Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the emergency debate on the native commercial fishery on the east coast. I will be sharing my time with my colleague for West Nova.
I would like to thank our fisheries critic, the member for St. John's West, and our House leader, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for tabling this debate and bringing it to the floor of the House of Commons.
I tried several times to make a comment when the leader of the New Democratic Party was speaking. I will make that comment now because I am sure the member must think that this is a catch and release fishery. I would like to tell this House today that it is not a catch and release fishery. This is very real to the people in eastern Canada.
This debate comes as the result of the implications of a September 17 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada recognizing the treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people. The Marshall decision states:
The 1760 treaty does affirm the rights of the Mi'kmaq people to continue to provide for their own sustenance by taking the products of their hunting, fishing, and other gathering activities, and trading for what in 1760 was termed “necessaries”. This right was always subject to regulation.
This quote from the supreme court decision indicates that the impact of this decision could be far greater than simply fishing rights. All crown based resources in Atlantic Canada, including logging, fishing and possibly even sub-surface rights, may be affected by this decision. That is why it is imperative to have direction and leadership from the government on this issue, something that has been lacking so far.
It has been 26 days since the supreme court decision and still the federal government does not have in place any sort of long term plan for regulating a sustainable fishery. The lack of leadership the government has shown on this issue, and therefore the lack of confidence both native and non-native communities have in the minister and his department, will only worsen if we do not hear something concrete from the minister soon. As it is, there has already been violence and near chaos in the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Because the leadership has not been there to establish a clear plan for the future of the fishery this has occurred.
I would like to take a moment to reference the speech made yesterday by the member for Windsor—St. Clair. In his comments on the throne speech he spoke well and he was extremely articulate. In fact, he was too articulate. He went on, and he went on, and he went on. I thought for a moment that his grandmother had mistakenly vaccinated him with a gramophone needle. I suspect that was not the case. I reference it only because the government has been very quick to pat itself on the back whenever the occasion arises and it can find all kinds of accolades to congratulate itself with.
In comparison, I point out the lack of comments, speeches and leadership, and the lack of a plan of any type coming from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before, during or after the September 17 decision of Regina v Marshall.
It also needs to be mentioned that former Liberal cronies in the Nova Scotia government did not even see fit to represent the province of Nova Scotia as an intervenor in the supreme court case.
Indeed, it is not leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that has put in place the 30 day moratorium. Instead, this was the result of consultations and agreement among 33 of the 35 chiefs of the assembly of Atlantic Mi'kmaq chiefs who agreed to voluntarily suspend their fishing to allow all parities to reach a negotiated settlement. Not the minister but the chiefs themselves put this in place. Unfortunately, through continued government mismanagement and incompetence this is being rescinded.
Fisheries leaders have worked with native chiefs to find a way to recognize native treaty rights. The result had been this 30 day moratorium that should have given the government time to implement some plans and set in place guidelines and regulations for a long term, sustainable fishery, if we would have seen leadership. It comes back time and time again to leadership and the confidence in this minister and in the government.
All fishers recognize the need to negotiate room in the fishery for native fishers, but conservation remains a concern for everyone. The Sparrow decision acknowledged that there are arguments for limiting the aboriginal food fishery. Conservation and resource management are justification for such measures.
We have 4,900 fishing licences in the South Shore riding that I represent. We have 1,700 lobster licences in the South Shore and West Nova. All of these fishers fish under conservation. They fish under rules. They fish under management. It is now the government's responsibility to ensure that conservation remains the priority of the department and that regulations are in place and enforced against everyone involved in the fishery.
Resource management is based on conservation and regulations. Regulations were introduced back in the 1930s and continued with trap limits, size restrictions, licences, seasons and lobster fishing areas. This and only this has preserved the resource. It is due to the fishers who have followed these regulations that we have the lucrative industry we have today.
These rules apply evenly, whether they fish in Southwest Cove, Blandford, Indian Point, Port L'Hebert, Port Mouton, Little Harbour, Barrington, Clark's Harbour, Woods Harbour, Shag Harbour or Lunenburg. Every one of those licences I mentioned earlier is more than a licence. It also represents a family and in some cases two or more families.
We all know where the Reform Party will stand on this issue. It will argue that the native fishery is a fishery based on race. We must make sure that we do not fall into its trap. There are answers, but inciting racism is not one of them.
The minister still has an opportunity. It is still within his reach—
