Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be lenient with me and my colleagues who are rather noisy, in spite of the fact that our favourite hockey team lost. It got walloped yesterday.
I will start by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-33 before us. I would like to emphasize that I listened intently to the minister earlier. I noticed that, as my colleague from St. John's West indicated, the minister digressed for a long time, talking about the so-called democratic reform. Almost four, five or six minutes of his speech dealt with the so-called democratic reform the government intends to carry out, instead of dealing directly with the bill before us.
I too was wondering. Like my colleague from St. John's West, I was wondering if there was a fundamental reason why the minister digressed and talked about the so-called democratic reform. He mentioned the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the joint committee. I finally understood that the committee does not seem to be totally in agreement with the minister's proposal. In spite of the fact that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-33, we realize that there is indeed a problem.
We realize that the Supreme Court ruling recognizes the power of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to regulate the fisheries. Moreover, the decision by the Supreme Court mentions that the primary purpose of the regulations should be conservation. That is where the problem lies.
The biggest flaw of the bill is the fact that it at no time mentions that, in its ruling, the Supreme Court said that restrictions imposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be for conservation purposes only. For the most part, the decision to introduce new regulations should be based on the grounds of conservation. Is it truly for conservation purposes that Bill C-33 has been put forward today? I doubt it.
I want to go back in time and give a little history on the ruling made. This is another issue regarding which I have a lot of questions. There were other rulings before that one, but the Supreme Court decision known as the Marshall decision was handed down on September 17, 1999. This is now May 2004. This means that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not been able to clarify the situation since September 17, 1999. In other words, the department has not managed to do its job between 1999 and now.
As the hon. member for St. John's West said, the government is introducing a bill on the eve of an election. This bill may die on the Order Paper and never make it through third reading. Therefore, the decision to put this legislation before the House seems totally inappropriate and untimely, considering that the bill stands very little chance of being passed, which means that the situation will not be corrected.
This means that the situation will have remained uncorrected from September 17, 1999 until heaven knows when. This is a true reflection of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the federal government's fishery management program. We must realize that, at present, the management process is a haphazard one. It is based on events and situations, as opposed to being planned with very specific objectives in mind.
We must always remember that the only real goal of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must be the protection and conservation of the resource. That is its fundamental objective. We can see that this is not at all what has happened in the past, ever since the federal government took control of the management of the resource.
Going back to when Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949, look at what happened at that time, when there was a viable and extremely profitable fishery, and when the resource was abundant. And then, look at what happened in 1992, with the first moratorium on groundfishing, and also in 2002, with the second moratorium.
We see that the federal government has not really managed the resource adequately. Historically, one day or another, renewal of the resource will be impossible, particularly with respect to groundfish and cod.
Some extremely important decisions must be taken, and they have not been taken. What we want, as representatives of all fishermen in Quebec and eastern Quebec, is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans engage in predictable, transparent management, in harmony with the priorities of the provincial governments.
Earlier we were talking about consultation. It has come to our attention that the consultation on Bill C-33 was done in writing. Indeed, communication with the committee was all in the form of correspondence. There were not any true discussions on the possible impact of the amendment being proposed today.
It is important that this be taken a little further. But this should have been done in the past. As I was saying earlier, the Marshall decision dates back to 1999. Perhaps very few people know what this Supreme Court decision was about. This case was simply a lawsuit filed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans against Donald Marshall Junior, who had been found guilty of catching and selling eel out of season with inappropriate fishing gear, and fishing without a licence. This was an aboriginal man who had been charged and convicted. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided—in what is now known as the Marshall decision—to disregard previous court rulings.
It is therefore our hope that there will be some predictability to fisheries management. Such is not the case at present, with the bill before us. Not only is there no predictability, but all of us here in the House are well aware that it is very likely to die on the Order Paper when the House is prorogued. So later on we will be back at this again, trying to clarify what the department is trying to clarify today, which is what regulations will govern aboriginal fishermen.
As my colleague for St. John's West has just pointed out, a person, individual or group could be charged under the regulations as presented. The fundamental question remains, however. If a person, individual, or group does not comply with the conditions of a permit or licence, or section 4, this is an offence.
Was there really any negotiation on this, and is the purpose of this document—and perhaps this is what is not clear and has not been made clear—to subject aboriginal people to the same law and same regulations as everyone else?
The minister's proposal is not clear at all. Perhaps the government should look into correcting this. I understand that it wishes to include in the department's regulations the definition of “aboriginal group” and “aboriginal band”, that it would issue the licence to an aboriginal band and that, finally, it would negotiate the powers of each fisherman with the band. The question is how the fishing must take place, the size of the boat, the type of fishing, the date, and so on. However, does the government want to do this in the same way as it negotiates, among other things, with fishermen's groups or associations?
We must always remember that, for fisheries as a whole, the principle of fisherman as owner must be respected. This must be taken into account if the regulations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are slightly amended for the benefit of aboriginal bands. In any event, I, as well as members of the Bloc Quebecois, are in favour of adapting fishing regulations for aboriginal peoples, who, according to the Supreme Court's decision, can and must have access to the resource, as do the rest of citizens.
We are in favour of the bill, but we must remember that, according to the Supreme Court's decision, the minister's regulatory authority must be based on specific reasons. One of the reasons that I mentioned earlier is conservation. This raises a significant question at this time. The bill does not specify in any way that the proposed regulations are based solely on the conservation principle.
The Supreme Court's decision forces the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to justify his decisions about the restrictions that he may impose on treaty fishing. Specifically, the decision says this, and it is very important. My colleague from Saint-Jean talked about it earlier. It says:
The Court was thus most explicit in confirming the regulatory authority of the federal and provincial governments within their respective legislative fields to regulate the exercise of the treaty right subject to the constitutional requirement that restraints on the exercise of the treaty right have to be justified on the basis of conservation—
This is the fundamental element that is not clarified in the bill now before us. In my view, it is a mistake. In any case, as the hon. member for Saint-Jean pointed out, it is highly unlikely that this legislation will ever be passed. Therefore, there should have been more consultation, to ensure that all would agree, instead of creating false expectations for aboriginal people, and to truly give them what they are entitled to, with their agreement and after consulting with them. This is very important.
I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. However, there are some serious flaws in this legislation. We would have liked to see more consultation, particularly with aboriginal people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I wish you good luck for the next game.
