Peter Stoffer

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member speaking right now keeps debating off a very good bill, Bill C-4, which I believe reaches a lot of consensus among all political parties here. It is a worldwide agreement and something that is very important.

I am surprised he is not talking about taxation, or sports or anything of that nature. I wish that you, Madam Speaker, would instruct the hon. member to stick to the subject at hand.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I know I am stretching the envelope a bit on this question, however, the hon. member does mention how all Canadians are very proud of the aerospace industry and what we do in terms of working with other countries. The Canadarm is a great example of that. As he knows, we sold the Canadarm through the Spar agency.

What assurance can the hon. member or his government give that we as a country will cease to sell our industries which are making great advancements in the world of technology?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Wild Rose, whom I respect greatly, indicated that my colleague from the NDP did not want to hear about the devastation and concerns on our reserves. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

[Petitions, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present some fine petitions from very educated people throughout the country, from Niagara Falls, Kelowna, as well as my riding, regarding Bill C-232, an act to make the month of May hepatitis awareness month.

The petitioners call upon parliament to support Bill C-232, one of my own, an act to provide a hepatitis awareness month, ensuring that throughout Canada, in each and every year, the month of May shall be known as Hepatitis Awareness Month.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for clarification for my hon. colleague from British Columbia, my hon. colleague from Halifax West did not refer to him or the Reform Party as hotheads. He was referring to other people who resort to violence on the east coast.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague from British Columbia speaks, it is always very interesting to hear what he has to say.

For his attention, for the Reform Party's attention and for the attention of the listening audience, of which I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of people watching this now, I want them to know that I also grew up in British Columbia from 1956 to 1979. I travelled the province extensively during the time that I lived there.

I also lived in Watson Lake in the Yukon Territory for nine years. I toured the Kitwanga area, the Nass area and the Stikine. I visited the whole area very extensively and met with tremendous numbers of wonderful people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. That is why I have always had high admiration for people from British Columbia. However, when I say that, there is a certain political party from there with which, in many ways, I agree with some of its concerns and I am sure it agrees with some of our concerns.

Individually, its members are great people, but politically they have made some mistakes. First, the previous speaker talked about private property rights. They keep talking about private property rights. The fact is they are the only ones talking about private property rights. In negotiations, and not litigation, there are people on both sides who negotiate what they would like to have. It was the Nisga'a people who wanted to have the communal rights to the property on the land. That is what they wanted. Over 70% of the people voted for the Nisga'a treaty in favour of it. That is a clear majority right there.

Second, as everyone knows, I now live in Nova Scotia. We have a huge crisis in the fishing industry because this government and past Conservative governments refused to negotiate. The aboriginal people were told to get lost, to go pound sand and to take their case to court. Three straight decisions have ruled in favour of the aboriginal people: Delgamuukw, Sparrow and now the Marshall decision. It has caused chaos in my part of the country and is now causing uncertainty right across the country.

There is one aspect of the Nisga'a agreement that I would like to read aloud for the benefit of my Reform colleagues. I do not believe the treaty will be a template, but I do believe that some aspects of it could and may be used for other treaties across the country. If we had the descriptions on page 107, sections 31, 32 and 33, which I will read for Reform's benefit, prior to the Marshall decision, we would not have the chaos that we have now. It is titled “Disposition of Salmon Harvests”, but it could equally have said “any harvest on the Atlantic coast. It reads:

Subject to paragraph 33, the Nisga'a Nation, and its agents, contractors and licensees authorized by Nisga'a Lisims Government, have the right to sell Nass salmon harvested under this Agreement.

For greater certainty, in accordance with paragraph 13 of the General Provisions Chapter, federal and provincials laws of general application pertaining to the sale of fish, in respect of commercial transactions, health and safety, transport, inspection, processing, packaging, storage, export, quality control, and labelling of fish, apply to the sale of all Nass salmon harvested in Nisga'a fisheries.

Here is the key to this. If we had the next key in Nova Scotia, we would not have a problem today.

If, in any year, there are no directed harvests in Canadian commercial or recreational fisheries of a species of Nass salmon, sale of that species of Nass salmon harvested in directed harvests of that species in that year's Nisga'a fisheries will not be permitted.

That means if the non-aboriginal recreational and commercial fisheries are not operating due to conservation measures or other reasons, there will be no Nisga'a fishery. That is a tremendous opportunity for co-operation from both sides.

It clearly states that the non-aboriginal and aboriginal people have in mind conservation first, long before any commercial or sport recreational activity. If we had had that kind of agreement in Nova Scotia prior to the Marshall decision, we would not have the problems or the millions of dollars that are being wasted as a result of the confusion the Marshall decision caused. This is what happens when we negotiate, not litigate.

It really upsets me that governments in Canada have continually told aboriginal people to go away. They are told to take their case to court because the government refuses to talk to them.

Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Wayne Wouters, one of the deputy ministers at DFO, said quite clearly in his presentation that it would have been unrealistic to have expected DFO to have put in any kind of a game plan for the Marshall decision because they did not know what the ruling would be.

In March, April and May, the Mi'kmaq from Nova Scotia came to Ottawa to start a dialogue process with DFO and the Indian affairs department. If the Marshall decision went in favour of the Mi'kmaq, they wanted to set up a plan of action to avoid the kind of turmoil which we see now. The government told them to go away.

Mr. Wouters also said in his presentation to the committee yesterday that they had a legal obligation to talk to the aboriginal people of Nova Scotia. But they did not talk to them. One minute he said that they could not be expected to talk to them. The next minute he said that they had a legal obligation to talk to aboriginal people. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth. No wonder we are frustrated.

On behalf of the Nisga'a people, my colleagues in British Columbia and my party, I say that the B.C. New Democratic Party, headed at the time by the great Glen Clark, in negotiations with the previous Indian affairs minister who is now the Minister of Human Resources Development, and all the parties that negotiated this treaty have done a good thing. They have now brought the aboriginal people into Canada. They are now going to be full-fledged partners in Canada. It is the way it should be done. Negotiation, not litigation.

This will not be a template across the country because every region will be different. There is no question. The Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia may have different aspirations or rules, but the fact is that we must negotiate. That is what has to happen. When we bring all the stakeholders together and discuss their concerns in an open and friendly manner, there are compromises on both sides. The fact is that they will become full citizens of the country, which they so rightly and richly deserve.

It is no secret that when we go to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull, Quebec the first thing we see in the great hall is totem poles, aboriginal artifacts. Why is that? Because we as Canadians are very proud of our rich cultural history with the aboriginal and first nations people. This is something we have to respect and encourage for further dialogue down the road.

The Nisga'a treaty is a good agreement. I recommend that all parties support the agreement. I thank all members of the House who do.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member from British Columbia, who is one of the most honoured colleagues in the House of Commons, with over 20 years of service to the Canadian public, knows very well that the Conservative and Liberal governments of before and today have constantly told the aboriginal people to pound sand and take their case to court.

As a long time veteran of the House, could he advise the House as to why governments have constantly done that and why the Nisga'a treaty is so valuable in today's process?

[Petitions, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to stand in the House today to present three petitions from the beautiful people of Edmonton, Alberta, and Swan Hills, Alberta. They concern one of my private member's bills.

The petitioners call upon parliament to support Bill C-232, an act to provide for a hepatitis awareness month, ensuring that throughout Canada in each and every year the month of May shall be known under the name of hepatitis awareness month.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise in the House in the late show to discuss the crisis that is happening in the Atlantic fishery.

The other day the government appointed Mr. Mackenzie as a federal mediator to go down to Nova Scotia to discuss the situation between non-native and native fishermen after the Marshall decision of September 17.

Unfortunately the representative down there now has absolutely no trust in the people he is talking with. He even admits that he knows absolutely nothing about the fishery. Why would the federal government send someone down to Nova Scotia to discuss the fisheries crisis when the individual in question knows nothing about the fishery?

Another thing we found out today is that since the Marshall decision has come out, besides the chaos and uncertainty this has created in everyone's lives in the maritime region, on March 8 of this year the Mi'kmaq nation came to Ottawa to discuss the proposed Marshall decision with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister at that time.

They came here to give the government advance warning that if the supreme court was going to rule in favour of the aboriginal people, they would like to give the government enough time to come up with a short term plan to initiate the transfer of getting the aboriginal people into the fishery. They came here and the government basically told them to go away.

The government did not want to talk to them because it was going to wait for the Marshall decision. That means the government did not want to plan ahead. It did not want to discuss the future or the possible crisis that may happen as a result of the Marshall decision. The government told the Mi'kmaq people who came here in good faith to go away.

This is typical of the government and past Conservative governments. They have consistently told aboriginal people who have had legitimate concerns across the country to go away, to pound sand, to take their case to court.

Three straight court decisions from the supreme court have ruled in favour of the aboriginal people. Every single time, the past governments and this current government have stood there like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck. The government really does not know what to do.

Meanwhile the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people and their communities, their children are at stake. The resource itself is at stake. This government just stands around and says, “Go away, we do not want to talk to you”. Now it is scrambling around. This party has offered the government sound advice. Other parties have given the government advice as well which it has completely ignored.

It is ironic to notice that the previous minister who is now the environment minister must have known the decision was coming down. If the DFO was the stock exchange we could almost accuse him of insider trading because he left the portfolio fairly quickly and went into another one.

Now we have a brand new minister who readily admits that he does not know much about the Mi'kmaq people. He does not know much about fisheries as the head of one of the most volatile departments. I call it one of the most out of control departments in Ottawa. It has cost us billions of dollars in TAGS adjustments. The stock itself is in chaos. The auditor general said last April that the DFO and the government were managing the shellfish industry in the same manner that they managed the groundfish industry: right into the ground.

My question for the hon. parliamentary secretary is quite simple. Why did the government shut the door on the Mi'kmaq people on March 8 and in the ensuing weeks when they tried to initiate their conversations? What will it do to resolve the situation immediately?

[Division No. 43, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the late show to clarify the question I had last week for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Since the Marshall decision was handed down by the supreme court, the lobster fishery in the maritime region has been thrown into absolute chaos. It has pitted families against families, workers against workers and fishermen against fishermen. It has also raised the issue of racism between non-natives and native groups. The reason is the lack of leadership by the federal government.

For years and years previous Conservative and Liberal governments and the current Liberal government have denied the aboriginal people traditional and proper access to natural resources. Every single time the aboriginal people came to the House of Commons or to the government to negotiate those outstanding treaties, the government of the day told them to pound sand and take their case to court.

After the Delgamuukw decision, after the Sparrow decision and now after the Marshall decision, the government is like a deer caught in the headlights on an oncoming semi truck. It stands there and says “Duh, what do we do now”. The unfortunate part is the people of Atlantic Canada do not have time to wait.

Back in April the Auditor General of Canada released a very damning report toward the DFO. It stated quite clearly that the shellfish industry was in serious trouble. Last April the auditor general clearly said that DFO was managing the shellfish industry exactly the same way it managed the groundfish industry prior to the 1992 collapse of the cod stocks. On top of that, there is the collapse of the salmon stocks. Now there is the collapse of the lobster, shrimp, scallops and crab stocks and every other species that is out there because of the lack of proper enforcement by the government.

My question is quite clear. We had a solution that we presented to the minister 34 days ago. It is now day 35 of the Marshall decision and there still has been no clear action from the government. The fishermen of lobster fishing area number 33 are meeting tonight because people from the Burnt Church Indian reserve are laying traps in the Halifax harbour which will lead to more conflict and more confusion. There is still no leadership from the government.

We are saying to the government loud and clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must get their butts out of Ottawa and down to Nova Scotia. They must start talking to these people instead of sending other people to do their work for them. They must take a leadership role. They must go down and resolve this situation immediately. If they do not, I fear for the lobster stocks themselves.