Debates of Sept. 26th, 1995

Oceans Act

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, this government always amazes me. I remember very well right after the 1993 election one of the highlights mentioned throughout the media was that this government would be more open to consulting people involved in any particular industry when it was building policy.

There is case after case. For example when agriculture policy is made no farmers are consulted. When justice policy is made no policemen are consulted. The Minister of Justice talks well and long about how he consulted with the chiefs of police. That is a very small group. I am wondering why this government which talked a good game at the beginning of 1994 has suddenly gone back on those initial words.

I see the very same thing in this department. The parliamentary secretary talks about consulting the people. I have just come back from a trip to St. John's, Newfoundland. I had the opportunity to speak to some fisher people, as the politically correct term would be. I asked them exactly those questions. I found during my visit that the two biggest concerns the fish industry has are that there is far too much government, far too much bureaucracy, far too much red tape and that the ordinary common every day fisherperson is not consulted on policy making.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about not consulting. In fact, if we look at every one of our policies whether it is human resources or the gun control bill, there has been more consultation done by this government than by any other government. There has been more consultation done by this government on this issue itself.

First, the government consulted the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. Should we ignore its advice? Should we say it does not know what it is talking about? Then the members across would say we are not listening to these advisory boards. They are the ones who started it.

The minister continued with a vision for oceans management. In November 1994, 600 people and 200 responses were received. Consultation was done. In April 1995 the coastal provinces, the Northwest Territories and Ottawa were consulted. There were meetings in November and December 1994. The list goes on. The people consulted were academics, scientists and others in the fishery, people in the oceans industry, environmentalists, First Nations people and people involved in community development. How much more consultation do Reformers want?

We have heard one of the Reform members say many times that we were consulting too much. He has told the Minister of Justice to stop consulting and get to it. Members of the Reform Party should make up their minds.

One thing is for sure: this government takes its responsibilities seriously. We do the consulting and then we make the decisions. The problem is that Reform members do not always like the decisions and then they complain and say we did not consult. There has been ample consultation on this bill. The Reform Party member who is a member of the standing committee will have an opportunity to work further and put forward recommendations as they come before the committee before this bill goes to third reading.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite and his remarks. The question I would have for him if I were allowed to give one would be: What about the issue of MPs pensions? Were the people consulted on that?

When I look at things such as this bill we are talking about today and the gun registration bill which was mentioned earlier today, I would ask the member opposite if he really, truly and sincerely believes that full consultation went on throughout all departments with this government. Perhaps he should go out on the street-and I would be happy to accompany him-and ask the people if they have been consulted on Bill C-98, on Bill C-68 and on Bill C-85. I rest my case.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by commenting on some of the statements made earlier by the opposition parties, particularly the third party.

We on this side of the House are concerned with the issue of access fees and the future of the inshore fishery. We are concerned with coastal communities and the effect that changes in the fishery will have on our coastal communities.

My province is the largest fishing province in the country in terms of landed value in tonnes. My riding of South Shore is the largest individual fishing riding in Canada. Therefore, we are concerned about these issues and I am particularly concerned.

The third party talks about the concerns of Atlantic fishermen and fisherwomen. This is the same party whose policy it is to relocate Atlantic Canadians out of the area. This is the party that would cancel the TAGS program which so many Atlantic fishers rely on. This is the party whose leader told Atlantic Canadians, particularly Atlantic fishers, last weekend to take 15 seconds and tell themselves the fisheries are dead. This is the party that purports to speak for Atlantic fishermen. Reform members go to Atlantic Canada for a weekend and become instant experts.

I want to tell members opposite that I have been meeting with these fishers all of my life. I have lived in coastal communities in different parts of Atlantic Canada all of my life.

I also ask the members opposite to read the bill because what they are speaking of is not what this bill is about. This bill is not about access fees. This bill is not needed to increase, if that is the government's wish, access fees. Some of the information being circulated is incorrect because those decisions have not been completely made. They are issues to be debated at another time.

I invite members opposite to come to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when it takes this bill after second reading and begins reviewing it. At that point, after they get an understanding of what the legislation is about, then they can raise some of these issues.

I am pleased to take the opportunity to express my support for Bill C-98, the oceans act. This legislation takes an important first step toward the creation of a comprehensive, integrated oceans management strategy based on the principles of sustainable development. It provides the legal framework by which the various players in the ocean sector will be able to work together under the leadership of the federal government to protect the marine environment.

For the first time the bill gives statutory recognition to the tremendous importance of Canada's ocean territories. For this reason the oceans act is pioneering legislation. It is a bold step toward a new era in oceans management. It turns good intentions into concrete deeds and actions. It places Canada at the forefront of nations striving to implement the commitments of agenda 21 made at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in 1992.

Canada's ocean regions are vast. The richness and variety of the resources almost defy the imagination. Imagine them and comprehend them we must. The future of many of our coastal communities and indeed of humanity itself depends on all of us building a deeper understanding of the incredible magnitude and fragility of this great ecosystem. It is for this reason that I want to take the time today to remind my colleagues of just how important the oceans are to the lives of all Canadians and why the passage of the oceans act will be of such benefit to us all.

I said that Canada's ocean territories are vast. This hardly does justice to the facts. Canada's coastline stretches from the Pacific through the icy waters of the Arctic to the Atlantic Ocean. At almost 250,000 kilometres it is the longest coastline in the world. This is just the beginning. Our continental shelf spans more than 6.5 million square kilometres making it the second largest in the world.

Together these great bodies of water have been pivotal to our country's evolution. Rich in biodiversity, the oceans have helped forge our sense of identity and have provided the means for transport, trading, communications and sustenance for many generations.

On our east coast especially, an entire culture has been built around shipping and the fishery. For 400 years or more the daily rhythms of communities up and down this rugged coast have centred on the ways of the sea. Nowhere is this more obvious than in my riding of South Shore where communities such as Shelburne, Lunenburg, Clark's Harbour and many others line the coast.

Today Canada's ocean industries no longer dominate our economic profile like they once did. However their importance to our national accounts and to the economies of our coastal areas should not be underestimated. Together the ocean sectors of fishing,

shipping, oil and ocean manufacturing and services account for almost 3 per cent of Canada's gross national product.

Last year despite troubles in the groundfish industry, Canadian seafood exports totalled $2.8 billion. Of this total, more than half came from Atlantic Canada with the crab, shrimp and lobster fisheries putting in an outstanding performance. Canada's aquaculture industry continues to grow despite stiff international competition. This is happening on both the east and west coasts.

Canada's oceans manufacturing and service sector is also growing, now comprising more than 300 high technology firms. This sector generates millions of dollars in revenue each year.

In addition Atlantic offshore oil and gas have finally come on stream. The Cohasset field off Nova Scotia began production in 1992. The giant Hibernia development off the east coast of Newfoundland is promising to employ some 20,000 workers once it begins production in 1997.

With growth like this it is easy to see why the oceans sector plays such an important role in the economies of our coastal regions. Together these industries have the potential to generate considerable wealth and prosperity.

The oceans also have a more indirect impact on the lives of Canadians. The world's oceans are a key part of the ecosphere, acting as a major environmental sink of carbon dioxide. In particular the world's oceans play a critical role in determining the rate of climate change and its regional variations. Globally this has many implications as it does here at home.

Scientists working with global climate models forecast that with global warming the oceans will change. According to these predictions there will be less upswelling which in turn will affect productivity. Already we have seen some evidence of this with the frequent reoccurrence of the El Nino effect in the Pacific in recent years. In fact some scientists believe that the El Nino may be a common factor contributing to changes in the fish population in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

What does all this mean for Canadians? Disruption in the fishery? Drought on the prairies? Melting sea and land ice in the Arctic? We do not really know. Our understanding of both the ocean and the earth's atmosphere is not yet well enough developed. We can only assume that widespread climate change is likely to have a dramatic impact on ocean ecosystems around the world as well as to alter the entire range of human activity.

Clearly the oceans are of tremendous importance to Canada as a nation. They impact on our environment, our economy, our social structures and culture as well as on our sovereignty and defence. Even from this very brief sketch it is obvious that managing our oceans and their resources is a complex and challenging task. At no time has this been more true than at the moment. Each region and each activity within the ocean sector presents its own pressing challenges to policymakers at all levels of government and industry.

Let me give a few examples. On the east coast several issues stand out. First, there is an urgent need for scientists and fishermen to work side by side to improve methods of resource assessment and to achieve a better understanding of the dynamics which caused the collapse of the groundfish stocks.

Second, industry and government must continue to work together to revitalize the fishing industry.

Third, we must continue to build on the potential of the ocean manufacturing and service sector to act as a catalyst for the innovative diversified economy in the region.

In the Arctic, as in other parts of Canada, environmental issues take priority. Northern communities are deeply concerned with issues of climate change and the contamination of Arctic waters and resources. These are the issues the bill speaks to.

On the west coast international relations, climate studies and resource assessment are key. Strong measures are needed to assure the future of the Pacific salmon fishery. What is more, with the region's increasing population density, environmental issues are of growing importance. Issues related to the coastal zone management, marine environmental quality, ship standards and pollution prevention demand attention. That is what the bill is about.

These are not isolated issues. Rather they are interlocking pieces of one large puzzle. It is time to respond to them in a coherent and integrated fashion. That is what the legislation does.

The oceans act sets the stage for the development of a long range comprehensive vision for the management of Canada's ocean territories and marine resources. Our approach has two phases.

First is the introduction of enabling legislation. This is the oceans act that we are now considering. With the oceans act we are extending economic and environmental jurisdiction out to the 200 nautical mile limit permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are consolidating legislation and clarifying the federal government's responsibilities for oceans. We are creating the legal framework for an oceans management strategy based on both the sustainable development and integrated management of our oceans and coastal waters. Contrary to what a Bloc member stated earlier, there is zero impact on powers between the federal and provincial governments.

The second phase is the development of the ocean management strategy. The oceans management strategy is currently at the developmental stage. We are consulting extensively with stake-

holders about what should go into the strategy and we will continue to do so. So far our proposals have received strong support from almost everyone involved: fishermen, aboriginal groups, businesses, provincial and territorial leaders, academics and non-governmental organizations. Everyone sees the necessity for a new approach to decision making.

Canada can no longer afford to manage its oceans with partial ad hoc, short term measures. We can no longer afford to divide our decision making like so many pieces of the pie, with decisions on resource management made in isolation from decisions about shipping or environmental protection. We can no longer afford to have our experts, whether they be in government labs, universities, industries or on fishing boats, working in isolation of each other. It is time to bring all the elements together so that we can make the best decisions possible.

We must start to look at oceans issues through a wide angle lens so we can make choices based on the best interests of the entire ecosystem. Sustainable development is all about integrating economic, environmental and social considerations together into one policy framework.

What do we need to make it work? To start with, we need decision making that is open, transparent and based on sound science. We need a commitment to change from all parties involved and we need a new relationship among ocean stakeholders. I will elaborate.

First, we need a more open and more integrated approach to policy making. The oceans management strategy would see our approach to marine resource management change. Traditionally the federal government has carried out its responsibilities for oceans management on the basis of narrow sectoral approaches, in consultation with stakeholders but not in partnership with them. We recognize this must change, so we have begun a new relationship with other ocean stakeholders.

Second, ecological sustainability and economic viability depend on good science. To support these goals science needs to be multi-disciplinary, not limited by organizational structure, and responsive to changing needs and priorities. The oceans management strategy will foster partnerships involving government, academia, the private sector and environmental groups, ensuring that Canada's oceans science is once again at the leading edge of world knowledge.

Third, effective management requires a functioning ecosystems approach. Because ecosystems involve many interdependent physical and biological elements which cross lines of jurisdiction, scientific discipline and economic interest, an effectively functioning management system will have to take these factors into account.

These suggestions give an idea of the scope of the oceans management strategy. They also indicate how fundamentally an integrated management strategy would change oceans management in Canada.

Work on the oceans management strategy is just beginning. All the details have yet to be worked out. However I can assure all members that as the action plan for the oceans management strategy is put in place it will be developed in full collaboration among the federal government and ocean stakeholders. The government is committed to forging a new relationship with our partners in the ocean sector.

Stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources is a shared responsibility. Unless all those with an interest in the oceans agree to collaborate, to share information and to manage these resources in a careful and conservative manner, we will do irreparable harm to the environment. Canadians must work together if we are to protect the integrity and quality of the oceans environment and its resources for future generations.

The world's oceans have been described as the world's great heart, beating eternally. Canadians with their long relationship with the sea recognize this to be true. They understand also that it is time to make a commitment to their oceans. The oceans act is that commitment. It is the beginning of a new era of environmental stewardship and prosperity.

I look forward to reviewing the bill in committee. I invite other members to join with us in committee when we review the bill. Let us look at possible amendments that might improve the bill and bring it back for third reading. At that point it is my hope that we will have all-party consent. Once a thorough understanding is achieved by all members of what the bill is meant to do, we will have all-party consent, and I look forward to that time.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, by tabling Bill C-98, the oceans act, the government has taken a step toward the recognition of offshore areas of the sea and protection of the resources in those areas. I feel this is a very good initiative.

As I see it the bill has three objectives: to recognize in domestic law Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime zones, to establish the legislation framework to support Canada's new oceans management regime, and to consolidate federal responsibilities for managing Canada's oceans. However there appears to be a great deal of overlap and duplication.

Can the government member explain to me where the duplication overlap are being eliminated in the bill? What measures in the bill reduce the level of bureaucracy? Why are the departments of environment and natural resources still in charge of oceans environmental and geological research? Why does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans still have to receive authority from the foreign affairs minister for regulations under clause 25? Why does

the minister have to seek authority from the Minister of Justice to make regulations under section 26(1)?

I feel very strongly that having 14 different ministers overseeing this matter makes it difficult. We should have one department and one minister, that is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Could the hon. member tell us exactly how we could make these changes and eliminate all the duplication?

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I would note that the member for Saint John who asked the question is an associate member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. These are issues that have been raised at the committee level, and they are good questions.

Concerns have been expressed by various members-she being one and others on this side of the House-that perhaps there should be more power consolidated in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

When I invite the member-and I know she will be there-and other members to talk about the consolidation of power, we will have to look at the various areas about which she speaks including the environmental area. We will have to see if some of the areas should perhaps be moved to the minister of fisheries. We can find out the rationale from the officials. Why is certain power still being left with the minister of heritage as far as marine parks, for example, are concerned? Why is the Ministry of the Environment retaining certain authority in certain areas? They are very valid questions.

As we get into a study of the matter at committee level we will ask those questions of various officials. It is my hope that at the end of the day there could perhaps be more consolidation of some of these powers. I think the committee process has to work. We have to seek answers and reasons from the various departments on why some of the consolidation has not taken place.

Without prejudging the process I personally feel that the minister of fisheries who is given certain authority under the bill should have more. The hon. member should agree that as a committee we need to look at that as a possibility.

I thank her for her question. I look forward to working with her in committee.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the hon. member, who also sits on the standing committee on fisheries and oceans.

Allow me to disagree with the hon. member. Since I believe he is a lawyer by training, he is used to reading laws. I also know that he was rather nit-picking on that issue during the last few meetings of our committee. As regards Part II of Bill C-98, why do we have to put in law a plan that will be developed for management purposes?

I would appreciate it if the member, who seems to have a lot of experience in that field, would tell us why we must pass an act merely to introduce or announce a strategy. That could have been done in a press release. The issue would have been well presented. People would have understood. Instead, the government is sending invitations all over the place. It wants to consult just about everybody.

I also ask the member to recognize the fact that there is no hierarchy in terms of the consultation process. Indeed, the provinces are put on the same footing as any other group when it comes to consultations. We, in Quebec, do not think that this is the way to manage. How does the member, who is from Nova Scotia, think that this strategy should be managed in his province, which borders the ocean? Will the provincial minister want to have a say, at some point in time, regarding this process? This is the sort of thing we have to look at.

Right now, the government is merely presenting a strategy and saying that it is willing to consult everyone. I would appreciate it if the member could tell us which new real powers are included in this bill.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

I think it is fair to say that the hon. member and I see the legislation differently. As he made clear in his previous presentation to the House, he sees this as taking away authority from the provinces and giving it to the federal government. That is simply not the case. I have seen nothing and he has pointed out nothing in this legislation which would indicate this is what is happening.

This is a consolidation. It is not something that just happened over the last number of weeks or months. This discussion has been going on for years. As the minister indicated this morning, there has been an evolution here. We are going back to the 1970s or maybe before that when various powers and various consolidations were being discussed. A lot of things have happened internationally that we have to establish in our own legislation. There is a recognition in the act of the merger of the coast guard and DFO which is relatively new.

To suggest there is something in this legislation that is affecting the powers of the provinces could not be further from the truth. This legislation does not state that. The hon. member has not been able to point out to me either here in the House or during any discussion that this is what the legislation does. That is clearly not what is in the legislation and it is not the intent of the legislation. I

would suggest his motive is something other than trying to create a good piece of oceans legislation.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's intervention.

The member talked about the TAGS program and how wonderful it was for Atlantic Canada. When Reform Party members were there talking to people in the constituencies in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick we did not hear people giving large accolades for the TAGS program. As a matter of fact, what we heard was talk about corruption and talk about the way the TAGS program had distorted the marketplace, particularly the job market. No one I encountered had anything good to say about it.

The member is defending the government's move on licence fees. I wonder if he would tell the House whether he is going to poll his constituents because the story we heard in Atlantic Canada is that Atlantic Canadians are opposed to this. Will he poll his constituents and if they are found to be in opposition to Bill C-98 will he vote against the bill when it comes up for third reading in the House?

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my only comment is that I would suggest the member shows a total lack of understanding of Bill C-98. Bill C-98 does not deal with access fees. He should read it and determine what it states. Talking about fishermen, I convene my own round tables in my riding to speak to fishermen's organizations on a regular basis. I know what the fishermen's position is on access fees. This bill is not about access fees.

I invite the member to read and understand the legislation before he asks questions that are totally irrelevant because that is not the issue. The question of access fees is certainly relevant but not as part of this legislation. There is going to be a new fisheries act and other things that we are going to discuss on this issue. It is a very real, important and serious issue which I have dealt with not just as of last weekend, like the hon. member, but is one I have been dealing with for years.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, for Canadians watching this debate I would like to preface my remarks by saying that what we are debating is Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

The bill essentially deals with two issues relating to oceans. First, it deals with part of the oceans we designate as the oceans of Canada. Second, it deals with something called an oceans management strategy. I would like to direct my remarks on the oceans management strategy and some of the aspects that are of concern particularly to fishermen.

I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague opposite who just spoke. It was very interesting to hear the poetry and the talk about ocean ecology and all those good things. I would like to be more practical in this debate and talk about how we make sure that we have fish resources to harvest.

Other speakers have mentioned the enormous value to the Canadian economy of fisheries both on the east and west coasts and our inland fisheries. This is not a resource to toy with. It is not a part of our Canadian workforce that should be treated lightly because this has really a lot of impact for a great many Canadians.

I would suggest that there has been a bit of a misnomer about our oceans management strategy to date; it has been more oceans mismanagement. We see an oceans resource in complete disaster. So far there has been an unprecedented groundfish crisis on the east coast and we are minutes from disaster on the west coast particularly in the Fraser River fisheries.

We also have a population dependent on a resource that can no longer sustain a very large number of Canadian workers. There is a real pressure of numbers in the fisheries that is not going to go away and cannot be supported artificially forever.

We also have a minister who I suggest is not really dealing with these domestic issues. He is busy playing Captain Canada, talking about building his media image internationally. Even when his parliamentary secretary enters this debate it is to talk about the wonderful international image of the minister. That does not put food on the table of the fishermen of this country.

I think everyone would welcome a positive change in the way we are managing the fish resources and our oceans resources because we have a track record in this area that is not very inspiring to say the least. We look at the management strategy that is being put into place as a result of Bill C-98. We are looking for positive change. We are looking for changes to address some of the mismanagement of the past.

What do we see in this bill? We see two things that have not brought any relief, any hope or any positive response from the fishermen of this country. First, we have a government department that will become even more bloated but there are no precise lines of authority or management plan to help this increased government department do a better job of the mandate it has been given to manage the fisheries.

Second, the doors are being opened in this bill for increased fees on fishermen which the fishermen can hardly bear to shoulder. I quote from clause 50 of this Bill C-98 which states: "The minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, fix fees in respect of products, rights and privileges provided under this act". That is the section which has a lot of fishermen quaking in their boots.

The nice name of the oceans management strategy really hides an increased bureaucracy. The stated purpose of this increased bureaucracy is to get all government bodies to co-ordinate the related activities with respect to management and harvesting of the oceans. That is a good objective. It is an objective I think everyone in Canada would support. We certainly have a lot of cases in this country-and my friends from the Bloc often like to talk about this-of where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. There is duplication and interference between different levels of government and different government bodies. That of course leads to a great deal of inefficiency and an enormous unnecessary cost. Pruning that back, streamlining and making it more efficient, downsizing, is what needs to be done. It is of course also what is being done across the board in the private sector. Organizations are flattening, downsizing, becoming more efficient and we have been calling for a long time for government to do the same.

We fail to see how this is going to happen by adding more layers of bureaucracy and more complexity to the workings of the department. There is no process identified in this bill to ensure more effective co-ordination. It is simply stated as a nice goal. A lot of roads are paved with good intentions but we need to see some real specifics in the way we set out our legislation if we hope to accomplish the stated aims.

In fact, there are no penalties or even any other consequences to any of these bodies that are supposedly being co-ordinated for failing to work in concert. We have more bureaucrats, more activity, more process being added, but no power to initiate activities that would get the objectives met or to ensure compliance by all of the bodies that are to be co-ordinated. There is no concrete planned agenda at all.

If this government is serious about the management of oceans, we believe it would give real power to the managing body. Management is only possible when there is some real authority and that is simply not happening. In fact, if government would stop thinking of ways to tinker with the system creating bloated government departments and instead get on with the job of protecting a valuable resource, everyone would be a lot better off.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is already a top heavy organization. Fishermen on both coasts will tell of their frustration in dealing with a department based in Ottawa which does not understand what their needs really are. Passing this bill would not send a positive message to these people who are already very frustrated.

It is now abundantly clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not committed to downsizing his bloated department. He would rather try and slip a new level of bureaucracy into his department under the guise of broad consultation rather than deal with the harsh realities of downsizing.

Canadians want less government and that is a message which must be sent over and over. Government members must get that message: Canadians want less government. They are tired of supporting and wrestling with and trying to deal with a huge and inefficient bureaucracy when they are trying to make a living and trying to live their lives and build their futures.

In Canada there are over 6,000 fisheries officials and they manage 65,000 licences. We have 6,000 officials and 65,000 licences. The department operates with a budget that exceeds three-quarters of a billion dollars and that is just for administrative costs. Clearly, there is room here for a little cost cutting to be taken at the top of this department, a department with over 6,000 officials and a budget of three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Madam Speaker, I am sure everyone will be waiting with bated breath to hear the end of this story after the vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I advise the hon. member that private members' hour is after the vote and that the next time the bill comes before the House she will have 10 minutes remaining.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke at second reading stage of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the amendment negatived.

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Energy Regulations

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 434 which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.

For an entrepreneur in the energy industry, negotiating the maze of government regulations is almost as great a challenge as overcoming the technical and physical problems of a program. Satisfying the demands of a multiplicity of regulatory boards and agencies, often at three levels of government, is like walking on fly paper; no sooner is one bureaucratic condition satisfied than the applicant's feet become glued to another sticky spot.

This is not unique to the energy sector. All phases of Canadian activity are mired in regulations and each successive government seems determined to pass more laws and make more rules. The old adage that the best government is the one that governs least has been all but forgotten. We are well on our way to terminal social and economic constipation.

The passion for filling out forms requiring the approval of platoons of bureaucrats is not new. This destructive waste of time and resources contributed mightily to the downfall of the Hapsburg, Ottoman and Soviet empires and was the leading cause of the collapse of the Manchu dynasty in which generations of China's brightest and best wasted away in an atmosphere of useless paper shuffling; thus the French word chinoiserie.

The curious aspect of energy sector over regulation is that almost everyone, including senior politicians, recognizes the problem. In April 1993 the Conservative government commissioned a review of federal regulations to "identify those that significantly reduce the competitiveness of Canadian industry" or impose needless costs on the consumers.

A report was released in October 1993 just in time for the election and some of the panel's recommendations have actually been acted on. Several sets of redundant regulations have been or are in the process of being revoked. These, however, were purely Natural Resources Canada regulations. It does not address the problem of the overlap of federal and provincial regulations, and regulatory conflict between various government departments is a much more serious matter.

Only the federal Minister of the Environment seems to be oblivious to the problem; witness her unseemly remarks and confrontational attitude during question period earlier this afternoon. This overlap, believe it or not, is most pervasive in her bailiwick in situations in which environmental protection is at stake. There is also overlap in matters affecting worker health and safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.

The multi-tiered environmental permit problem has been recognized by the Minister of Natural Resources. She has stated in an open letter to the Northern Miner that the government is committed to addressing this issue: "The goal is a single window approach".

Those words are music to every Canadian petroleum and natural gas producer and marketer and also to people in the mining, forestry, agricultural and transportation industries.

The Liberals, through their minister, have expressed a policy. Now I would truly like to see them act on it. Then we could stand back and watch the revitalization of our resource based industries.

For a classic example of regulatory overkill, I suggest we look at the Atomic Energy Control Board. Actually, I would rather not look at it since it is one of the few federal entities that continue to grow like a giant fungus in spite of the fact that its workload has been decreasing for a decade. Be that as it may, it is the major player in the regulation of the nuclear industry, all the way from mining to waste disposal.

Unfortunately the AECB is overlapped both provincially and federally. At the extractive level the provincial mining departments make regulations. The provincial environment departments make regulations. The federal environment department makes regulations and throughout the entire nuclear cycle various provincial occupational health and safety divisions make regulations.

When all other hurdles have been cleared there are still municipal zoning laws to contend with. I am aware of one instance in which a proposed uranium refinery facility in Saskatchewan was killed by the local government not on technical grounds but for purely political reasons.

Then we have review panels. They have no authority, no legal standing but they can delay projects for months simply by being in session.

In 1993 a joint federal-provincial environment assessment review board spent several months studying proposals for three uranium mining developments in Saskatchewan. It made three recommendations and the Saskatchewan government cheerfully ignored one of them with the blessing of the federal government. Why did it spend all that time doing the studies? Who knows.

It is time for the various provincial and federal departments to sit down together and develop a single window permitting system for uranium mines. Developers are entitled to know before the first shovel full of dirt is dug if in terms of economic benefits versus the social and environmental costs it makes sense to proceed with a project.

The second major national player in the regulation of the energy industry is the National Energy Board which controls all interprovincial movement of oil, gas and electricity. It also controls international trade in those commodities. Conflict exists to the extent that provincial interests are often contrary to what the National Energy Board considers to be the national interest. Who can ever forget the national energy program?

On the other hand, there is a good example of federal provincial co-operation in the offshore boards which regulate what goes on under the sea. These boards could serve as a pattern and a model for eliminating the problems caused by competing federal and provincial environmental agencies.

To get back to the environmental agencies, they are not energy regulators per se but they have a tremendous impact on the industry. There are instances of projects being environmentally approved at the provincial level only to have further studies and

interminable delays demanded by a federal department. I am sure other hon. members will have something to say about that.

The energy industry needs relief, not so much from taxes as from the ocean of paper it is required to swim through. An industry that accounts for 7 per cent of our gross domestic product and which directly or indirectly provides employment for 620,000 people is entitled to reasonable consideration and rational treatment.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the motion put forward by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.

My colleague has informed the House about steps the government is taking to reduce regulatory overlap and duplication in the Canadian nuclear sector.

I would like to take this opportunity to give the House an overview of the initiative undertaken by the government in other sectors of the energy industry in order to meet these objectives.

Before I do, however, I remind hon. members that the very basis for these efforts is the government's commitment to a market oriented energy policy. We believe the energy industry must have the flexibility to adapt to changing market circumstances if it is to continue to contribute to Canada's economic prosperity. That means keeping government intervention in the marketplace to a minimum.

Nevertheless, there is a need for regulation in the energy industry just as there is a need for regulation in other sectors of the economy. As my colleague noted, the challenge is to achieve a regulatory framework which protects the public good but does not unnecessarily inhibit the industry. Achieving this balance requires the government to be constantly mindful of the impact of its regulatory activities on the industry.

The agency primarily responsible for regulating Canada's oil, gas and electricity sectors in the areas of federal jurisdiction is the National Energy Board, the NEB. The board was established in 1959 under the authority of the National Energy Board Act, and for the past three and half decades it has done an excellent job in meeting the needs of both government and industry in administering a reasonable and balanced regulatory regime.

Under the act the NEB sets tolls and tariffs for oil and gas pipelines and also approves the construction of pipelines and designated power lines under federal jurisdiction. The board also authorizes the export of oil, gas and electricity and the import of gas.

The National Energy Board is an independent quasi-judicial body which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. It is comprised of nine members, all of whom are appointed by governor in council.

Matters relating to tolls and tariffs, minor construction and short term import/export orders are the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. However, decisions requiring certificates of public convenience and necessity and export and import licences must be approved by the governor in council.

The NEB has proven to be an extremely effective regulatory body. In my view the board will be even better positioned to meet industry needs in the future as the result of recent initiatives it has taken to modernize, streamline and simplify its regulatory processes and requirements. These initiatives are in direct response to 13 recommendations the board received in October 1993 from the Minister of Natural Resources advisory panel on regulatory review.

I am pleased to inform the House the board has moved swiftly and effectively to address each of these recommendations. For example, the NEB has revised many of the processes and requirements for filing information with the board with the overall objective of easing the administrative burden on industry. Among other things, the board is implementing an electronic regulatory filing system for all regulatory filings. As well, it has taken industry views into account in revising its guidelines for the filing of information by companies applying for certificates of public convenience and necessity.

The board's guidelines for preparing a social economic impact assessment for pipeline projects have also been revised to reflect new legislative requirements and to avoid overlap and duplication with other statutory requirements.

The National Energy Board has also demonstrated its ability to adapt to change in the natural gas market by revising its rules on how gas can be moved on pipelines. Earlier this year the board decided to end its ban on selling pipeline transportation rights at prices above the regulated toll, which will help ensure the available capacity is allocated in the most efficient manner.

The board also decided against requiring that available pipeline capacity be posted on electronic bulletin boards since this secondary transportation market has been working well without any such regulation.

In August 1994 the National Energy Board issued revised guidelines which will make it easier for pipeline companies, producers, shippers, consumers and governments to resolve tolls and tariff issues through negotiation rather than formal NEB hearings which are costly to all parties.

In another cost saving measure for the industry, the board decided to set the cost of capital for group 1 pipeline companies for multi-year periods rather than on an annual basis. This will reduce the expense associated with annual hearings for each pipeline by reducing the length of the hearings.

The National Energy Board is also endeavouring to reduce overlap and duplication by working more closely with provincial regulatory bodies.

For example, the NEB and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board have signed two memoranda of understanding, the first to implement a mutual aid agreement for pipeline incidents in Alberta and the second to establish a common reserve data base.

Under the first MOU, when an incident occurs on an NEB regulated facility the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board will, at the request of the National Energy Board, provide emergency response assistance. If the incident involves a provincially regulated pipeline the NEB will be available to provide emergency response investigation assistance. The end result will be a faster, more effective response by both boards to pipeline incidents in Alberta.

Under the second MOU the NEB and the AEUB will share geological and reservoir information for natural gas and crude oil pools. The sharing of information will result in a common reserve data base for Alberta. The beneficiaries of this most efficient method of maintaining estimates of reserves will be the oil and gas industry and the taxpaying public.

I could go on and on about the efforts made by the National Energy Board to reduce the overlap and duplication and to streamline the administrative requirements. However, my goal here is only to give the hon. members an overview of the recent measures taken by the Board to improve the regulatory framework for the oil, gas and electricity sector.

I would urge the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia to seek a full accounting of the NEB's regulatory reform initiatives directly from the board. I believe he will be impressed with the progress that has been made to date. The record will clearly indicate that this government not only endorses the objective of reducing the regulatory burden on the energy industry, but it is actively pursuing that objective on a day-to-day basis.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden".

I think the hon. member's motion is particularly relevant at a time when one of the items on the government's parliamentary agenda is Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act, and in fact I hope members of all parties will work together to find an effective way to make regulations flexible and refrain from policies that are counterproductive.

The motion of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia deals indirectly with a set of regulations that are so rigid they often cause more harm than otherwise in the energy sector. The hon. member's motion could also apply to other areas as well and in fact to practically any area of human activity, since almost everything we do is regulated.

This motion also leads us to question the advisability of having so many levels of government, each with their own regulations, federal, provincial and even municipal. All these levels of government have their various departments, each with the authority to veto the other's initiatives, which means that obtaining a single permit may be a very lengthy process. In this respect, the director of a new mining development, the Troilus project north of Chibougamau in Quebec, pointed out in an interview with Radio-Canada that he needed no less than 37 certified permits before he could start his project.

On the basis of his own experience with the Troilus project, he also said in the interview that he realized why Canada now ranked only fifth in the world as a country that was attractive for mining exploration. It was mainly because of its undue regulatory burden. Although he made it clear that he was not in favour of more flexible environmental regulations, he did point out that competition between various levels of government and various departments made the work of developers unnecessarily complex and was not conducive to economic development.

At the federal level, the number of regulations is impressive. It is enough just to flip through the 14,420 pages of the Consolidated Regulations of Canada of 1978 and the 4,277 pages of the Canada Gazette , part II, for 1994 alone.

The regulatory process, which is intended among other things to lighten the legislative process of which it is a part, has had the opposite effect over the years, adding to the number of standards without necessarily improving quality.

There are therefore a growing number of increasingly complex and technical regulations, and this has resulted in a considerably more complicated administrative burden for Canadian taxpayers. It would be appropriate to assess the impact of this situation upon the

competitiveness of Canadian businesses and even upon the Canadian economy as a whole.

I would like to cite one example of a situation in which two legitimate objectives are at cross-purposes in responding to two different safety requirements, the example of an infant crib with a drop side to make it easier for disabled parents to use. Such a crib cannot meet crib safety standards, which require the sides to be fixed, when the side needs to be lowered to ensure safe access for disabled parents. This regulation runs counter to the needs of disabled parents and presents an enormous obstacle for them.

One could readily imagine some mechanism to reconcile these two objectives, if a worthwhile instrument for doing so were created, instead of stupidly allowing the regulations to control the situation.

As the member for the Abitibi region I have often had to intervene in order to help speed up the administrative process for projects held up by the application of outmoded regulations. For example, the Grevet mining project near Quévillon in the Abitibi region had to wait 15 months to obtain environmental approval.

In order to get these approvals, authorizations from the Departments of Environment and Indian Affairs, among others, also had to be obtained, because the area is close to the James Bay reserve and the Cree territory. Here again, we can see that the federal government, by interfering in provincial jurisdictions, is creating overlap that only makes regulations more cumbersome, so that processes needed to administer them are more complex and more confusing.

This is not new, at least for the official opposition, that has spent a lot of its energy trying to make the federal government understand that its policy of centralizing everything too often causes more harm than good.

The oft-requested creation of a single window for permits or any other activity requiring the cooperation of several governments or departments has become more than essential and our economy's viability depends on it.

In the energy sector, the situation is no different. At the national level, a number of major players are involved in the regulatory process and somehow competing with each other. The federal government, through the National Energy Board or Natural Resources Canada, also adopts regulations, thus adding to the competition between federal and provincial environmental agencies.

This undue regulatory burden has a disastrous impact on the energy sector. My colleague from the Reform Party who showed an interest in the vitality of Canada's energy sector and the well-being of his fellow citizens is seeking with his motion to express his concern that regulations are strangling industry and, in turn, all Canadians.

As I too am concerned about the mining industry, I can say that the decline of investments in mining exploration clearly illustrates the disastrous effects of a double, and even triple layer of administration, because the excessive number of regulations is only one of the important factors in the decline of mining investments.

The mining industry is linked to the energy sector because it accounts for close to 13 per cent of the total energy demand of industry in Canada and Quebec, and it is suffering needlessly as a result of this situation. Why does the federal government let this situation, that impacts so negatively on our economy, go on?

Any businessman will tell you that a bad organization makes you lose time and, as you know, time is money, which means that in the end it could have dire consequences for the company. We are not talking about a small business here, but about an industry that accounts for 7 per cent of Canada's and Quebec's GDP or $45 billion each year.

This is far from the single window concept which I talked about earlier and which would allow for the simplification of the administrative process. We know of projects that were approved by the provincial government but rejected by the federal government. Conflicts arise because each level considers itself to be the only one that has the power to regulate.

To conclude on this motion, I would say that we obviously have to rationalize without delay the administrative process and its regulations in the energy sector. Too many agencies, companies and individuals are paying the price of this duplication and these useless conflicts.

The federal government should, in the interest of everyone, simplify its regulations, leave to each level of government its own regulation-making, even if it has to resort to single windows to deliver permits when an act applies to a provincial area of responsibility.

It is a good thing that the rest of Canada has begun to talk about rationalizing the role of each government. In Quebec, we have been asking for that for a long time.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak on my colleague's motion.

The streamlining of regulations has certainly for many years been a popular political topic in Canada. Governments have been talking for years and in spite of that relatively little has happened in streamlining and reducing overlap in regulations between federal and provincial governments.

As far back as 1978, Prime Minister Trudeau entrusted the Economic Council of Canada with the task of reviewing government regulations in certain sectors. Among other things, the study was to focus on the relevance and impact of regulations. The

council proceeded to look at a number of sectors, notably telecommunications and occupational health and safety. This seems to show, as my colleague mentioned, that over-regulation is certainly a problem in many sectors other than the energy sector.

The council generally recommended that routine regulations and agreements be codified and made public at all levels of government. The aim of this recommendation was to ensure a clearer grasp and understanding of the scope of regulations.

In the second recommendation, pertaining to products and development projects, the council recommended that in instances when responsibility for a particular sector was shared between the federal government and the provinces, a single department should be assigned responsibility for co-ordinating the activities of participating departments. Of course that is the single-window approach that the previous speaker mentioned. Businesses would thus waste less time than they do when they have to deal with all the departments of government.

In September 1984 Prime Minister Mulroney announced that he was setting up a ministerial task force to review all federal government programs with a view to making them simpler and more accessible. Nineteen study teams composed of public and private sector individuals were formed and mandated to review 989 programs accounting for expenditures of $92 billion. One of the study teams focused on regulatory programs.

Not specifically mentioned in the program review appended to the report is a list of federal programs considered problematic in terms of provincial relations. Problems identified had to do either with jurisdiction or overlap or with matters of information, policy, et cetera. Of the 134 registered programs identified, 86, or 66 per cent, were categorized as problematic in at least one province or territory, while 27, or 20 per cent, were found to overlap with provinces or territories. The task force observed the highest incidence of overlap in the case of environmental programs.

The study team reviewing regulatory programs concluded among other things that there was evidence of ongoing significant overlap and duplication between the two levels of government. It recommended that initiatives be adopted to improve the regulatory process. Specifically, it recommended that a study of overlap in the environmental sector be conducted. Moreover, the task force called for an immediate review of the overall burden imposed by the various levels of government. It concluded that Canadians were over-regulated and that it was important to cut down the number of regulatory levels.

So members can see that this is certainly not a new subject in Canada for political debate. It has been ongoing for years and years. It is the general consensus, I think, with all parties in Canada that all sectors are over-regulated. As we mentioned, today the energy sector is certainly one sector that is over-regulated.

In the spring of 1986 the government adopted a federal regulatory reform strategy. It called for all new regulations to be subjected to economic and social cost analysis. The public would henceforth be informed and involved in the regulatory process. For one thing, the process would not take so long. Furthermore, the current regulatory process would be streamlined to improve efficiency. These are very familiar terms, which we have heard many times.

One of the 10 guidelines for reform deals directly with the issue that interests us here. In the view of existing regulatory burden and the need to eliminate needless duplication, co-operation with the provinces was deemed to be a government priority.

To prove how serious it was, the government moved in the summer of 1986 to create the ministry of state for privatization and regulatory affairs. Although each department continued to be responsible for its own regulations, the office of privatization and regulatory affairs was put in charge of promoting the government's regulatory objectives.

With respect to program efficiency, considerable progress has been made since the strategy's adoption. For example, the average timeframe for regulatory approval has dropped substantially since the development of this office. According to the office, better inspection and enforcement mechanisms have been developed and overlapping regulations have been eliminated, at least to some degree.

Since 1987 the government has also released an annual federal regulatory plan. This publication gives an overview of forthcoming regulations. In each instance the purpose of the regulation is mentioned, along with the impact it will have.

The federal regulatory plan also includes a regulatory evaluation plan. In 1988 the office published a paper listing all of the regulatory reviews and reforms undertaken by different departments. In all, 77 initiatives were identified. In 1991 the office was disbanded and responsibility for regulatory affairs was assigned to the Treasury Board.

After this general history and overview, we are still left with the same problem in the energy sector as well as in many other sectors. The reality of the 1990s is that we do not want complex and bureaucratic solutions to the problem of over-regulation. We need to adopt a different philosophy. Our primary focus has to be to simplify and eliminate regulations wherever possible. For those that remain we need to share the administrative responsibility with other partners. While quality and service have to remain a primary objective, we expect there will have to be a significant shift in the degree and type of interaction between the federal and provincial governments that create these regulations, regulatory boards that oversee them, and the industry that must comply with them and in some instances be burdened by them.

The best way to examine the effects regulations have on a company is to look at a specific example of what I have been talking about up to this point. The National Energy Board was faced this year with an application by Foothills Pipe Lines Limited to construct the Wild Horse pipeline, which is an interconnecting link within Alberta from the Nova System to the proposed Altamont pipeline at Wild Horse on the Montana border.

The nature of the application and Foothills' approach to the National Energy Board raises fundamental questions with respect to the approval process for future pipeline facility expansion. Foothills' application stretched the limits of conventional National Energy Board facilities approval requirements in several important areas.

Under established approval procedures, a pipeline applicant must demonstrate that the facilities are needed, that there is a reasonable expectation they will be used for a significant portion of their useful life, and that tolls will be paid. The requirements are manifested in the demonstration of five aspects of supporting evidence: adequate supply in Canada to maintain incremental deliveries over time; a market assessment of sustainable demand for incremental gas volume; firm shipper contractual commitments for the new capacity for an extended term; specific contract market commitments to purchase the incremental gas; and specific dedicated supply to service these market commitments. The last two have been subject to some relaxation in other recent applications as long as a binding, firm shipper contract for the new capacity was in place. Where the application represents an expansion to existing facilities, rolled in tolling treatment has almost universally applied.

That is what Foothills was facing in the regulatory process in getting approval for this rather insignificant pipeline extension. What Foothills was seeking was pre-approval and certification to build facilities without demonstrable market support. As an alternative to outright approval, Foothills indicated that it would accept a conditional certificate that would require some further demonstration of shipper contractual commitments prior to construction.

As time is short, I will not go into more detail on that specific proposal. The point is that when the gas market was hot and Foothills wanted to build the extension on the pipeline to service that market the regulatory procedure was so complex and cumbersome that the market in reality was dried up before the regulatory approval system could be put into effect.

Therefore, in effect what we are talking about today is the streamlining of this regulatory process.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).

It being 6.06 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.06 p.m.)