Debates of Nov. 21st, 1994

Department Of Natural Resources Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-48, in clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14, on page 9, with the following:

"government of any province for forest protection and manage-".

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-48, in clause 35, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 11, with the following:

"ter may, at the request of all the provinces".

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-48, in clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 33, on page 12, with the following:

"plans under subsection (1), the Minister a ) shall cooperate with the provinces;

(b) may enter into agreements with the government of any province or any department, branch or agency of such a government; c ) with the agreement of the concerned province, may make grants and contributions and''.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek my colleagues' support to amend two clauses of Bill C-48, which, I believe, distort the very nature of this department by not explicitly recognizing the overriding authority of the provinces over natural resources.

First, clause 27.(2) is theoretically aimed at allowing the Minister of Natural Resources not to seek the approval of the Governor in Council when entering into contracts or agreements. This change is said to be in the interest of streamlining public service operations. Keeping in mind this laudable intention, let us look at the effects of the following few words included in clause 27.(2), page 9, line 13:

-government of any province or with any person for forest protection and management or forest utilization-

The words "or any person" cannot be legitimately included since only the provinces have the authority, the right to define their own forest policy.

Therefore, even though the legitimacy of the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources is very much in doubt, it is still important to correct those clauses having an impact on the provinces' authority in matters of exclusive jurisdiction. Under subsection 92( a ) of the Constitution Act, 1982, natural resources are described as exclusive provincial jurisdiction, in particular with regards to development, conservation, and management of non-renewable and forestry resources, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.

These few words open a wide door to interference by the federal government in the area of forestry which could be perceived by provincial governments as contrary to their policies or discriminatory towards some provinces.

The issue is not the value of the federal involvement, the point is to make sure that the federal government remains within its areas of jurisdiction. The federal Minister of Natural Resources must consult and obtain the consensus of all provinces before promoting a so-called national policy. For example, Quebec never signed the National Forest Strategy, therefore, the federal government cannot, unilaterally, intervene on its territory with policies, however well intentioned, actions or agreements not endorsed by Quebec.

Quebec has its own forest management strategy, like many other provinces. Trying to harmonize the different policies is the responsibility of the provinces themselves. Any interference on the part of the federal government, if it is not the result of a unanimous request from all provinces can only be a source of duplication and waste.

The people of Canada, like the people of Quebec, should not have to pay twice because of the squabbling between the two levels of government since the rules are clear: natural resources belong to the provinces.

The provinces have precedence in the area of natural resources, yet, it is quite clear that the words "any person" put the provinces on the same level as any given person selected by the minister. It is obvious, therefore, that such equality between a person and a province cannot stand: these words must be deleted.

To continue with this same motion, I now move on to the explanatory notes on clause 35, section 6, which state that the new section 6( a ) provides clarification by allowing the Minister of Natural Resources to conduct or co-operate with persons conducting applied and basic research programs instead of only conducting such programs.

The word "co-operate" seems quite appropriate in a piece of legislation requiring the federal government to co-operate with the provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It seems quite appropriate that this clause should reflect this willingness to cooperate by incorporating the proposed amendment, which merely states that, at the provinces' request, the minister may recommend, promote or co-ordinate a Canada-wide policy or any basic research program needed.

These few added words clearly show who should give directions and identify needs so that the federal government can be instrumental in helping the provinces in these fields instead of taking the lead.

This clause should clearly reflect the federal government's willingness to co-operate by recognizing the provinces' supremacy in identifying their needs, the openness to receive provincial requests as an established fact, as well as the minister's ability to honour these requests in the provinces' interest depending on available resources.

I do not want to elaborate needlessly on this amendment, but the federal government's willingness to co-operate should allow it to accept this amendment. I do not want the amendment to be redundant either.

On the last point, namely clause 35, lines 21 to 39, I want to talk about something that reflects very well Canada's constitutional problems. Clause 35.7( 2 ) proposes that in carrying out

any plans coming under the Department of Natural Resources, the minister may-repeat, "may": a ) cooperate with the provinces and with municipalities; b ) enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of any province or any department, branch or agency of such a government, respecting the carrying out of those plans; and

And third: c )make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the Governor in Council, provide other forms of financial assistance.

I think that these three proposals contain the seeds of federal-provincial disagreements on many issues.

First, the federal government, through its Department of Natural Resources should, and not just may, co-operate with the provinces. The federal government has no legitimate authority over the provinces' natural resources. If it absolutely wants to be involved in provincial fields, it should do so with their consent and for the greater good of all, of course. However, where their resources are concerned, the provinces would certainly want to discuss what is good for themselves in order to have the program that suits them.

Second, the federal government must not conclude any agreement to implement federal programs with anyone in the provinces unless the provinces are informed and have agreed. Provincial consent must be required for any private agreement to take effect. It is hard to imagine anyone changing a province's natural resource management policy without the province's consent.

So, any agreement between an individual or group and the federal government can only be made with the agreement of the province concerned. Again, why duplicate and risk wasting money, despite good intentions?

Third, in the same vein, if the federal government, through a joint policy, wants to promote a particular sector or project, it should do so with the consent of the province concerned, so that the federal government can make the grant or contribution.

Nothing in clause 35 says or indicates that the provinces have priority when natural resources are involved. As the Official Opposition in this House, we can only call attention to this fact, which is not something the provinces are demanding but a basic agreement of this Canadian federation. Under these circumstances, how could we not insist that many federal bills or laws lack legitimacy?

Several federalist members point out that the federal government must do this or that for the general welfare, without hurting the provinces. These members may be in good faith, but imagine what the federal government would say if provincial legislators intervened in federal programs and set conditions for them. The federal government would be the first to talk about interference and want to put them in their place.

The Canadian system defines the roles of each level of government and changing them requires reopening the Constitution and new negotiations. That may not be a bad idea. The Canadian Constitution needs many adjustments. Quebec's idea of "opting out", that is, the provinces' ability to withdraw from a federal program with full financial compensation, is one that could meet its particular needs and show the ability of this federal system to adjust.

For these reasons, we believe that putting our terminology in clause 35 7(2) would much better reflect the provinces' needs and the federal government should consider it an improvement and support it. I think that my motion as a whole justifies the necessary amendments to the clauses previously mentioned and Bill C-48 would correspond more closely to the reality of Canada as a result.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-48 and on the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Abitibi.

For one year now, I have been hearing Bloc Quebecois members talk about duplication, overlapping, waste and the need to make cuts. I find it very disappointing, and also very prejudicial to Canada, to see Bloc members use any bill to try to promote their only objective, namely the separation of Quebec, instead of dealing with the real issues and improve the situation of Quebecers.

Bill C-48 amalgamates two previous departments, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Forestry Canada. This is a logical and practical step that demonstrates the government's commitment to Canada's resource industry and to good government.

I understand that the amalgamation of these two departments has already saved some $16 million, c'est ça couper dans le gras, messieurs les députés.

In the debate on Bill C-48 it is essential that we keep in mind the vital contribution that the energy, mining and forest sectors make to Canada's economic health and to the high standard of living that Canadians have come to enjoy. Together, these industries represented $86.2 billion or 13.4 per cent of Canada's GDP in 1993.

Canada's advantage in international trade is tied almost exclusively to natural resource based goods. These three sectors provide jobs for 700,000 Canadians and sustain the economies of almost 500 communities across the country. In many regions of Canada, natural resource industries are not only the principal vehicle for economic development, they are the only vehicle for highly skilled jobs.

Energy, mining and forestry are high-technology industries which are essential to Canada's prosperity in the future. If only we can have an adequate policy developed and implemented by a single department, these industries will keep contributing to job creation and economic recovery for a long time to come.

Bill C-48 sets out the minister's duty to promote sustainable development regarding energy, mineral and forest resources in Canada. This means that the economic, social and environmental objectives of the government will have to be taken into account in every decision related to the development, the management and the use of resources.

In its quest for sustainable development, the new department will rely, among other things, on the work done in these scientific sectors. The Canadian Forestry Service, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, and Geomatics Canada will remain dynamic activity centres in the field of science and technology.

Bill C-48 officializes the grouping of two statutes of the Parliament of Canada which exist, under one form or another, since many years. Consequently, that legislation does not in any way increase the power of the government of Canada. The duties, the authority and the functions of the Minister of Natural Resources will only apply to those areas that come under the jurisdiction of Parliament.

This new department will continue to work in partnership with the provinces to make our natural resource sectors both sustainable and competitive.

There are many examples of such partnerships. For instance, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers has recently agreed on a framework for future co-operation in the areas of science and technology, international and trade issues, regional development, aboriginal forestry and national co-ordination.

In the mining sector, the Whitehorse mining initiative represents a valuable partnership that unites the efforts of federal and provincial governments, industry, labour, aboriginal people and environmental groups. In fact, for Canada's mining and mineral sector, the Whitehorse mining initiative demonstrates the commitment by all the stakeholders to co-operation and dialogue to improve the future prospect of mining for the country.

On this point, I am proud to note that on September 13, 1994 the Whitehorse mining initiative leadership council accord was signed in Victoria, British Columbia. This accord sets out principles and goals designed to assist all stakeholders in their efforts to ensure a prosperous mining industry that is committed to sustainable development.

Another of the department's agencies, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, has set up a successful partnership. In an editorial published on November 7, the newspaper The Northern Miner reported that co-operation projects undertaken by this agency positively contributes to our economic growth and job creation in Canada.

Also, partnerships between federal and provincial governments in the goematics area allow Canada to help other countries. For example, last month, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced new initiatives to help the Ukraine.

Among these initiatives was a $2.3 million contract awarded to an Alberta company for the second stage of an important land registration project in the region of Kossiv, in the Ukraine. Following this project, private interests in this country are expected to be able to purchase land. This project is the result of close co-operation between the industry, the Alberta government and Natural Resources Canada.

In closing, Bill C-48 demonstrates the government's commitment to good government. It is a bill that emphasizes progress toward sustainable development of Canada's energy, mineral and forest resources. In addition, Bill C-48 emphasizes co-operation, la coopération entre les provinces, which own the natural resources, on le reconnaît, so Canadians can move together into the next century and beyond.

I urge all members to defeat these amendments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Abitibi seemed to be addressing portions of Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The hon. member for Timiskaming seemed to be addressing none of them.

Before I make any comments, I would like to know if this is going to be the end of the debate on the motions? Will we be voting on the motions immediately after?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The debate is on Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Members can choose to speak to one or all collectively. Yes, on completion of the debate I will put the question.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I assume we will be voting on the amendments separately but I would like to speak on all of them in the interest of time. Is my assumption correct?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Yes, when we get to the votes, as I understand, Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately. The vote on Motion No. 4 will be applied to Motion No. 6. There will be two votes. I hope that is of assistance to the member and others.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hold up the business of the House with my questions, but it is nice to know where one is going.

With respect to Motion No. 4, the principle that the federal government does not interfere in matters under provincial jurisdiction without first gaining the co-operation of the provinces is a well-established Canadian custom.

I do not see any harm in spelling this out by insisting on the word "shall" in paragraph (1)(a). It appears to belabour the obvious but since the motion will be voted on with Motion No. 6, in order to support Motion No. 6, I will support Motion No. 4.

Motion No. 6 is an amendment that would restrain the federal government from entering into forest protection and management agreements with private entities. I hope the object of this amendment, although the mover did not spell it out, would be to restrain federal porkbarrelling. Certainly it will have that effect if passed. Therefore we support the motion.

The object of Motion No. 5 seems to be to prevent the federal government from acting on purely technical matters without a unanimous request by the provinces. In a federal state this is absurd. The 10 provinces of Canada can never agree on anything. We are not talking about policy. We are talking about simple technical decisions.

An excellent case can be made for reduced federal government in technical activities under provincial jurisdiction but this is a matter of policy. It requires no changes to the act. It only requires a change to the government.

Therefore I will have to oppose Motion No. 5 because it is so couched that it would hamstring or put into a straitjacket the functioning of this department.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Abitibi on presenting these amendments.

Earlier, in this House the Bloc was accused of playing politics. I do not think standing on our rights is playing politics. I do not think talking about Quebec's history is playing politics. To support my case, I would refer hon. members to a federalist and a Liberal to boot, but a great man just the same: Jean Lesage. In 1960, Mr. Lesage said that resource development was exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that it was part of the rights and priority requirements of the provinces, which were in a better position than the federal government to take effective and lasting action. That was Jean Lesage, who sat in this very House.

He also said that one of the fundamental rules of our federalism should be that Parliament's exceptional powers should be just that and not be used to encroach on areas that were normally the responsibility of the provinces. Some people might say, sure, but what about the development plan for Eastern Quebec? Is that not a valid exception? They are right, but it should remain an exception, as Mr. Lesage said.

I could also quote what was said by two of his predecessors. Daniel Johnson senior, certainly more of a nationalist than his namesake, referred to exclusive jurisdiction over the exploration, conservation and development of natural resources. I could also quote what was said by Jean-Jacques Bertrand. In any case, what we in Quebec want, and I hope the other provinces do as well, is to prevent the federal government from dealing directly with individuals, because when I read the bill, it says the federal government would be able to deal with the provinces or with persons. I think eventually, this would mean not duplication but three levels of intervention, not all of which would be governmental, since it would be possible to deal directly with individuals, over the heads of the provincial governments, and we object to that.

When it talks about co-operation, the federal government should say to the provinces: What are your demands? What do you want? In that case, the lines would be clearly drawn. Co-operation would be on a fair and equitable basis, which is what we want, and that is also the purpose of the amendments we proposed. I hope that everyone in this House will realize that this is not just for Quebec and that these amendments are useful for Manitoba, Ontario and all the other provinces, and I would ask both sides of the House for their support in adopting these amendments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The vote on motion No. 4 will also apply to motion No. 6.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?