Roseanne Skoke

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. An open and transparent process at the time the review board determines and if necessary redetermines the fair market value of cultural property is essential and the bill provides for that. The right to pursue the matter in the courts if no other resolution can be found is consistent with both our Canadian legal system and our concept of natural justice.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support and address Bill C-93, the legislation that establishes an appeal for a decision of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board to the Tax Court of Canada.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act with consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act to establish an appeal of the determinations by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board of the fair market value of certified cultural property.

In December 1991 the responsibility for determining the fair market value of cultural property donated to designated Canadian museums, art galleries, and libraries was transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to the review board. The review board assumed this new responsibility at its meeting held in January 1992. No provision for appeal of review board decisions was included in the legislative amendments, despite the fact that the right of appeal had existed when this responsibility was with Revenue Canada.

Donors and custodial institutions expressed serious concerns about the lack of an appeal process. The Department of Canadian Heritage, in co-operation with the review board, then undertook a series of consultations within the community about the need for an appeal process. As a result of these consultations it was agreed that legislative amendments should be prepared to establish the right of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada.

The bill establishes two processes. The first gives the donor or recipient institution the right to request that the review board reconsider its initial determination of fair market value. If after receiving a redetermination from the board the donor is still not satisfied, he or she may take the second step of appealing the board's decision to the Tax Court of Canada.

It is appropriate that the bill is receiving third reading today, October 24, because today marks the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. It was 50 years ago today, within a few months of the end of World War II, that the United Nations formally came into being when its charter took effect. The United Nations has the difficult mandate of maintaining international peace and easing global suffering.

We are also approaching the end of the United Nations world decade for cultural development. Launched in 1988, this decade will conclude at the end of 1997. The purpose of the world decade for cultural development is to promote activities that enhance the cultural components of development and undertake research and pilot projects that focus on the relationship between culture and development.

Through agencies such as UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN also has responsibility for literacy, education and contributions to scientific and cultural development around the world.

Canada has played an active role in the work of both the United Nations and UNESCO and is recognized internationally for the work it has done to protect the cultural property of developing nations. During the 1960s Mexico and Peru in particular, but many other southern and central American countries as well, experienced heavy losses of cultural property through illicit trafficking. Their appeal to UNESCO for a method to stop this led in 1970 to the UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. This convention, while it deals with measures to prevent the import, export and illicit transfer of cultural objects, places the onus on each country to develop their own measures to protect and preserve their cultural heritage.

To join the international movement to protect cultural property Canada passed the Cultural Property Export and Import Act in September 1977. The purpose of the act is twofold: first, to ensure the preservation in Canada of significant examples of the nation's cultural, historic and scientific heritage; and, second, to protect in Canada the legitimate interests of foreign states concerned with the preservation of their cultural property.

These objectives are accomplished by the following features of the act: first, the establishment of an export control list of defined categories of cultural property, which restricts their export without

a permit; second, the establishment of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board to review applications for export permits and applications for the certification of cultural property for income tax purposes; third, the establishment of income tax incentives for gifts or sales of cultural property to designated Canadian institutions; and, fourth, procedures for the recovery and return of foreign cultural property that has been illegally exported from its country of origin.

In 1978 Canada became a signatory to the 1970 UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. The convention, which contains measures to prevent the illicit import, export and transfer or ownership of cultural objects, places the onus on each signatory country to develop its own legislation to protect and preserve its cultural heritage and to establish measures to facilitate the return of illegally exported cultural property to its country of origin.

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act contains provisions whereby it is a criminal offence to import into Canada cultural property that has been illegally exported from a country that is a signatory to an international cultural property agreement.

Protection of another country's heritage is not sufficient if we do not protect our own. Canada therefore put into place export controls to regulate the export of cultural property from Canada. It is imperative that we discuss here today the control system. It should be noted that any object that is more than 50 years old and made by a person who is no longer living is subject to export control. For such objects, a cultural property export permit must be obtained before they can leave the country.

The Canadian cultural property export control list provides a detailed description of the classes of objects that are subject to control. It divides cultural property into seven categories or groups of objects. The first is objects recovered from the soil or waters of Canada. The second class is ethnographic arts. The third is military objects. The fourth is decorative art. The fifth is fine art. Sixth is scientific and technological objects. The seventh is books, documents, photographs and sound recordings.

To apply for a cultural property export permit, the exporter submits an application to a permit issuing officer who determines if the object is included in the controlled list. If it is not, the permit is issued forthwith. If it is included in the list, the permit issuing officer refers the permit application to the appropriate expert examiner.

The expert examiner must then determine if the object meets the criteria of outstanding significance and national importance found in section 11 of the act which reads as follows: "The object is of outstanding significance by reason of its close association with Canadian history or national life, its aesthetic qualities or its value in the study of the arts and sciences; and whether that object is of such a degree of national importance that its loss to Canada would significantly diminish the national heritage".

It should be noted that if the expert examiner advises that the permit not be issued, the permit officer advises the applicant accordingly. The applicant either retains the object in Canada or appeals the expert examiner's decision to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

The review board then hears the appeal and either overrules the expert examiner or affirms his recommendation. If the review board overrules the expert examiner, the permit is granted immediately. If the board agrees with him, a delay period of between two and six months is established.

There is an incentive system. The act establishes the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board which consists of nine members plus a chairman. It is composed of two representatives of the public at large, including the chairman, and four members each from the curatorial and dealer collector communities. As such, the board is an independent body of individuals with a recognized knowledge and interest in Canadian heritage.

The work that occupies most of the board's time is not export control. The certification for income tax purposes of cultural property donated to Canadian institutions is of primary concern.

At the time of passage of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act was amended to provide an exemption from the payment of capital gains tax for gifts or sales of certified cultural property. In addition, the value of objects or collections that have been determined to be of outstanding significance and national importance is eligible as a tax credit up to 100 per cent of net income instead of up to 20 per cent of net income that may be claimed as an exemption for charitable donations.

Prior to these amendments, capital gains tax was payable for gifts in kind. Only federal and provincial government institutions could offer tax credits up to 100 per cent of net income.

From 1977 to 1990 the review board had only an informal advisory role in the determination of the fair market value of gifts of cultural property. In 1990 the responsibility for determining the fair market value of certified cultural property was transferred from Revenue Canada Taxation to the review board. This was confirmed by legislative amendments to both the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and the Income Tax Act in 1991.

No provision was made for appealing determinations of the review board. The right of appeal contained in the Income Tax Act was then lost. The need for an appeal process was identified and acknowledged in 1993. By establishing the right of appeal, potential donors will be assured that if they are dissatisfied with the

review board determination, they will have recourse to the Tax Court of Canada.

With the agreement of the Tax Court of Canada, the appeal to the tax court has been made retroactive to January 1992. That provides all donors who have made a gift since the right to appeal was lost and who wish to pursue an appeal with both the opportunity and the legal right to do so.

Determinations of fair market value are now being made by the members of the review board, people with professional expertise in the various domains of cultural property who are also active participants in the various marketplaces where it is sold. These same people already experience an expertise in a quasi-judicial capacity, that of hearing appeals when export permits have been denied. It is only appropriate and sensible therefore that they assume the additional responsibility as they are experts in the subject matter with experience as an appeal board.

An open and transparent process both at the time the review board determines and if necessary redetermines the fair market value of cultural property is essential. The right to pursue the matter in the courts if no other resolution can be found is consistent with both the Canadian legal system and the concept of natural justice.

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, let us remember that Bill C-93 is very much in the spirit of everything the United Nations stands for. The Cultural Property Export and Import Act has its philosophical roots in the activities of the United Nations because it both protects Canada's heritage and allows Canada to become a signatory to the 1970 convention.

Bill C-93 is about fairness and natural justice, two principles that are fundamental to the United Nations. On this the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, it is only appropriate that all members of this House support this bill.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition to present on behalf of my constituents.

It has been traditional that the Government of Canada divide the national defence related furniture moving business among local independent movers on an equitable basis, which policy has provided excellent service at reasonable rates.

The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to resolve to veto any proposed change to the present tendering process of the Department of National Defence and to support the present system of tendering.

[National Family Week, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating national family week in Canada. The family is the basic institution of life and the solid foundation upon which our forefathers built this great nation.

The protection of families, family life and family values must be a priority with the government. The conventional terms of debate in matters of political, economic and legal issues tend to focus on individual rights and the rights of the state, not the rights of the family. This is unfortunate and must change, for the family is the most important reality in our lives.

This weekend families celebrate Thanksgiving Day in Canada and give thanks to God for our great country, Canada, for our families and friends. Happy Thanksgiving to my constituents of Central Nova.

[Explosives Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives in addition to their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It also controls the use of fireworks.

The amendment is necessary to require the incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives coupled with a provision to enable the governor in council to make regulations to control unmarked plastic explosives. This will hinder terrorism and will enable Canada to ratify the ICAO convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.

The principal provisions of the bill are worth noting. The principles are: to require the marking of most plastic explosives for the purpose of detection; to prohibit the manufacture, storage, possession, transfer of possession, transportation, import and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except as may be permitted by the terms of the convention or required by overriding military necessity; and to empower the governor in council to make regulations governing the possession, transfer and disposal of any unmarked plastic explosives.

The passage of the legislation will vault Canada ahead of the U.S. as the only producer state in the Americas to have ratified the convention.

Many questions have been asked with respect to the Explosives Act. Some of those questions are technical; others relate to policy and still others are legal questions. I intend to address those questions today.

One technical question asked is: Will the addition of a detection agent be effective in combating terrorism in disguise? The answer is yes. The proposed detection agents are of such character they can be detected by bomb detection equipment of current technology and use in Canada. This would render marked plastic explosives an undesirable choice for assembling bombs. A second benefit from tagging plastic explosives is that detection of illegal stockpiles will be simplified.

Another technical question often asked is: Will the presence of the detection agent compromise the performance or safety of plastic explosives? The answer is no. Only one type of plastic explosive, a military version known as C-4, is manufactured in small quantities in Canada. The safety and performance characteristics of the marked version have been verified by the manufacturer, the military and the Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory.

Another technical question asked is: Will there be a problem in using the existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives? The answer is no. Small existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives in Canada coupled with ample grace periods of three years for the public and fifteen years for the military police to use up or destroy these stocks were judged to be satisfactory during consultations with all concerned parties.

Another technical question often asked is whether explosives technology is advancing so rapidly that this initiative will soon be rendered obsolete. The answer is no. Explosives technology is stable at this time. In North America, plastic explosives are implicated in very few bombs targeted at aircraft. Prohibitions against the import, export and transfer of unmarked plastic explosives will discourage terrorists from using Canada as a location to plant bombs on aircraft.

Many policy questions have been raised as well. One question often asked is who may manufacture, possess and use plastic explosives in Canada and how will the legislation affect their activities. Plastic explosives in the form of military demolition charges are manufactured in small quantities on an as required basis by Les produits chimiques Expro in Valleyfield, Quebec. This manufacturer is authorized by its factory licence, which is issued pursuant to the Explosives Act and regulations. Sale and distribution of this product is limited to the military, as well as police explosives disposal units.

Commercial plastic explosives in sheet form are legally imported from the U.S. by companies engaged in hardening metal surfaces and explosives welding. The sole Canadian manufacturer does not expect any problems. Importers of commercial plastic explosives in sheet form, however, may experience difficulties in locating suppliers of marked product.

Another policy question often asked is whether these new restrictions will affect competitiveness. The answer is no. It is estimated that the cost associated with incorporating the additive will increase selling prices by no more than 1.25 per cent. It is quite possible that the Canadian manufacturer could realize a competitive advantage in international markets by being fast off the mark in offering marked products.

Another policy question often asked is if this initiative is connected in any way to the new proposed gun control legislation. The answer is no. This initiative is the result of an agreement

signed in March 1991 and has no connection whatsoever to the gun control legislation recently tabled.

Often legal questions are asked with respect to the act. One question often asked is why the act is to come into force by order in council. It is specifically provided that the act will come into force on a day to be set by the order of the governor in council to ensure that the grace periods provided for in the convention will be respected. This will enable us to make the date of coming into force of the act coincide with that of the coming into force of the convention.

Another legal question often asked is when the convention will come into force. It is impossible to predict when the convention will come into force. Section 3 of article 13 of the convention provides that the convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date of deposit of the 35th instrument of ratification by a state, provided that at least five states have declared they are producer states. Should 35 instruments of ratification be deposited before the deposit of their instruments by five producer states, the convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the fifth producer state.

Another legal question often asked is what happens to the definition of detection agent if the technical annex is amended. This is not a problem. The word convention is defined to refer to the convention as amended from time to time. This means that the definition of detection agent is ambulatory. It will follow any amendment in the technical annex to the convention.

Finally a further legal question often asked is what happens to the definition of plastic explosives if the convention is amended. Amendments to the definition of plastic explosives in the convention would not be automatically reflected in the Explosives Act because we repeated the definition instead of referring to it. We would have to amend the definition in the Explosives Act in order to have it follow an amendment to that found in the convention. However, from a practical point of view this should not be a problem. The definition of plastic explosives is standard. Furthermore it is unlikely that the convention itself will be amended. The only amendments contemplated are to the technical annex.

In addition to the technical questions, the policy questions, and the legal questions, we have what we refer to as miscellaneous questions. It is often asked why it took nearly five years from the March 1991 signing of the convention to table the bill. Initial MOU development, which began shortly after the signing of the convention, involved considerable consultation with DND, Canada Customs, and Transport Canada. Additional time was lost in 1993 when there was a change in government prior to the tabling and approval of the memorandum to cabinet. It required a second consultation and resubmission of the MC.

In conclusion I support the Explosives Act. As a member of the natural resources committee I recommend Bill C-71, the Explosives Act, at report stage to this honourable House.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to address this honourable House today with respect to Motion No. 7 brought forward by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The government appreciates the hon. member's input into Bill C-64. However, we are concerned that his motion would have an effect that would not be beneficial to the administration of the Employment Equity Act. The way the motion reads, if it were to be adopted, it would in essence establish an employer-employee co-management arrangement under the act.

Members of the Bloc raised this issue in committee and the government was responsive and flexible in giving it due consideration. However, if we adopted the motion before us it might very well have negative ramifications in the way employment equity is administered. Responsibility must be clear in this regard.

Nevertheless I hasten to add that the intent of the legislation before us is not to create situations where management is imposing employment equity on workers without their input. This is not the intent at all. On the contrary, the current act encourages and requires productive consultations between employer and employee representatives. As I said previously, the government appreciates constructive suggestions. That is why we listened and accepted recommendations made in committee.

The effect of those recommendations is that Bill C-64 now requires collaboration between employer and employee representatives when preparing, implementing and revising employment equity plans.

However, the key aspect of this arrangement is collaboration, not co-management. The responsibility for making final decisions must remain with employers. After all, they are the ones who must answer to the commission regarding implementation of the act. Hon. members will agree that the person who is held responsible for an action must retain the ability to make final decisions.

The government is trying to send a clear message here. For employment equity to be fair and effective, a co-operative effort in implementing its principles is required by both management and labour. The emphasis is very much the same, emphasis the government takes in its own relationships with other governments, the private sector, community organizations and so on. I am referring to the concept of partnership, a productive effort by all concerned to reach the same goal. That is exactly what came through in committee regarding the issue: collaboration, yes; co-management, no.

I remind the hon. member that adoption of his motion is not as simple as he may think. It would have widespread implications because the act does not have a provision which allows a tribunal to issue orders against a bargaining agent. In other words, collaboration requires just that, the two parties work together to reach a common goal voluntarily. Enforced collaboration is an oxymoron and experience shows that it makes for unproductive relationships.

Management must have final responsibility for its obligations under Bill C-64. It is management that must answer to the commission if it fails to meet its obligations under the act. It is unacceptable to adopt a situation wherein the employer is held responsible but does not have the ultimate authority to address that responsibility.

The government does not wish Bill C-64 to alter the framework of labour relations in a fundamental manner. That is not the purpose of the legislation before the House. Its purpose is to help move Canada toward true equality in the workplace. This is a step of which all Canadians should be very proud. Passage of Bill C-64 will enshrine in law the principle of equality for all Canadians. It will help to lay down a level playing field for those in the designated groups, specifically women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Bill C-64 also fulfils the government's pre-election commitment to strengthen the existing Employment Equity Act by extending coverage to virtually the entire public service. I believe hon. colleagues should also agree that fairness dictates that all Canadians have due access to employment opportunities. Therefore we must implement this legislation in a manner that will encourage co-operation and goodwill on the part of both employers and employees.

We thank the hon. member for his input. However, the government is satisfied with the bill's emphasis on collaboration. We are not prepared to move toward co-management. For that reason I cannot support the member's Motion No. 7.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Yes.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand the hon. member was first on the speaking order and that I would speak second, if that pleases Your Honour.

[Immigration Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate at second reading Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

Congratulations to my hon. colleague from Cambridge for bringing forth a bill to amend the Immigration Act that will take steps to ensure that those who came to this great country Canada and refuse to abide by the laws are not permitted to stay. This bill if adopted will make Canadian streets safer.

Canada has a proud tradition and reputation not as a country that merely tolerates immigrants, but rather as one that welcomes them with open arms. It is no secret that this great country was built by immigrants and that the vast majority of people that come to this country today continue to make an honest and meaningful contribution to our ever evolving Canadian society.

As you are aware, the law has always recognized that serious criminality is grounds for deportation and the Immigration Act provides the mechanism to facilitate this. Bill C-316 in no way attempts to undermine or contradict the current Immigration Act but rather to improve, streamline and broaden some of the regulations that exist in the current act.

It is important to recognize that this government is concerned about addressing serious crime by non-citizens and has taken steps to ensure removal of these types of offenders. This past spring the House passed Bill C-44 which limited the rights of serious criminals to appeals under the immigration system. These offenders will also no longer be eligible for any form of early release or parole.

Bill C-316 if adopted will complement the accomplishments of Bill C-44. The bill will fill in many of the cracks and loopholes that still exist between sentencing and the deportation hearing. Bill C-316 will permit a court at the time of sentencing of an offender convicted of a serious offence with a penalty of 10 years or more to make a deportation order at the same time. Offenders may appeal within the criminal process but will no longer have access to the appeals process under the Immigration Act.

There have been concerns that this process may be an infringement on the rights of the offenders, but this bill does not create any new or special offence or any new distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The distinctions already exist under the Immigration Act. The offender is already subject to criminal sanctions and deportation. Bill C-316 merely puts both matters in the hands of the courts. There are also two important additional measures contained in this bill worth noting.

First, the bill addresses how to proceed with offenders who came to Canada at an early age. It is recognized that many people immigrate at an early age and for one reason or another have not become a citizen. For this reason there is a provision in the bill that

would exempt a person who has immigrated to Canada prior to their sixteenth birthday and who has had no criminal convictions in five years previous to the offence in question.

Second, the bill provides for the transfer of offender by court order to their country of origin to serve their sentence if the reciprocal conditional release provisions exist. Under the Transfer of Offenders Act, a transfer can currently happen only upon the request of the offender. This bill removes the decision from the offender and places it in the hands of the judge.

In this bill, as in many private members' bills intended to amend existing legislation, there are procedural and substantive issues which arise. Several of my colleagues raised some of these concerns today during debate. Issues to be addressed relate to the procedure of deporting dependents of convicted offenders, the training that will be necessary for judges in these cases and the possible constitutional challenges.

We must keep in mind that what we are debating here is the principle of this bill. No one can argue that the intent and principle of the bill is not valid and that we as legislators have a responsibility to develop and enact legislation that will make Canadians safer. Bill C-316 will achieve this principle.

The hon. member for Cambridge has expressed his willingness to work in co-operation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the standing committee to address any procedural or substantive concerns that may arise.

In conclusion I would like to restate my support for Bill C-316 in principle and call upon my fellow parliamentarians to do the same. The member for Cambridge is attempting to make the streets safer. The people of Canada deserve no less.

[Oceans Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, at second reading and to address the amendment before this honourable House.

It is a privilege to support Bill C-98 in principle and to support its objectives and its implementation. The people of Central Nova applaud the due diligence and leadership role the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has played in our country since assuming his responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Thanks to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, our Canadian people have a renewed hope, a new vision for our coastal communities: protection for our fisheries and oceans. Finally, we have a human face of compassion amidst our fisheries crisis in Canada.

On Tuesday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans addressed this House on the oceans act and its importance to the maritime nation which is Canada. The vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is to make Canada a world leader in oceans and marine resource management through this legislation. He enunciated for us the mission which this government has set for itself, to manage Canada's oceans in close co-operation with others so that our oceans are clean, safe, productive and accessible.

In my riding of Central Nova there exists the north shore and the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean. My constituents applaud the vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans which he boldly pronounced on November 15, 1994 in the document "A Vision for Oceans Management". This document is based on the recommendations of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology Report on Oceans and Coasts. At that time the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said: "It has been long recognized for a long time that there is a need for one act to clearly assert Canada's sovereign rights and responsibilities over its oceans and territories".

Our minister of fisheries pointed to the proprietary pride which Canadians have in their oceans: the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic. These are fundamental to much of our existence, individually and as a nation. They have provided the means of transportation, trading, communications and subsistence from time immemorial. Generations have depended on our oceans for food, clothing and even medicine.

Canada with its three coasts has the longest coastline in the world and the second largest continental shelf spanning more than six and a half million kilometres. As the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans pointed out in his vision document, Canada's oceans are equal to half of our territorial land mass and have been a key to our evolution culturally and economically. Fisheries, transportation and shipping, tourism and recreation, offshore oil and gas have all been beacons of hope and economic stability for numerous coastal communities along all three oceans.

In his 1994 vision paper the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans related as well the need to diversify our reliance on the maritime resources in light of the collapse of groundfish stocks along the east coast and in light of ever increasing stress being placed on the maritime habitat by our society. Critical habitat destruction, foreign and domestic overfishing, as well as marine and atmospheric pollution were all cause for concern.

This government recognized that a new oceans management regime was needed, one based on an ecological approach and on the development of an integrated management system for all activities affecting oceans and coastal waters. The time had come. The wake-up alarm had sounded for all Canadians to turn away from the band-aid measures of short term need to a policy which would result in the sustainable use of resources and environmental protection.

Through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the Government of Canada identified several key objectives of any new legal instrument:

First, to preserve and protect the oceans' environment, the ecosystems and resources they contain. Second, to establish a framework and guidelines to manage the oceans' resources, both renewable and non-renewable, on an economically sustainable and environmentally acceptable basis. Third, to enhance, focus, co-ordinate and disseminate Canada's scientific, environmental and management information relating to oceans and their resources. Fourth, to assert and enforce Canada's sovereign rights and responsibilities over its ocean resources and areas. Fifth, to establish the legal framework to support the implementation of this oceans management strategy. Sixth, to establish a clearly identifiable lead federal agency accountable for oceans management.

As the minister suggested, this should best be initiated by the development and passage of Canada's oceans act. As the minister pointed out to the House, Canada's oceans policy at present is like a big jigsaw puzzle, the pieces all scattered in front of us waiting for us to fit them all together. It is not easy to visualize the entire picture without seeing the box which the puzzle came in and its cover illustration. However, a great deal of work has gone into visualizing what the whole picture must be and determining a logical pattern for the pieces to be placed together, pieces as diverse as deep ocean research and cold ocean rescues, inspection and protection, emergency responses and sustainability, conservation and commercialization, navigational safety and national security, national goals and regional initiatives, restoration of our marine resources, and job creation.

We all know that it will take many minds to finish the puzzle in time for all Canadians to enjoy the results of the effort. From the outset this has not been the vision of one person or one group of persons imposed upon the rest of us. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has signalled clearly his openness toward full participation in the process so that all sides of the House, all stakeholders, all organizations, disciplines and sectors of society having an interest in our oceans can contribute.

Consultation has been a hallmark of the government in the carrying out of its responsibilities but the minister has sought more; namely, a partnership for a successful conclusion to this challenge; this beckoning to us from the future generations of Canada.

Through this legislation, Canada will be bringing into its own domestic law provisions for 200 nautical miles from its low water line to which it is already entitled as part of the modern international community.

Canada is taking on its rights and responsibilities as a member of the global community, a community with a growing realization that our actions are all interdependent, whether at the most local community level or at the level of global interaction and co-operation for survival.

The oceans act makes it possible for the federal government to solicit and expand partnerships in the many enterprises involved in scientific research, maritime communications and safety, fisheries conservation, management enforcement, underwater exploration and seabed mining, the understanding and sustainable exploitation of marine plants, the maintenance of trading routes through block ice.

It makes us all working shareholders in the development of a flexible, workable and ecologically sound ocean strategy for today and for the future, one well in keeping with Canada's motto, from sea to sea to sea.

In conclusion, this is a vision of Canada as being much more than the Rockies, the Laurentian Shield and great plains between them, of great cities lining up at our southern borders; it is also a view of myriad port cities and coastal communities, of diverse marine activities extending economic and social benefit to future generations brought to us by the rolling swells and rippled waves of blue beginnings at the edges of our land maps.

The oceans act is a vision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and of the Government of Canada. However, it is more than that: in its ink and paper, in the millions of electronic impulses and images which have gone into its preparation and discussion and communication from this very Chamber, it represents the aspirations of millions of Canadians.

It is a declaration by a maritime nation that it will continue to shoulder the challenges of the present but that it welcomes the support of all concerned as it navigates into the future.

A special thank you to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from all Canadians for Bill C-98 and for recognizing the importance of the maritime nation which is Canada.