only catch in Canadian waters.
Are we to understand that other fisheries will also be invited to help by suggesting a quantity of fish or a financial value to determine what is a moderate livelihood?
All of these questions leave me highly perplexed. Does a moderate livelihood refer to the financial aspect or to the work? It must be very difficult to not have anything to occupy one's time, to have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week free. If it is only the financial aspect, what could be done within the existing management agreements with the fishermen?
Here again, I am sceptical. Is it up to one category of individuals, the fishers, to make reparation for all the historical mistakes made by Canada? The only way to do so would be through taxes, so that if ever licences were to be withdrawn on a voluntary basis, the Canadian taxpayers would know that they had to pay for part of the mistake, because Canadian and Quebec fishers will have to be compensated for having to withdraw in favour of the new players, the aboriginal fishers.
It is unfortunate that we have so little time this morning to address this subject. These few questions I have raised suggest to us a lack of preparedness on the part of the Canadian government. In my opinion, it is moving at a snail's pace in resolving this problem, when the aboriginal people have been knocking at the door for 240 years now. Since my time has run out, I will now accept any questions from the other side.
