Bill C-52 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (terms and conditions of permissions, leases and licences)

This enactment amends the Fisheries Act to expressly provide that a breach of a term or condition of a permission referred to in section 4 of the Act or of a lease or licence issued under the Act is an offence.

Fisheries Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, there may be some confusion regarding exactly what we are talking about. Although it is a minimal change, it is about what the shift in power is. In fact, it may be exactly the opposite of what some of the members opposite believe.

The basic issue is that fishing licences have to be enforced. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. Fishing licences have to be enforced so that we can protect the fishery. If commercial or other fishermen did not have to live up to their fishing licences, there would be chaos in the fishery. The fishermen and the fisheries organizations have made that quite clear to us.

The parliamentary committee for the scrutiny of regulations has said that this enforcement cannot be in the regulation because it leads to penalties and there cannot be penalties in a regulation. It could at any time eliminate that ability of the enforcement and it would be totally justified. It is a proper parliamentary procedure. The fact is that people have to follow their licences. Otherwise there would be chaos. This is what fishermen and anglers are so worried about and it is why they want us to make this change.

There is the jeopardy of losing control over enforcing licences. The way it has to be done legally is to put it in the act. As members know, the act comes under the scrutiny of Parliament. Regulations are determined by cabinet and acts are determined by Parliament. Parliament actually has more control with this change.

The hunters and anglers and the anglers' associations are very worried because of this parliamentary procedure and that this particular enforcement is in the regulation where it is not valid, as opposed to being in the act. There could be chaos in the fishery and they are urging us to move ahead on this issue.

I will quote some letters. The first one is from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Members from Ontario will know how huge that organization is and its expertise and how long it has worked on protecting the fisheries. It states:

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.), our 78,500 members and 640 member clubs across Ontario, I am writing to express our strong support for Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (terms and conditions of permissions, leases and licences)--

The bill appears to be a straightforward attempt to deal with a procedural issue raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and once passed, will ensure that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources continues to have the authority to enforce the regulations applying to commercial fishing licences. For the over one million licensed anglers in Ontario, it is critically important that the regulations and the enforcement of these same regulations by provincial authorities, is supported and allowed to stand. Otherwise, the current protections for the $2.5 billion a year sport fishing industry in Ontario will be useless, and render the Province impotent in terms of being able to govern the species of fish taken, the amount taken, the type of gear used, and the time frame and location of that activity. This in turn will also jeopardize the work of thousands of individual anglers and angling clubs who have invested a huge number of person hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars in running hatchery and stocking programs on the Great Lakes and inland waters.

We urge you in the strongest possible terms to quickly move forward with the legislation, and trust that your colleagues on both sides of the House will recognize the importance of the bill and vote accordingly.

I am hoping that those members connected to the industry and who understand how it works and know the importance of it will see that there is a legal remedy to enforce fishing licences. I hope that members, such as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, will step up and make sure that this case is made and that the concerns of people in the fisheries are heard. This is the simple change of the locus of the regulation which says that fisher people have to follow their licences. It moves it from a regulation where it is not legally valid because it includes penalties into the act where people will definitely have to enforce it. Of course it is still under the scrutiny of Parliament because all acts are under the scrutiny of Parliament. That can be changed at any time.

The second document I want to quote from is a letter from the Ontario minister of natural resources to a number of Conservative MPs, putting these principles on the table again, a simple change, to make it is legal to enforce fishing licences and to ensure it stays legal so there is no chaos in the fishery. It will still be under the scrutiny of Parliament because it is an act of Parliament.

He states:

Further to the debate that took place in the House of Commons on June 6, 2005, regarding Bill C-52, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act, I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues that I understand you and your colleagues raised during that debate.

I understand that during the debate, it was implied that I did not understand the nature of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989, since I mentioned in my letter of April 14, 2005 to [the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans] that disallowance of section 36(2) would impair the ability to impose terms and conditions of licence. I would like to point out that the intent of my April 14 letter was to indicate that, while conditions can indeed be specified in fishing licences, without the ability to enforce the requirement to comply with these conditions of licence through prosecutions, the enforcement tools at our disposal would be inadequate. Conservation of the resource and proper conduct of the fishery requires a broad range of adaptable enforcement tools that include prosecution.

I understand that it was also suggested in the debate that civil servants could impose any kind of conditions without restriction. Conditions are an integral part of the licence and a vital component of the management of the fishery. However, subsection 36(1) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989 specifies the conditions that may be imposed in a licence.

The conditions are only a very limited number to start with, and are set by officials under any circumstances before or after the act goes through.

He goes on to say:

These include such matters as the waters from which fish may be taken; the species, size and quantity of fish that may be taken; and the fishing gear that may be used. These conditions all relate to the management and control of the fishery and the conservation and protection of fish.

We require compliance with licence conditions to ensure conservation of the resource and proper conduct of the fishery. While in principle it may appear that cancellation of a licence can be used as the only tool to enforce compliance, in practice it is inadequate. It would be analogous to trying to enforce highway speeding infractions only through cancellation or suspension of a driver's licence. In addition, under Ontario's process a commercial fishing licence cannot be suspended or cancelled until after a hearing before a hearing officer who makes a recommendation that I must consider. The current process can take time and the licence can only be suspended or cancelled for the remainder of its term.

Under a prosecution for a violation of a condition of a commercial fishing licence, there is the flexibility to seek a penalty appropriate to the circumstances. For example, one might seek a lesser penalty for a first time offender than a repeat offender. The size of fines can vary. Other penalties, such as forfeiture are also available. The cancellation of licences is not a flexible tool. The cancellation cannot be tailored to the infraction. It would mean that a person committing a minor infraction could see his or her licence cancelled. That remedy could threaten their livelihood and so must be used only in appropriate circumstances.

As the Minister, I take my responsibility for conservation of the fishery resource in Ontario very seriously. My ability to enforce compliance with licence conditions solely through suspension or cancellation of a licence is unrealistic from an operational perspective. Failure to maintain the ability to enforce terms and conditions on commercial fishing licences could very well put this significant resource at risk.

In summary, the minister who deals with fisheries and the anglers and hunters associations that are well versed in fisheries simply want to ensure that licences can be enforced. An all party committee has determined that it is not legal to have them enforced the way they are right now. It is in jeopardy because it is in a regulation. To be legal, it just has to be put into the act.

Acts are under the scrutiny of Parliament so there is no more authority for the minister. Perhaps there is less because Parliament can scrutinize that regulation. Remember, we are talking about is a regulation that says one has to abide by one's fishing licence.

Whether it is in an act that Parliament can change or in a regulation that cabinet enforces, I do not think it makes a lot of difference. Everyone agrees with it. It will be under the scrutiny of Parliament but it will protect the fishery which I am sure every member of Parliament wants to do. I am sure every parliamentarian wants fishing licences to be enforced.

It was determined that this technical change was needed, to the credit of the an all party committee of this Parliament. It recommends that we make it legal to enforce the fishing licence. It would be removed from a regulation where it is not valid, because we cannot have penalties in a regulation, and it would be moved into the act where it would be valid. Nothing will change, but it will legally continue to protect the fishery as everyone would like and it will not be at jeopardy.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions about his speech.

Would the member agree with me that it is a worrisome trend in this Parliament and in the previous Parliaments under the auspices of the Liberal government, a pattern or we could even call it a trademark motif of the government, that virtually every piece of legislation it puts in place grows and adds to the arbitrary authority of the minister? The arbitrary powers of the minister are almost always enhanced by a bill. We never see those powers limited by any legislation.

In this case, Bill C-52 was made necessary because it became known that the minister had been setting regulations for years as it pertained to the fisheries in Ontario with no statutory authority whatsoever. We could view the bill as a way to further augment and enhance the powers of the minister to make it at least legal that he does set regulations.

I would ask the member to comment on two worrisome trends. The first one is the urgency and, seemingly, the goal of the Liberal government to enhance the arbitrary unilateral powers of ministers. The second one is the regulatory regime, setting regulations, leaving the details out of legislation and leaving it in regulations where they can be arbitrarily and unilaterally introduced by the minister.

Do either of those trends ring familiar with the member and is he concerned by those trends?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing my colleagues as the evening goes on in terms of the bill before us. We have heard some interesting arguments.

When everything is considered, Bill C-52 is a bill that has been around this place on at least a couple of other occasions. It was first introduced as Bill C-33 in the 37th Parliament.

The minister likes to suggest that the bill is only a technical amendment and, in one sense, it is a technical amendment. It is a very short bill with only a couple of paragraphs in it. It is a technical bill in nature but it would grant the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to make decisions concerning terms and conditions of licences and permissions without the need for consultation of any kind.

My colleagues are absolutely correct when they talk about circumventing Parliament without any parliamentary oversight. The bill would give the minister powers that we are a little bit concerned about.

It would give the minister sole discretion without the checks and balances that we would normally expect in a bill. In other words, Parliament, basically, would lose control. All the control would be exercised by the minister and we know what happens in government when ministers are allowed a free rein in terms of what they do and how their department behaves. For that very reason we are proposing amendments to the bill and we would only support the bill if these amendments were approved by the House.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans could be doing many things but it is not. We have heard some of that here as well. We do not have to look very far in any of our constituencies across the country that have a fisheries component in them to recognize the difficulties in our fisheries.

Today, for example, a story came off the CBC network about the red tide in the shellfish market. In other words, we are talking about a red tide that creates a toxic algae, a difficulty that makes it almost impossible for harvesters of clams to make a living. The shellfish industry is in difficulty and we know this a recurring phenomenon just about each and every summer. It is now occurring in New Brunswick and in other parts of North America as well.

If the department wants to do something, we are suggesting that it take some action to support some of our clam diggers where a little bit of money could make the difference in terms of compensation for fisheries that are shut down through no fault of the fishermen, in this case, clam diggers.

One of the points raised today in the media is that the state of Massachusetts, which is also suffering because of the red tide, in other words shutting down its shellfish industry, has come up with money for those fishermen. They are down at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of the pecking order in the eyes of the present government.

One might argue that if the government wanted to do something it should assistance of some of those fishermen who need help, much as we did in the cod fishery. We came in a little too late. The industry was in a state of collapse so the government had no option but to do something to help out those fishing families. I am suggesting it should do the same thing with our clam fishers.

The other point I want to make is that the government has done a number of things right in the fishery. I was pleased when the minister announced funding for some wharves in New Brunswick Southwest of about $5 million in the last few weeks on some much needed work on infrastructure. Our fishermen absolutely need wharves to do their work, in other words, to fish.

This is not all negative but, as members know, there is always more to do and more work has to be done and we are encouraging the government to do some of that. If we are going to spend resources, let us spend it on the fishermen and in a way that would be beneficial to them, not in a way that would give the minister an arbitrary power in terms of the actions that he can take against fishermen in terms of their licences and the responsibilities of those licence holders.

That issue was brought out in a weekly newspaper back home, the St. Croix Courier Weekend edition by Dick Wilbur who writes the Fisheries File, the article he writes every week in that paper. He was talking to the member for Delta--Richmond East. When the member for Delta--Richmond was speaking to this particular reporter this is what he had to say about Bill C-52:

--the bill would empower bureaucrats to attach terms and conditions to fishing licenses having the force of law would have the effect of undermining the accountability provisions in the Fisheries Act legislation that has stood the test of time.

That pretty well sums it up in terms of what it would do.

In all fairness, Mr. Wilbur went to department officials to get their take on the issue. Of course when one is speaking to a senior official in the Department of Fisheries, one can only expect one thing, for them to support the legislation and they do. They dismiss what our member for Delta--Richmond East had to say but the interesting thing is that the member for Delta--Richmond East is a fisherman and when he speaks in this House on those types of issues he knows what he is talking about. He is not talking as a lawyer or as a journalist. He is talking as a fisherman, someone who has witnessed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and how it can, from time to time, overstep its jurisdiction. In this particular case, we will be giving the department more authority to do that without any parliamentary overview.

Another area I want to touch on in terms of enforcement is the need for enforcement when enforcement is required. None of us would dismiss that and, as some of the members mentioned, we have a Fisheries Act that is over 130 years old and it has to be updated, but it has to be updated in a responsible manner and in a manner that respects the rights of individual fishermen.

Some members in the House will probably remember a bill I introduced two or three Parliaments ago entitled the fisherman bill of rights. It was a private member's bill that came to this floor and received quite a bit of support on both sides of the House but, unfortunately, it was never passed.

What we do not want to see impeded are the so-called rights that fishermen enjoy, rights that are not legislated, such as the right to get in their vessels and catch fish. We do not want to see those rights restricted by the fisheries department.

When we really take a look at the department on both coasts, one of the difficulties in terms of enforcement is simply the lack of resources to do enforcement. In some parts of the country the department does not have moneys in its budget to put fuel in its boats to enforce what it is supposed to be enforcing.

We also do not have enough fisheries officers to do the job. We witnessed it on the west coast and have seen that happen time and time again with some of the off shore fishing that we see. There is a lack of enforcement because there is a lack of resources for the department.

If the minister is arguing that he has to strengthen the act and give himself more powers, we would argue that the minister should simply have the money to do the job the act entitles him to do now. Again, he needs the money to do that and we need the fisheries officers to do their jobs. Unfortunately, that is not happening. It is not a case of us picking on individual fisheries officers. That is not the point at all because they have a job to do and, in most cases, they do it very well, but they need the resources to do it. If we do not have enough manpower in the field the job cannot get done. A change in the regulations or a change in the act will not do that.

I will leave it at that and maybe my colleagues have some questions. The bottom line in all of this is that it is a power grab by the minister and we believe the fishermen and the industry would not be well served by it. It is a bill that we cannot support.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whatever time I do not use, I will share with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's.

In speaking to Bill C-52, I support fisheries conservation. My riding of Wellington—Halton Hills has the Credit River and the Grand River, two of Ontario's heritage rivers running through it. The Grand River is world famous for its fly fishing. The Grand River Conservation Authority has done much in recent years to rehabilitate the river and ensure its use for future generations.

I also take the opportunity at every chance I get to go up to Algonquin Park and fish. Two summers ago I went down the Nipissing River. I made sure I purchased my Ontario outdoors card first and caught some brook trout in that river. Therefore, I am a big supporter of fisheries conservation.

However, Bill C-52, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, is a short bill hiding a major flaw and a major problem for the government. There is a bit of a historical perspective.

Before 1950, regulations did not come under parliamentary scrutiny. At the time, the size of the government was such that it was not required. However by 1950 the growth of regulation and the growth of government required legislation to be brought in place to ensure that the regulations had some oversight and in 1950 the regulations Act was introduced.

However, a flaw with that was the act did not provide for executive accountability and for ministry accountability back to Parliament for the regulations that were put in place.

Subsequent to that, in 1970 the government introduced the Statutory Instruments Act. This act provided for Parliamentary oversight of the regulations that the ministry or the executive had put in place.

Subsequent to that, in 1978 the statute regulations act was introduce which covered those parts of the consolidated regulations and those regulations enacted prior to 1971, I believe, to also fall under parliamentary oversight.

As I said initially, Parliament has oversight for regulations. However, Bill C-52 circumvents that. This is not about the fish or the fishery. There is a bigger principle at play here. This is about the improper use of delegated powers of the government to create offences that have not been approved by Parliament. Conviction for these offences could result in large fines or even imprisonment.

The problems of the bill are about the reluctance of the government to bring forward new legislation and a new Fisheries Act in this minority Parliament.

The problems of Bill C-52 came as a result of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations that examined regulation 36(2). It did so in its second report which was presented to the House on May 9, and it recommended the revocation of this regulation on the grounds that the regulation created an offence that exceeded the authority found in the Fisheries Act.

The committee found that this regulation violated three principles or three criteria that it had set out.

First, the regulation is not authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation, in this case the Fisheries Act, and it has not complied with any conditions set forth in the legislation.

The second criteria it violated was that this regulation imposed a fine, imprisonment or penalty without express authority of having been provided for in the enabling legislation.

The third criteria it violated was that the regulation amounts to the exercise of substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment.

For these three reasons, the committee rejected regulation 36 in its report tabled in the House on May 9.

As a result, the government had to react, and react quickly, to ensure that it had its way. The government, in an attempt to block the revocation of regulation 36, produced Bill C-52.

Before I go into my critique of Bill C-52, let me quote from one more finding in the report presented by the committee on May 9 to this House. It concerns the regulation that the committee recommended be revoked. This is the heart of the matter, both in the regulation that was going to be revoked and in the bill that this government has introduced. The report stated:

To summarize, the purpose of section 36(2) of the Regulations is to make it an offence to contravene the terms and conditions of a licence. In section 78 of the Act, Parliament has provided that only contraventions of the Act and the regulations are to constitute offences. If Parliament had wished contraventions of licence conditions to constitute offences, it could, and no doubt would, have so enacted. Section 36(2) is nothing more than an attempt to treat contraventions of licence conditions, which are administrative requirements, as if they were contraventions of legislative requirements. Regardless of whether this is characterized as creating an offence or not, the requisite clear and explicit enabling authority for such a provision cannot [be] found in the Fisheries Act.

As I mentioned, in response to the committee's finding, this government very quickly introduced Bill C-52, which, I might add, is an extremely short bill that contains only two clauses. The first clause allows the government the authority to enforce compliance with a licence under section 4 of the Fisheries Act. The second part of the bill allows this government to not undergo parliamentary oversight. The second clause in this bill exempts this bill from oversight under the Statutory Instruments Act. This a roundabout way for this government to circumvent parliamentary oversight.

This bill does not address what is fundamentally at heart here, that is, the inadequacies of the Fisheries Act. Indeed, this bill will simply prolong the life of this legislation, the life of a statute that is badly in need of revision. It keeps major reforms out of this minority Parliament.

I have read and heard of concerns from certain people about the revocation of regulation 36 and this bill. In particular, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources expressed concern about his ability to enforce the sustainable fishery. We too share these concerns. I share these concerns. However, this is not to be addressed in Bill C-52, not in a very poorly crafted bill that circumvents parliamentary oversight by not allowing the Statutory Instruments Act a purview over this amended section of the Fisheries Act.

This government has failed to introduce modern fisheries legislation and this bill is far too vague and far too encompassing and sweeping for us to support. With Bill C-52, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is trying to slide through Parliament an amendment to the Fisheries Act that would allow the jailing of fishers who might fail to meet a condition attached to a licence created by the department.

In principle, we are not against toughening penalties or fines for those who are found in violation of fisheries legislation. Indeed, I am not against jail terms for those caught polluting or damaging our fisheries or our environment. However, I believe that this should be done through legislation. It should not be done through regulation. The big principle here is that Parliament should be making these decisions concerning fines, penalties or imprisonment, not the minister through orders in council.

In conclusion, let me note that I find it highly ironic that while this Prime Minister has talked about the democratic deficit it is exactly legislation like Bill C-52 that circumvents the democratic will of Parliament. While many people who are watching this or who will read about this later may find the points nuanced and may find these points to be finer, I do believe that this is at the heart of the problem. That is, the democratic will of Parliament, the democratically elected members in the House, not only should have oversight of the regulations but should have a say in crafting legislation that would enforce penalties, fines and imprisonment. It should not be the minister through regulation and orders in council who does it.

I would like to move a subamendment to the motion. The member for Calgary Centre-North will second my motion. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the word “unelected” after the word “permitting” and before the word “public”.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-52, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. The member has always had a great interest in the fishery and will bring some very vigorous and intelligent comments to this debate, to which I am sure the government will be looking forward. It has been some time since it has had much vigorous and intelligent debate of its own.

This is an important and serious bill. I think the government expected that we would look the other way, that the bill it would enter through the back door, be approved and give the present minister of the day and future ministers quite responsible powers, powers that they have not had in the past. They would receive these powers without a comprehensive and introspective study of the Fisheries Act. It would allow the government to perhaps open the door to an abuse of the process and an abuse of the power of the minister.

The bill deals with section 19.1(6) of the Statutory Instruments Act and with Government Motion No. 15, which the Minister of Fisheries brought it in on June 3. It needs to be read into the record:

That, given the importance of the fisheries in Ontario and the introduction of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (terms and conditions of permissions, leases and licenses) by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans which addresses the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, and pursuant to Standing Order 124 and subsection 19.1(5) of the Statutory Instruments Act, the resolution of the Standing Joint Committee providing that subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989 be revoked, presented to this House on May 9, 2005 in its Second Report (Report No. 75 – Disallowance), not be adopted, and that this matter be referred back to the Standing Joint Committee for further study.

Had the motion passed, we would have given the minister the right to lay criminal charges with the idea that there would be a little clause of change that would need to be made for the minister of natural resources in Ontario.

Members of Parliament were misled, if I could go that far, that this was a little housekeeping job simply to address the importance of regulatory change in Ontario. That is not the case. It changes the Fisheries Act across the country, from coast to coast to coast. It gives the minister powers to lay criminal charges that the minister did not have prior to this.

We understand the importance in any regulatory regime of enforcement, of being allowed to lay charges. We also understand we have an act that is 137 years old. It desperately needs revision and renewal and we have nothing to do that.

I would plead with the government side and with the Minister of Fisheries and reasonable people to review the Fisheries Act, to dust off those dusty pages which no one has looked at for over 100 years and be prepared to bring constructive change. Let us look at a regulatory regime with the ability to lay charges. However, do not do it under the guise that somehow we have this little problem in Ontario with the minister of natural resources and it needs to be addressed.

Frankly, that is not the way to seek consensus. It is not the way to come to opposition parties and work in a progressive and comprehensive way toward making regulatory change. It was an excuse, “Let's just fix this little thing and don't pay attention to the details”. Frankly, there are a number of us in the House who are paying attention to the details.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (terms and conditions of permissions, leases and licences), because the principle of the Bill is flawed in that it violates the principles of law by permitting public officials of the Government to create a regime which could result in severe fines or imprisonment or seizure of property that have not been specifically authorized by an Act of Parliament.”

I would hope all my colleagues would realize that when we talk about a regime which results in severe fines, imprisonment and penalties that should be authorized by an act of Parliament. The amendment clearly speaks to the difficulty we have with the bill, the fines, imprisonment and the enforcement.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

Fisheries

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-52 addresses the standing joint committee's concerns. It is supported by, among others, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which I understand has written to members of the opposition urging them, in the strongest possible terms, to support the bill.

I urge all members to do the right thing, support the $500 million a year Ontario fishery and support Bill C-52 and the government's motion to oppose disallowance.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House debated Bill C-52, a bill to correct legal defects in the enforcement provisions for the regulation and management of the Ontario fishery and brought to the attention of the House by the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations.

It now appears that the Conservative opposition is refusing to allow quick passage of this one line bill in a situation where orderly management of the Ontario fishery could be put at risk.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans advise the House of his position and that of the Ontario government on this situation?

Delegated Legislation

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment to indicate first of all the work of the committee dealing with this matter, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, of which I am a member. I am very proud to serve on this committee. It is a new committee for me and it has been a most enlightening experience, as is this debate today, a very rare debate in the history of the life of Parliament, and one that is being held today for a very good reason.

I want to remind the members of the House and the public who may be somewhat confused by the technicality of the debate at present that there is a fundamental issue at stake here. It has to do with the primacy of Parliament. It has to do with the right of Parliament, through statutes, to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld.

In this case, we have had a blatant violation of the provisions of this House and the legislative process in terms of allowing for regulations to do that which must be done through statute. It is as simple as that. It is about violations of fishing licences that must be dealt with through laws, through the law of the land, not by regulations which are not under the direct purview of Parliament. Nor have they gone through the rigorous process that legislation has.

It is clear that the committee on the scrutiny of regulations has done its job. This matter could have been handled very quickly if all parties had agreed, with a unanimous voice, to Bill C-52. The matter would have been dealt with. Unfortunately, the Conservatives blocked it. We are now at a point where we must proceed to rethink the disallowance report with the hope that this matter can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to debate Motion No. 15. I will begin by reminding my colleagues that it is Motion No. 15, not Bill C-52, that we are debating this afternoon.

We are debating the motion of the government that the resolution of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations revoking subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations not be adopted.

That regulation simply states:

No holder of a commercial fishing licence shall violate any of the terms or conditions of the licence.

It seems to me that the question before us is pretty simple. Considering its legislative mandate, is the conclusion of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations right? The committee concluded that:

--this provision not only lacks legal authority, but trespasses unduly on rights and liberties and represents an unusual and unexpected use of the enabling authority.

The committee concluded that it should be revoked.

Is the committee's conclusion right? If the answer to that question is no, then we need to support the motion of the government. If the answer is yes, then we need to vote against the motion. I think that is the only question before us this afternoon. The question is not “is this regulation useful?” or “is this regulation helpful?” or even “does this regulation work?”

The question is also not the following: would there be any negative consequences without this regulation?

Those are the points made by both the Ontario government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and even by some of my colleagues here. In fact, as has been quoted already, the Minister of Natural Resources from Ontario has written two passionate letters on the matter before us, one to the minister and one to Conservative members.

For example, he stated:

I am extremely concerned about the serious impacts on Ontario's ability to manage and ensure the conservation of fisheries should the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations table a Report of Disallowance regarding subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations.

Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to enforcement of the commercial fishery.

It is entirely likely that a revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in the sector and threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources.

These comments are interesting, even compelling, but with all due respect to the Ontario minister and to some of my colleagues here today, they are not answering the fundamental question before us, that is, is this regulation legal? His comments might be relevant to the debate on Bill C-52, but they are not relevant to the question before us.

Is the standing joint committee right when it says the following? It states:

--this provision not only lacks legal authority, but trespasses unduly on rights and liberties and represents an unusual and unexpected use of the enabling authority.

Is the committee right when it says it should be revoked?

Are the committee members right? Is this regulation legal or not? To answer that question, we need to briefly consider the mandate of the standing joint committee. It is covered in the Statutory Instruments Act in sections 19 and 19.1. Section 19 states that every statutory instrument:

--shall stand permanently referred to any Committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament that may be established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments.

Section 19.1 states that once this is done, when the committee reviews a regulation it can make a report to the Senate and the House of Commons “containing...a resolution that all or any portion of a regulation...be revoked”. That is why we are here today.

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which I also serve on, as well as serving on the fisheries and oceans committee, fleshes out that mandate a little more in its first report of October 21, 2004. It applies certain tests. The committee members are looking to see whether any regulation:

1. is not authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation or has not complied with any condition set forth in the legislation;...

2. imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;...

3. trespasses unduly on rights and liberties;

4. makes the rights and liberties of the person unduly dependent on administrative discretion or is not consistent with the rules of natural justice;...

5. amounts to the exercise of a substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment;...

For almost all those criteria, the standing joint committee for years has felt that regulation 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations violates those criteria.

The terms or conditions of a licence is not a provision of the act or the regulation, so the violation of a term or condition does not constitute a contravention of the act. Therefore, the offence and punishment section of the Fisheries Act, section 78, does not apply.

But this provision was created with a view to making a contravention of terms and conditions a violation of the act. That is its whole reason for being there. The committee stated:

In effect, the purpose of this regulatory provision is to do indirectly what could not be done directly, namely to impose criminal liability for the breach of a term or condition of a licence.

It should seem clear to us that this is not authorized by the Fisheries Act. The committee stated:

The only purpose of section 36(2) of the Regulations is to make the non-observance of the terms and conditions of a licence, which are not legislative requirements, punishable as if they were.

Now whether we want it to be that way, the act does not allow it to be that way: “It is beyond dispute that Parliament must authorize regulations imposing sanctions or creating offences”.

The Fisheries Act does not. In fact, it does the opposite. It lists in the act those offences that are considered offences as set out in the act. The act also confers the power to make regulations providing for the suspension and cancellation of licences if someone violates the terms and conditions of a licence. That is the sanction the act currently allows the ministry to enforce.

The purpose of the regulation is to treat contraventions of licence conditions, which are administrative requirements, as if they were violations of legislative requirements. The clear and explicit enabling authority for such a provision cannot be found in the Fisheries Act in its current form.

Parliament is left with no alternative but to follow the advice of the standing joint committee and revoke this regulation. The government's motion that the standing joint committee's advice be rejected should be defeated.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for his remarks. I agree with all that he has said. I want to point out that he has served on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations for an uninterrupted 16 years. I do not know whether that is a record, but I challenge anyone to improve on it. It is certainly worth a medal.

In any event, today's matter is serious. The standing joint committee has done its work. It has found a regulation to be ultra vires, essentially illegal, and it did so for good reasons, as explained earlier. Simply stated, this House, Parliament, cannot let the public service create offences unless they have authority from Parliament to do so. Our citizens would not allow us to do this and would not want us to do this. This is the situation that has existed for historic reasons.

The fishery in Ontario and in other parts of Canada has relied on this infrastructure of enforcement, which, in the view of our committee, is not properly founded. The minister and the ministry have taken steps recently to correct that by passing legislation. In fact, the bill to correct this problem, as before the House now, has only one section in it and all it does is put into statute form what was in regulation, thereby correcting the problem the committee found.

What is not comprehensible to me is why, when the source of the problem is technical but real and the bill put forward by the minister and the ministry to correct it is technical but real, the House would not pass this bill on an expedited basis. It seems as though there are some members in the House who wish to debate the bill in a bit lengthier fashion in a way that would not allow quick passage. The net result of disallowing a regulation, which will happen within 30 days of the debate here today if we do not adopt the minister's motion, and of not getting a correcting bill in, is that the enforcement regime in the Ontario portion of the Canadian fishery would be put in jeopardy.

It is not like there cannot be terms and conditions attached to licences after this, but the enforcement regime, as it exists there now, is based on enforcement of terms and conditions of licences in an offence regime. I do not think that we in this House should be disallowing a regulation if it is going to give rise to that type of public interest problem. Only in extreme circumstances should we do that, where rights and liberties are clearly at risk.

In this case, although I stand firmly behind the report of the committee, as does my friend who spoke prior to me, and as other members of the committee would stand behind the report, we see the public interest reason in this case in referring that report back to the committee. That would have the effect of stopping the disallowance, or postponing it, I suppose, depending on what the committee chooses to do, but it would achieve the public interest objective in causing the government to fix the problem.

The fix is not in the report. The fix is in the statute, Bill C-52, which is before this House. I urge members opposite and those on this side of the House too, who may differ with me, to endorse quick passage of Bill C-52. That would solve the problem for the committee and solve the problem for the House. The government has already committed, prior to this, to undertake a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act and its infrastructure.

I also endorse the comments of the member for Sackville--Eastern Shore on some of the bells and whistles attached to that public policy issue.

I also want to note the historic nature of the debate today. It is the first time in history that this House has debated the disallowance of a regulation under the terms in the Standing Orders and in the statute. I trust we will deal with it appropriately. I intend to support the motion, but I do not intend to put the file away forever. I am sure the minister will act in good faith to have that bill passed and I encourage members in the House to please consider that option.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise not only as chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans but also as a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that we are having a very historic debate. This is the first time that we have come up with this kind of situation. That is why the House of Commons convened one hour earlier than it normally would. That is why we are going to be voting on this subject matter this evening: because of the provisions of the Standing Orders and certain sections of the Statutory Instruments Act.

This procedure has been put into place to in fact empower members of Parliament, I believe, and I think it will be demonstrated how that has come about.

The report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations was unanimous. That committee is composed of members of all parties of the House of Commons. It is chaired by an official opposition member and a Liberal senator. There are Liberal and Conservative senators on the committee. The committee issued a unanimous report, which was presented in both Houses of Parliament.

I want to read a few excerpts from the committee report. First of all, in a nutshell, the report stated the following:

--the Joint Committee resolves that subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989, as enacted by SOR./89-93, be revoked.

The committee recommended unanimously that this particular section of the Ontario regulations be revoked. Subsection 36(2) is very simple. It states:

No holder of a commercial fishing licence shall violate any of the terms or conditions of the licence.

That is a provision in a regulation, not a statute.

The joint committee stated as follows:

This provision was enacted with a view to making the contravention of a term or condition of a licence an offence under the Fisheries Act...

The committee went on to state:

It is accepted that regulations imposing sanctions or creating offences must be authorized by Parliament expressly or by necessary implication. Nowhere in the Fisheries Act is the making of regulations creating offences expressly authorized, nor can the existence of such a power be said to be necessarily implied.

Members have made reference to the letter from the Ontario minister in charge of fisheries. The committee was also apprised of the minister's views and dealt with them in the report which was filed with the House. I want to briefly reference what the committee said about that letter. The committee stated in regard to the proposal of the minister:

To the extent this comment suggests that disallowance of section 36(2) would impair the ability to impose terms and conditions of licences, it does not reflect a clear understanding of the nature of section 36(2). Disallowance of that section may change the manner of enforcing compliance with terms and conditions of licences, but would certainly not affect in any way the ability to impose such terms and conditions.

The committee concluded:

While your Committee understands that the federal and provincial Ministers favour the enforcement of terms and conditions of licences through fines and imprisonment rather than licence suspensions or cancellations, the Committee would be remiss in its statutory responsibility if it allowed this policy preference to override the principle that the Executive may not create offences punishable by criminal sanctions without clear authority granted by Parliament. It is the responsibility of the Executive to ask the Houses for that authority.

I agree 100% with what the committee has said.

Bill C-52 is the minister's response. It is the request of the executive to this House to give power to do what the executive wishes to do. In that way, Bill C-52 is responding to the report.

Unfortunately, a deadline has passed and if the minister's motion is not supported today, then a countdown begins, or may begin, to deem this regulation revoked, in which case there would be no regulation. This would have serious ramifications for the fishery in Ontario in the summer.

I am running out of time, but I just want to say that because of this deadline we face I am going to support the minister's motion to refer this matter back to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, because if the minister and the government then do not proceed with Bill C-52, the committee can bring back another report identical to this one and then not budge.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate the concerns of Bill C-52. At the outset, we in the NDP Party will be supporting Bill C-52, getting it back to the SJC committee for further debate.

The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has been at this since 1987. I remind my Conservative colleagues that from 1987 to 1993, they were the government and they failed to do anything about this. The Liberals have continued that failure.

One of the concerns of course expressed by people is the sudden rush to get this done. One thing that cannot be accepted is the failure of government to enact concerns addressed to it by a committee, especially a joint Senate-House and standing committee.

We should not be in the pickle we are in now. The Ontario minister of natural resources, David Ramsay, should not have had to write the following words when he wrote to the Minister of Fisheries:

Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to the enforcement of a commercial fishery. It is entirely likely that the revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in this sector and threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources.

The annual sale of commercial fishery in Ontario is estimated to be anywhere from $40 million to $50 million.

The Government of Ontario, the fishermen of Ontario and especially the resource of Ontario should not be under this type of pressure. It is unacceptable. I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to take a bit of a break and move on this issue very quickly so fishermen in Ontario and across the country can get on with it.

It is important to note that the NDP takes credence to this important matter. The particular bill will not provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with any new powers. It will not change the way the fishery is administered or enforced in Canada.

We find this to be very important. When look at the enforcement of our fisheries regulations, to say that DFO is doing a good job in terms of enforcing the regulations across the country would be ludicrous. The reality is DFO does not do a good job of enforcing the regulations. To allow something with an unregulated fishery, as the minister has said, would put great strain on the resource and would allow rampant illegal fishing to go on with no scrutiny or enforcement. We simply cannot accept that.

As the vice-chair of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans, I find it rather incredible that the Conservative Party stands up and shows concern about enforcement, when report after report it has supported the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. It has screamed and yelled for more enforcement. We have said that we have to put more money and people on the ground, on the rivers, lakes and oceans and we have to enforce the Fisheries Act to protect the resource.

We have screamed and yelled for that since 1997, when I came to this place. Report after report, most of them unanimous, have screamed at four different fisheries ministers, “You have to get tougher actions on the water. You have to be stronger in enforcing the Fisheries Act”. Because of a technicality or whatever, they cannot now say that they no longer support that initiative. We find this amazing.

The ability to enforce the licence conditions is a key part of management. We agree DFO is not doing a good job of that now. However, we absolutely agree that we have to enforce the conditions of the licence set forth by the government when a commercial or aboriginal fisherman is allowed to fish under certain parameters. Our fish stocks are at an all time dangerous low in many cases. We need proper conservation measures for sustainability and economic opportunities in the future. What is most important is that the government do its job and enforce the regulations.

I could not help but notice that the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters have pleaded with parliamentarians, including myself and others, to quickly pass Bill C-52 so they can get on with the job of enjoying the opportunities in recreational and commercial fishery, not only in the province of Ontario but I am sure in many provinces across the country.

I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois, although accused many times of being just a separatist party, has paid very close attention to this matter and has agreed that it should go back to the committee for further study.

I agree with my hon. colleague when she indicated that the ministers of Ontario should appear before the committee as soon as possible in order to achieve this goal.

I impress upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and on future ministers again to not ignore various committees. That is why we are in this situation today. That is why the House had to open a little earlier today in order to debate this and get it through. Again, no one should have to face this pressure.

We effectively agree with Bill C-52. We know that it has to get back to the SJG for further consultation. As vice-chair of the committee, I would encourage my colleagues in the House of Commons on the fisheries committee to do what the minister has asked us to do, which is a complete review and study of the Fisheries Act. This is probably one of the few things on which I agree with him.

The act is almost 138 years old. It contains many flaws and many concerns. I agree with many of my colleagues on the committee who are very upset with the way DFO does its business. In fact, a lot of people say that the DFO is the department for oil, playing around with the acronym in that regard.

I agree that the next time the committee gets together, probably in the fall, it should review the entire act from top to bottom. That will be a very big job for the committee to do. I encourage my Conservative, Bloc and Liberal colleagues to support that. We in the NDP definitely support a complete review of the act, to overhaul it, to modernize it and to give it some teeth. I always say we should have a dentist appear before the committee so we can have more teeth in the legislation and to ensure that the government has the enforcement and financial capabilities to do its job.

We will support Bill C-52 going back to the committee. However, we want to remind the government that the NDP and I am sure others are not amused at the way business is done within DFO. We want to ensure that the regulatory acts are enforced. We want to ensure that when the government announces a particular plan or program, that there is teeth behind it, that there is resources and people power to enforce the regulations that we have.

If we do not protect the fish stocks and we do not enact the legislation that we have now to protect those stocks for future generations, it will be a very sad day in Canada indeed.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I can agree with the minister on is his remarks in relation to the tremendous job done by the pages on O Canada. It was a rendition of O Canada, the likes of which we certainly have not heard in this place. I do not want to run down the singing abilities of my colleagues but today's version certainly was the best I have ever heard. I congratulate the pages. That would be my final point of agreement with the minister.

When we debated Bill C-52 a few days ago I thought the minister had received such a trouncing on it from all parties, not just from the Bloc and ourselves, but also from the NDP. What happened of course is that they pulled it right off the legislative agenda. I do not know why we are even debating the motion today.

However, having said that, instead of my wandering way of dealing with this, I will read some stuff into the record that might educate the minister as to exactly what is happening here.

The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, the minister says, expressed a real concern, but it also gave a fair amount of comfort to the fact that the concerns raised by the minister from Ontario and brought forth here by the minister, although I am not sure who went to whom first, were certainly not valid. The committee stated:

In closing, the Committee wishes to briefly address the statement by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources that:

Terms and conditions [of licences] are currently the only mechanisms by which Ontario can establish allowable quota, areas where fishing can occur, designates who can take fish under a licence, reporting for commercial fishing licences.

To the extent this comment suggests that disallowance of section 36(2) would impair the ability to impose terms and conditions of licences, it does not reflect a clear understanding of the nature of section 36(2). Disallowance of that section may change the manner of enforcing compliance with terms and conditions of licences, but would certainly not affect in any way the ability to impose such terms and conditions.

In the same letter, the Minister goes so far as to suggest that the disallowance of section 36(2) would “threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources”.

And this is the point upon which the minister hinges his argument. The committee goes on to state:

Whether or not section 36(2) remains in the Regulations, the authority to issue licences and to impose terms and conditions on the licence would remain unimpaired, as would the ability to enforce observance of those terms and conditions. The imposition of a fine or a jail term for breach of a licence condition, as opposed to suspending or cancelling the same licence, has nothing to do with the sustainability of the fishery resource.

While your Committee understands that the federal and provincial Ministers favour the enforcement of terms and conditions of licences through fines and imprisonment rather than licence suspensions or cancellations, the Committee would be remiss in its statutory responsibility if it allowed this policy preference to override the principle that the Executive may not create offences punishable by criminal sanctions without clear authority granted by Parliament. It is the responsibility of the Executive to ask the Houses for that authority.

Parliament has a duty to examine regulations to determine that they do not exceed the authority delegated under the law.

Since 1987, 18 years of dealing with this very issue, the joint committee has drawn attention to the improper character of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fisheries regulations. In March 2000, the joint committee reported in part:

Section 36(2) of the Regulations provides that:

36.(2) No holder of a commercial fishing licence shall violate any of the terms or conditions of the licence.

This provision was created with a view to making a contravention of a term or condition of a licence an offence under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.

Section 78 of the act provides as follows:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, every person who contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of

(a) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both; or

(b) an indictable offence and liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.

A term or condition of a licence is not a provision of the act or the regulations, and a violation of such a term or condition does not constitute a contravention of the act or regulations within its meaning. The enactment of a general prohibition against contravention of a term or condition of a licence as part of the Ontario fishery regulations, 1989 is designed to attract the application of section 78 of the act.

While the person contravening the licence term or condition is not liable to the penalties set out in the Fisheries Act, following the enactment of subsection 36(2) of the regulations, that person would be liable for a breach of subsection 36(2) of the regulations. Subsection 36(2) then is intended merely to bridge the gap between a contravention of a term or condition of licence and the penalties provided for in the statute. In effect, this regulatory provision is intended to do indirectly what could not be done directly, namely to impose a criminal liability for the breach of a term or condition of a licence.

There is not a commercial fisherman in the country who, if he understood what was happening here, would agree with the minister in imposing such a rule.

We can go on with technicalities but as my time is running out I will just make a few other points. This issue has been with us for 18 years, not since 3 days ago when the minister tabled a bill without giving anyone any information about it and hoped to ram it through the House because it was supposed to be a minuscule bill. We see how minuscule it with the outcry that we have seen across the country.

However since no corrective action has been taken by the Department of Fisheries in the past 18 years, the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations has presented a report that regulations should be repealed. The government says that Bill C-52 would fix the problem. We disagree. Bill C-52 is a power grab by the department to give itself sweeping authority to create imprisonable offences within licences and to remove those licences from the scrutiny of regulations committee.

Licences are not examined by the cabinet and are not passed by Parliament and yet people could be imprisoned for violating a licence.

The government has known for 18 years it was acting without authority. The Liberal government now asks Parliament to ignore its failures and to allow the regulations to stand. It asks Parliament to say that Canadians should be fined up to half a million dollars and imprisoned for two years less a day, without the authority of law, only on the basis of a violation of a licence.

Bill C-52 has not passed the House, may never pass and we probably will not see it again, and yet the Liberal government wants to continue with its illegal regime because it has introduced the bill.

The rule of law and the rights of Canadians to be subject to laws passed by Parliament are at stake. That is the big question. The rule of law is what we are trying to contravene. The Liberal government knows that the regulation is illicit. It knows it has not passed enabling legislation and it knows it has had over a decade to fix the problem.

Parliament should report the rule of law, protect the rights of Canadians and tell the department and government that they have run out of time. The regulations should be repealed. It dishonours the Crown. The rule of law should trump government inaction.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I see that members on all sides appear to agree with me on that.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to respond to this disallowance motion tabled by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I would like to thank members of the committee for the important role they play in closely examining Canada's legislation and regulations.

The government places a high value on what they have to say and that is why I take their concerns about the Ontario Fishery Regulations very seriously. The committee feels that greater clarity and certainty are needed on matters of legislative authority with respect to certain Ontario Fishery Regulations. Specifically, its concern lies with the requirement for compliance with fishing licence terms and conditions. The government is of the opinion that the provision in question is legally sound and within the authority of the Fisheries Act.

Fishing licences are, in many regards, the key fisheries management tools in Canada. They regulate fishing activities by setting the following terms and conditions: total allowable catch, authorized fishing gear, timeframe and areas where fishing can occur.

These conditions are crucial for conservation and orderly management of not only Ontario's fisheries but of fisheries throughout the country.

The fishery is a highly regulated industry. This high level of regulation is necessary. A valuable natural resource like fish needs to be managed carefully, with an eye to the future. Mechanisms must be in place to ensure conservation and that rules of the fishery are being followed. Fishing licences provide this mechanism. The conditions that they provide are key elements in proper management and control of the fishery, as well as for the conservation and protection of fish on behalf of all Canadians.

The Government of Canada has a clear legislative power to ensure conservation and protection of fish stocks, and the issuance of fishing licences is a demonstration of this power. The Ontario Fishery Regulations require that the holder of a commercial licence comply with licence terms and conditions. The government continues to maintain that this provision is in fact legally sound.

Having said that, I agree that greater certainty and clarity could be provided for the requirement to comply with the terms and conditions of fishing licences, and that is why I introduced Bill C-52 in the House last week.

The bill includes an amendment that would add a new section to the Fisheries Act dealing with compliance with terms and conditions of fishing licences. Specifically, the amendment would clarify that it is a requirement of the act to comply with fishing licence terms and conditions. We believe the amendment would provide a measure of certainty and clarity, the kind of measure sought by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

As members know, Bill C-52 was debated at second reading on Monday. Regrettably, the Conservatives and the Bloc indicated they do not support a bill that addresses the concerns identified by their own colleagues on the standing joint committee. After two days to consider the bill, I hope they have reconsidered because enacting Bill C-52 would certainly be a preferred approach to dealing with the committee's concerns rather than adopting the disallowance resolution.

If the disallowance resolution is adopted, subsection 36(2) of the Ontario Fishery Regulations would be revoked. This would create a serious legal gap in Ontario's ability to enforce licence conditions and to manage the fishery on behalf of all Ontarians. Ontario's fishery would be put in considerable risk. It would send a dangerous signal that Parliament is not supportive of requiring licence holders to abide by their licence conditions. Imagine what a terrible signal that would be.

This is a great concern to many groups in Ontario, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters, who have written several members in this House over the past two days urging them in the strongest possible way to support this issue.

Each year the province issues some 500 commercial licences and 1,400 commercial bait fishery licences. Ontario's commercial fisheries represent an annual landed value of over $40 million. They contribute anywhere between $250 million and $500 million to the economies of both Ontario and Canada. Economics aside, disallowing the provision in question would also jeopardize conservation.

As we can see, compliance with licence terms and conditions is essential to ensure that fishing practices are coordinated and focussed on conservation. All the provinces—that is, Ontario and the others—rely on compliance with the rules and need an efficient regime to deal with instances of non-compliance.

I should add that Ontario's minister of natural resources has written to me asking that the Government of Canada do everything in its power to protect the provision in question. In his letter he stated:

Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to enforcement of commercial fishery. It is entirely likely that the revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in this sector and threaten the sustainability of our fishery resources.

The conservation and orderly management of the fisheries are vital components of a strong, viable fishing industry. The Ontario fishery regulations help ensure that these components are in place.

I should also point out that the passage of Bill C-52 will not change existing practices on the ground. Allow me to be clear on this. The requirement to comply with licence conditions remains. Bill C-52 would move that requirement from the regulations into the act. That is all it does. As I stated Monday, this bill stands as an effective transitional measure to a broader initiative to review the Fisheries Act, as I hope my colleagues will want to do in the near future.

On May 17, I met with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to reiterate that I am very serious about updating the act. This 137-year-old legislation needs to be modernized. Canada's fisheries have changed and evolved over the years and I have asked the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans a number of times for its input on how they should be reformed. I look forward to receiving it, I hope, before too long. I look forward to it taking an interest and my colleagues across the way showing an interest in reforming of the act.

In particular, I requested input in four areas: allocation, co-management, compliance and sanctions. Sanctions, of course, is an area of particular interest in the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and really what we are talking about here today.

I plan to move forward with a broad reform as quickly as possible and I hope to have support from members across the way for that. In the meantime, Bill C-52 would address the standing joint committee's concerns and make disallowance unnecessary. It would ensure that the Province of Ontario has the certainty it needs as it manages and conserves its fisheries on behalf of its citizens and it will provide an effective transitional measure as we examine more comprehensive changes to the Fisheries Act.

That is why I filed a motion that the committee's resolution not be adopted but referred back to it for further consideration.