House of Commons Hansard #231 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.

Topics

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Tobin Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

It is called the continental shelf.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

The minister tells me now that it is in there. From what we can determine those two areas are not included. The area specified is the 200-mile nautical limit. If they are in there they should be very carefully specified because those two areas, as he knows, are outside the nautical limit. If the committee purports to amend things in favour of government legislation it should carefully take note and carefully include the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. Let us not make it as nebulous as these things usually are.

Apparently there is a consolidation of 14 programs as a result of the bill, but a bureaucracy still exists in the department and the minister well knows it. For a department to lose so many clients, if fishermen can be considered clients of the department, I am at a loss why there is not a proportionate decrease in staff directly related to that loss. That is not the case. We lose the fishermen from the system but we do not lose the bureaucrats.

By the way, I talked with the deputy minister at one point. He is no longer the deputy minister and that is not a bad thing either, but the results of the discussion are still the same. I asked how many people in Ottawa, for instance, had been directly related to the fishing industries on the east or west coasts. I had difficulty getting that answer too but finally the answer, if we check the record of that committee meeting, was negligible.

If that were the case, the minister would be well advised to look at the potential. If he wants gainful employment for those who have been put out of work and gainful retraining, he should start replacing the employees of DFO with those directly affected by the mismanagement of the department in the first place. It would go a long way to responding to some of their needs rather than sitting at home in their chairs waiting for the fish to come back.

The minister stated that the act planned for the future rather than responded to the crisis of the day. This may be the first time in recent history that any government actually planned for the future rather than responded to the crisis of the day. I only have to refer the House to the moratorium in TAGS, an absolutely disastrous program. If the government wants to plan for the future, it should

start listening to the people who are involved. That we know, from British Columbia's point of view, is really not the case.

It is not a bad idea to merge the coast guard with the DFO. That was done in April. However, I caught the comments of the minister that are not bound in legislation. The minister said that we would cross train and consolidate the coast guard, that we would consolidate offices, duties and so on.

I do not know if the coast guard knows about it yet, but I am sure those offices are now wondering what the government is up to. It talks about planning. It should not make announcements in the House that it is to start a consolidation program, that it will move them here and there. There are people involved in the exercise. The minister would be well advised to get some advice first and plan the exercise rather than make a people kind of announcement in the House.

The minister commented on the operation of the parliamentary committee on fisheries and the job of the chairman. Thus far the government's committee has basically done a tremendous job. It met and put a separatist as vice-chairman who does not really represent any of the exercise. Perhaps it is part of the Quebec border. That is the exercise of the government thus far. The chairman of the committee has a bigger job. He should go back to the minister and ask: "Why don't you plan this exercise a bit better?"

No mention has been made of fees. I am sure the minister knows how contentious this exercise is. Sections 49, 50, 51 and 52 indicate that the minister may fix fees for service. I have trouble with government fee for service exercises when Canadian taxpayers are paying for government service as it is. They will end up paying for a service that is supposed to be provided twice: once through taxes and once through a fee for service. It is typical of governments at all levels today to say that they are providing us with a service but if they provide it they will charge a fee. That is what taxes were supposed to be for.

For the information of the minister, a fee, a licence or a permit is a tax. The people involved in the fishing industry do not see a fee, a licence and a permit as just more dollars out of their pockets. They see it as more taxation and more costs. They wonder what it will be spent on. It goes into general revenue. Do we get it back? For the minister's information I have some quotes from fishing organizations that he would be interested in.

It gets back to the philosophy of the government. It does not understand that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Successive governments over the last 20 years have been overspending, overspending and overspending. What is their answer? Rather than find ways to cut back they go back to people like fishermen and say they need more money off their backs. That is the Liberal way.

What kind of fees are involved? They say the overall average increase in the fees across the board is approximately 400 per cent. I would like to see how the chairman of the committee will get around that when we talk about it. Congratulations to the Liberals; they will ding fishermen across the board 400 per cent in fees. They say the $30 lobster licence will be $310. That ought to please the fellows who are trying to eke out a living.

The government currently gets approximately $13 million from licence fees, and that is going to $63 million. Is there not a way to look at some efficiencies within DFO to get $50 million rather than license or tax fishermen? Is there not a way? Have they looked at that? It is another job for the chairman of the committee that we will be asking about.

When will it happen? The minister says the government will decide on that by the end of September. That is pretty soon. Fishermen can take note that they will get notice of when fees, licences and permits, these taxes, will be increased.

I am surprised on such a big issue that the minister stood for 40 minutes and told us about John Cabot. That was interesting but the people out there are really asking who is getting taxed, how much and when.

What is it for? The minister says they are progressive fees, progressive taxes; that is the larger the catch, the larger the percentage increase. They are based on the ability to pay. That is fair ball, I suppose. They apply to commercial fisheries on both coasts. The government presumes once again that if there is any possible way to tax them it will do it. It does not look at perhaps not spending money here or there.

We only have to look at the minister's own example that he set for his office furnishings, which we complained about in the House. We only have to look at some of his expenditures, like advertising in New York City when he was promoting himself. I wonder where these folks are coming from.

Why do they want to increase fees? Let us see what they say. The Liberals want an additional $50 million on top of the $200 million in current cuts. They say they can get away with cutting $200 million and then go back to the people they will tax and say: "Look, we cut $200 million; you can pay $50 million". Why can they not look for $250 million in cuts? It is there. Starting from the top it is there.

DFO's budget will apparently be decreased to $500 million from $700 million.

I wonder if there is not more. Where is it? We only have to ask the fishermen. They had all kinds of suggestions about where to cut when I sat down with them. The one thing common with the east and west coast fishermen is they are not asked. They get the

fees, the licences, the permit costs and the taxes but they are not asked where the cuts can come from. Does this sound like the Liberal government? You bet it does.

I talked to employees of DFO who said there are two reasons behind these fee increases. They want more money and they want to reduce the number of fishermen. I said: "If those are your reasons do you have any other alternatives? Is there something you can do other than increase taxes to the fishermen?" I suggested two things which I will suggest here. The answer was they did not think of that. There is a priceless answer. That is a pun to the minister.

What is the impact of these fees? The fees must be paid up front with no instalments. There will be a graduated fee structure. If we have landings of $25,000 worth of catch, the fee is approximately 3 per cent. If we have landings of over $100,000 the fee is approximately 5 per cent, and on it goes. It sounds like the tax structure we are working on today. It is similar to the tax structure we are working on today, so it is a tax.

What does the P.E.I. fishermen's association say about it? The money is simply a form of hidden taxation. That is felt right across the country: "It will not even be funnelled back into the fishery but will go into a consolidated revenue fund or general pot that they will blow away". That is the feeling out there.

Can we take money as was done in the case of British Columbia's forestry? Part of the fees from licences and permits goes toward silviculture. If the government has to take money could it not possibly think to put it back into rejuvenating fishing stock?

The government is looking at more fees for service from coast guard services which now comes under DFO, and for scientific investigations. One has to wonder what the methodology is here. This will be another cash cow like most things the government is involved with. It cannot deal with the fact that it is overspending. All it can deal with is it does not have enough revenue, and that is wrong.

There are some alternatives we could provide. DFO should be managed by fishermen and their dependents, the people in the indirect fisheries. Start moving them in, start training them. Get them involved in DFO in Ottawa, on inland waters, on both coasts.

If they get a piece of that administrative action maybe they will influence ministers to help the industry. Right now there is not that interlocking or interfacing. There is the DFO and a number of fishermen, a resource, a tax resource, which is the way they look at it. Therefore why not have the fishermen manage the resource by getting them involved?

If there are problems within the industry many come from UI regulations. Fishermen will tell us that. They understand that. Let us look at UI regulations. We do not have to license the fishing industry again.

There has been much talk about what happens to Newfoundland fishermen and what they do for a future. Many of them suggest the minister might want to look at inshore fishing again on handlining and getting perhaps some of the people in the villages along the shores active again in handlining and reduce the number of larger ships. They talk about that a lot. Whether it can be done, I do not know. Really all they want is to get out, get their lines in and get at it.

If we look at the number of people who could possibly be employed around the villages as opposed to the number of people employed on the larger ships there is a drastic difference. Since fish plants have been shut down on the coast perhaps there could be regional plants. Perhaps the fish caught by handlining could go to regional plants and then to larger plants. That is a possibility but I do not know if it has been looked at.

We are looking at a flat tax system but the tax system has to take into account that there have to be fewer exemptions. Perhaps if the government looked at the tax system and UI system it could come up with better alternatives than to strike larger fees and licences.

The government has to look again at reducing costs. We know the costs are high there and the government knows it. I do not think its mandarins are willing to let it have much more money. I guess the government has to learn to be a little tougher in dealing with the bureaucracy. As the Liberals are listening and whining about what I am saying, there are a lot of senior bureaucrats in that department. There are a lot of expenses. We do get letters outlining where things should be cut. The fishermen tell us and so the minister should look at it.

In the final analysis we have to look at where the Liberals are coming from on bills such as this. Although I compliment the minister on some of the issues within the bill, particularly the conservation areas, I continue to worry about traditional governments. We have thrown out that other party and the country brought in this party. They are traditional parties intent on looking at balancing books by way of taxing more as opposed to cost cutting. They are intent on perpetuating programs like the Conservative program on the moratorium and the TAGS program which was Liberal.

We are looking at a government truly looking backwards to a future. If anything I sincerely wish this committee well because we will be spending a lot of time on this committee. We will be asking a lot of questions of this minister. We sincerely hope he keeps the interests of the fishermen in mind, not the interests of the bureaucrats in Ottawa.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

We now enter the next stage of debate on second reading of Bill C-98. Members will have up to 20 minutes for their interventions, subject to 10 minutes of questions and comments.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Fernand Robichaud LiberalSecretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food

It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Canada Oceans Act. To address immediately the remarks made by my colleague from the Reform Party, I can assure you that both the minister and the department have the best interests of fishermen and the fisheries community at heart. They have always had and will always do.

This legislation is divided in three very straighforward parts. The first part definess Canada's maritime zones. The second part provides legislative authority to foster a new, wider, forward-looking and more inclusive strategy for Canada's oceans and their resources.

Part III of the bill authorizes a modern departmental mandate-including the merger of the Canadians Coast Guard with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-as a vital means of carrying through on the Government of Canada's ocean responsibilities.

Each of the three parts of the bill contains three key structural elements. In each part, there are regulatory measures, enforcement measures and operational measures.

And, the legislation has three key objectives. First, the Canada Oceans Act will stake out Canada's clear legal jurisdiction over our oceans. Second, the Canada Oceans Act will put in place the legal framework required to support a new oceans management strategy based on the principles of sustainable development and integrated management. Finally, this act will consolidate and clarify federal responsabilities for managing Canada's oceans.

There are three very simple themes that run throughout the legislation: cooperation, coordination and, of course, broad-based community input. And at the very centre of this bill is the determination of the federal government to lead in a positive, throughtful direction in promoting the economic and environmental potential of the waters in our three great ocean areas-the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic.

Quite simply, this bill seeks to seize the present in order to build upon the achievements of yesterday so that we are prepared for the possibilities of tomorrow.

This summer, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology issued its major report on Canada's future entitled "Healthy, Wealthy and Wise". The Board wrote that "Sustainability and stewardship must become that watchwords for economic development."

The Board called for integrated strategies that "encourage the environmentally responsible exploitation of resources, consistent with long-term sustainability". That is the very point made by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its United Nations Report eight years ago. That is the very point made at the famous Rio Summit. That is the point made by Canada in our fisheries disputes and negotiations.

That is also the point made in the election Red Book, when we stated that "Integrating economic with environmental goals fits in the Liberal tradition of social investment as sound economic policy".

Of course, Canada's oceans belong to all Canadians and it is up to all Canadians to pull as one to integrate the economic and environmental viability of our oceans. For many, many years, we have come to see the need for a comprehensive and integrated oceans policy. With the introduction of new ocean jurisdiction for Canada, that need becomes greater than ever. And the bill before us will indeed dramatically extend Canada's ocean jurisdiction and rights.

This bill expands Canadian control over nearly five million square kilometres of ocean under Canadian jurisdiction. That's an incredible amount of ocean offering Canadians fantastic potential for new economic development. It is also an incredible amount of responsibility requiring us to get our act together on ocean policy.

The bill clearly defines Canada's maritime zones and Canada's rights and jurisdiction in each of those zones. It incorporates Canada's full jurisdiction over our internal waters and over the territorial sea stretching twelve nautical miles out from our Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The bill incorporates Canada's jurisdiction over the continental shelf. I would like to point out that the hon. member of the Reform Party who spoke earlier indicated that, as far as he could see, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks did not seem to be included. This is where Canada's jurisdiction over this zone is asserted by affirming our jurisdiction over the continental shelf.

The bill states the right of Canadians to control exploration and exploitation of minerals and resources of the continental shelf's seabed and in its subsoil. It also confirms full rights for Canada over the shelf's living organisms belonging to sedentary species. This legislation also incorporates Canada's jurisdiction over its fishing zones in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic including the Bay of Fundy, near my riding, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, also near my riding, and Queen Charlotte Sound. We first declared those zones to be ours 18 years ago-and they will always be part of Canada's ocean rights.

The Canada Oceans Act will also give Canada a new contiguous zone. In this zone, Canadian immigration laws, customs laws, sanitary laws and fiscal laws will apply. Most importantly of all, the Canada Oceans Act will declare an exclusive economic zone for Canada stretching our 200 nautical miles from our coastline. To understand how significant that is, members of Parliament need only remember that Canada has the world's longest coastline.

In this new exclusive economic zone, Canada will have full rights over the exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the resources of the ocean waters, the ocean floor and the ocean subsoil. Canadians will have jurisdiction over marine research and the preservation and protection of the marine environment.

Once this bill becomes law, as I fully hope it will, we will have established in Canadian law that Canada has grown in size and jurisdiction. Canadians will become responsible for more than the care of our ten provinces and two territories. We will become the custodians of a large part of the world's ocean treasures.

Canadians have fought with diligence to establish the principle of global fisheries conservation. We have taken some licks along the way but, thanks to the leadership of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, we have come out a winner. We now have the duty to turn our same principles into action over all the oceans resources that are coming into Canadian jurisdiction.

Naturally, we will need strong leadership by the federal government. We will need strong leadership from coastal provinces and municipalities. We will need complete involvement of all sectors of ocean stakeholders.

The problem and the possibilities are complex, so much so that Canadians must work together to solve them. The interrelationships of ocean species is so complex that we need to pull together to understand them. The current and potential uses of our oceans are so numerous that we need to guarantee that we work together to make the most of them.

Our individual and collective actions as human beings have important impacts upon the well-being and potential prosperity of the ocean environment. That is why the Canada Oceans Act calls for an ocean strategy founded on the twin principles of sustainable development and integrated management.

The concept of sustainable development is a not a new one but it meets a need Canadians understand very well. Canadians know that we need an oceans policy that embraces sustainable development as one of its guiding principles. The concept of integrated management of ocean resources is a new one but it too meets a need that Canadians understand well.

We know what it means when government polices are confusing or contradictory. We know the opportunities that are lost when the private sector and governments and labour and local communities fail to pursue shared goals. Canadians know that we need an oceans policy that embraces integrated management as one of its guiding principles.

It is time to start coordinating, consolidating and harmonizing our oceans strategy. It is time to develop a common focus and plan of action to promote the quality, abundance and diversity of ocean resources. It is time to set some goals for ourselves and to set some limits on ourselves.

Global environmental concerns should lead us to act. The oceans' economic potential obliges us to act. Canada's new ocean jurisdiction compels us to act. The bill before Parliament gives us the legislative tools to act.

The Canada Oceans Act will establish a clearly identifiable lead federal department accountable for oceans management. The legislation extends Canada's environmental laws to our new ocean areas. The bill will permit the establishment of marine protected areas and the development of marine environmental quality guidelines. These are essential tools if we are to adopt the principles of integrated management and sustainable development in our stewardship of Canada's ocean waters.

The Canada Oceans Act will give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans formal authority to enter into new partnership agreements in order to pursue Canada's oceans management strategy. That is an essential tool if we are to face the problems and find the solutions together. That is an essential tool if we are to set a national strategy with full local input from coastal provinces and citizens. That is an essential tool if we are to respect the specific priorities of those who live along the coasts of our three vastly different oceans.

This legislation follows through on the government's budgetary promise to "strengthen Canada's capabilities and effectiveness in oceans policy-making". This legislation will set the stage for developing an oceans management strategy that conserves and protects the ocean environment and the ecosystems and resources that our oceans contain.

The Bill demonstrates that the federal government will play its full role in managing ocean resources on an economically viable and technologically sustainable basis.

And the legislation demonstrates that the federal government wants more than a one person show. The bill permits an upsurge in the sharing of scientific, environmental and management information relating to our oceans. The bill before Parliament emphasizes the need for an integrated federal approach to ocean management, a

need recognized in part through the merger of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in April.

The new structure will provide stronger coordination of policy development and stronger, streamlined operations. The coast guard will form the primary civilian marine component of the federal government.

By the way, on the subject of oceans management, on all of the important matters required to build a comprehensive oceans management strategy, the federal government is determined to show a spirit of partnership. Marine safety. Oceans understanding and knowledge. Marine Resources Management. Environmental Management. Economic Development. International Leadership. They are all components of an ocean strategy based on an integrated management approach. They are all components of a strategy based on a sustainable development approach. They are all part of the strategy that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans invites all Canadians to help create.

The first action required to build a future of maritime greatness for Canada is to declare jurisdiction over our ocean areas. Through this legislation, that is what Parliament will do.

The second action required to buil a future of maritime greatness for Canada is to show strong federal leadership in establishing the framework for a new oceans management strategy. Through this legislation, that is what Parliament will do.

The third action required to build a future of maritime greatness for Canada is for all of us, from every sector and every corner of the country, to create a new oceans management strategy together. Through this legislation, that is what Canadians will be in a position to do.

I urge all members of the house of Commons to join in speedy passage of the Canada Oceans Act so that Canadians may join in the urgent task of making Canada an even greater ocean nation.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the secretary of state and hon. member for Beauséjour. I have several questions but I do not know where to start. I will ask two at the same time and, time permitting, I will ask another one later on.

Now for his first comment, and I must say I find it hard to follow the federal government's thinking today. They say they needed this legislation to make the Coast Guard part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, although this was already done last spring in the finance minister's February budget. What is going on? Is the department trying to rectify an illegal situation? What was or was not illegal before? I think we could draw quite a few conclusions in that case.

I remember saying in a speech to the Minister of Fisheries at the time that he should consolidate the fleets owned by the Government of Canada. I mentioned the Coast Guard. Their ships could have been included in the same fleet with the Fisheries and Oceans vessels. But there are other fleets as well, so why the piecemeal approach?

Once again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. As far as the ships of the Department of the Environment are concerned, why did they not look at the kind of work involved, since in this bill, for all practical purposes, the minister will have the authority to set environmental standards for oceans?

What does the Department of the Environment intend to do? I was told there were a number of ships, so what are they going to do with them? Why did they not consider integrating all this?

My point is there is still room for improving the bill. The Department of National Defence has ships as well. Why did the government not consider some kind of plan or strategy in which these ships could be used, and I am thinking of the quite spectacular operations we saw last spring?

In any case, I am glad that was done. However, why does the government not take advantage of this experience to consider a system for integrating these ships?

That is one point I wanted to make. As for part III of the bill, I already mentioned two departments that were not consulted. What is going on? I wish the secretary of state would tell us. Where are they headed and do they really intend to merge? Good, I see some messages coming. Do they really intend to merge or is this just a lot of smoke and mirrors?

I repeat, the Coast Guard fleet has been under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries since the spring budget. I would like to put a question to the secretary of state, who may be able to remove this perception I have that the bill is improvised, that the government is going a little too fast and has not finished its consultations, starting with the parliamentarians in their own party.

I would like to draw the secretary of state's attention back to clause 54. In formulating this bill, they are already including conditional amendments in clause 54, which provides: "If Bill C-84, introduced during-the thirty-fifth Parliament-is assented to, then-". Should I read the whole thing? We are told that this bill will have consequences, and given that, attention will have to be paid to this and to that.

Bill C-98 involves regulations, and must be able to accommodate other existing regulations and legislation. But we already have C-84, which is in the process of changing it. They could not even agree among themselves to wait for C-84 to be drafted.

In connection with this, I would like to mention another doubt. I will read you subclause 54(3): "Any fee fixed under this Act shall stand permanently referred to a committee described in section 25 of the Regulations Act to be scrutinized as if it were a regulation".

I would like to direct a question to the secretary of state to at least start getting rid of our perception that the thing is improvised. Can he tell us who will form the committee? Does he already have the answers this morning? There are a whole bunch of amendments, but I would at least like to know whether he has had time to read the bill to the end and ask these questions and whether he got an answer from an official somewhere. We did not.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Fernand Robichaud Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gaspé for all these questions he would like to see answered like any self-respecting opposition member or critic. I think that the minister answered some of his questions in his speech, but he also urged members, especially those on the standing committee on fisheries, to which this bill will be referred, to feel free to ask questions and search for answers.

I am happy to see that the hon. member sees the advisability of merging the Fisheries and Oceans fleet with that of the coast guard. He also asked why the Canadian forces fleet was not included and he referred to last spring's turbot war. The hon. member must know that the three fleets he mentioned were all called upon at the time and worked together in a joint operation to make foreign fleets, and one in particular, realize that Canada is serious about conservation.

I think the hon. member will agree with me that, by pooling our resources, we succeeded in getting our message across and convincing the rest of the world, and all fishing nations, that Canada is serious about conserving ocean resources and focusing attention on the problem.

In this regard, I must say that if we succeeded in conveying to the world that the minister acted decisively, it is because the minister represented in an effective way the aspirations of those who want Canada to focus on conservation. All the political parties in this House and across Canada gave us the support we needed to do so.

I take this opportunity to thank all those who supported this effort. If we are talking about this bill respecting the oceans of Canada, it is to give the minister of fisheries the authority he needs to watch over ocean resources by putting in place policies and programs aimed at protecting these resources for all of Canada.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-98. This morning, the hon. member for Gaspé explained at length why we will oppose this legislation. I want to elaborate on the environmental aspects of the bill, that is the environment minister's responsibilities under the proposed legislation.

This legislation gives exceptional powers to Fisheries and Oceans, but these powers already belong to the Department of the Environment. This is yet another example of overlap between two departments and it is a real concern to see how there is no true agreement or harmonization at the federal level. I cannot help but wonder why the minister did not tell environment critics about this bill? Why is it that we were not informed of that legislation? How come we did not even hear about it in committee?

When a bill has such an impact on a department like the environment department, we have to be able to look at it and make sure that it does not create more overlap. Let us not forget that the Department of the Environment lost one third of its personnel and one third of its budget following the government's drastic cuts. Consequently, this whole situation is a real source of concern.

The bill seems to establish a sectoral environment department: the department of coastal environment. If each department did that, we would end up with an environment transport department, an environment industry department, and all the government's ministers would have powers regarding environmental protection and preservation.

If this is the way this government wants to go, then we should abolish the environment department, because it will become useless in Parliament.

We hear a lot of nice rhetoric, speeches and commitments about the environment, but not much is actually done to protect it. There is still a lot of work to do. This is a vital issue; our future and that of our children is at stake. When I see how the government treats this issue so lightly, seemingly attaching little importance to it, I become very concerned about the future of Canada, Quebec and in fact the whole world.

When it comes to the environment, the government's tendency is to centralize powers in Ottawa for the sake of national interest. This is also a real concern, considering that environmental problems are of a global nature.

Let me read you two clauses which are rather preoccupying. Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill deal with the implementation of a strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.

This part does not apply to the lakes and rivers. In large part, management of those ecosystems is a provincial responsibility.

We on this side of the House have one other concern, that this act could allow the department to again interfere in provincial jurisdictions, particularly with respect to the environment. It puts provincial ministers on an equal footing with any other interested persons or bodies. It is very important for us to know what an interested person or body is.

This means that an individual might come to express his personal views. Will importance really be attached to that individual? God only knows. The environmental groups will be able to have their say and provincial ministers of the environment will be considered on the same footing as any individual coming to make a representation. This makes absolutely no sense. There is constant talk of partnership, harmonization, sustainable development, protecting our ecosystem, but I do not consider that to be a partnership. I would call it a source of conflict.

A situation of conflict will be created with the provinces, perhaps even with the municipalities. With this bill the interference could reach as far as the municipal level. In other words, if the minister decides he is not satisfied with a municipality's waste water treatment system whose effluents go into a river or a lake, which in turn release their waters into the ocean, he can say: "Change all your waste water treatment systems, because they are not up to our standards and affect the fish in our oceans."

I think the government is getting into jurisdictions that are already very much protected and work very well. I fail to see why the minister should have additional authority over areas we have been managing for years and that have been managed by the municipalities which are already supervised by the provinces. We do not need federal supervision on top of that. It is very disturbing that this bill gives no indication that the municipalities will be consulted as well. The government says it has the right to assume that authority.

We believe it is necessary to clearly identify an oceans management strategy-this is extremely important-but this strategy should be effective and not a source of conflict. The provinces should be made part of the decision-making process leading up to the formulation of the strategy. The minister should go back to the drawing board and table a strategy that specifies the responsibilities of all partners involved, without creating further overlap between federal and provincial departments. We have said this repeatedly here in the House, and I do not know whether anyone is listening, but it tends to be forgotten. Not only forgotten but ignored.

I would like to say a few words about something that concerns the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment and the conflict situation we had this summer. If they cannot avoid a conflict between departments at the federal level, imagine what it will be like when we get to the provinces and the municipalities. This makes no sense at all. The government could never enforce a decent piece of legislation. There is no way.

This summer we had the experience with the Irving Whale . The environment minister made a decision that we did not support, which was extremely risky and kept the people of the Magdalen Islands on edge all summer, and I must say I felt like that myself. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now in charge of the case. Is it because the minister did not do her job? I wonder.

And now we have a similar situation. In the case of the Irving Whale last summer, work was suspended because the courts made that decision. The minister had announced publicly and to the media that she would decide Monday morning whether she would stop the work or not.

The same day, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was also telling the media that, definitely, no decision would be made; that the decision would be made on Friday and the ship would be raised on Friday. Is this not departmental conflict? Who is not doing their job?

We do not need situations like this, and, moreover, when they involve danger, as in the case of the Irving Whale , we cannot make decisions just so we can be in the limelight or in the news or so we look good. We have to make logical decisions. We have to make environmental decisions, even if the cost is greater, because the risks of environmental dangers are high. We know very well that PCBs are getting into the ocean and that they will be around for hundreds and hundreds of years to come. We are destroying our marine ecosystem. We have to stop this sort of thing in areas that are as important as the environment.

Throughout the entire process, the minister is under no legal obligation to agree with other federal or provincial departments. In most cases, he may, if he wishes, ask for help from other authorities. It is both unacceptable and inconceivable that the minister does not have to work with the officials of the Department of the Environment, in particular, and with other departments, in general. There must not be any dictatorship. You cannot arrive in a department and declare that you are going to run the whole show. This sort of thing has to be done with harmony, but up to now I have seen no sign of harmonization in this House. I have never seen any. So imagine what it will be like when we run into conflict.

With positions being cut and some restraint to be exercised in public spending, the minister is creating duplication right within the federal government. What is more, the new powers of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusive, because they are not taking away from powers already in the hands of other ministers and stakeholders. So we may well see competition and overlap in connection with the standards and fines to be applied, priorities and the approaches taken.

Last year, on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we worked for a year revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. While reviewing this law, we realized on several occasions that there were many problems and that it overlapped a lot with the Fisheries Act.

How come the minister, who I think is not yet aware of this fact otherwise she would have answered us or she would have told us in committee what she knew about this report, has not read the report and made a decision yet? How do you explain the fact that the minister of fisheries has now come up with a bill after the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development worked on this issue for a year and gave the minister constructive suggestions regarding the environment? Why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans doing her job? I do not understand; this is not clear at all in my head.

I am asking the Minister of the Environment to keep party politics out of this department, which is, in my opinion, the most important department here in this Parliament. This department should not be partisan. It should always focus on the ecosystem, on sustainable development. It should always make decisions for the future of our children, of Canada, of Quebec, and not partisan decisions.

I would like to conclude my remarks by mentioning that a sovereign Quebec would give priority to the environment. If you ask Quebecers what importance they give the environment, they will give it top priority after health because they are aware that, if the environment is not protected, we will have no future. We will have no drinking water.

Sure, we will always have problems but we must give priority to environmental issues. In this regard, the minister simply did not do her homework. She should go back and do her homework. I would like to see Bill C-98 referred to the environment committee. You would see that there would be many proposed amendments to this bill.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, Canada's motto is a mari usque ad mare , from sea to sea. It may be that Bloc members are upset because the title of the bill before us is an Act respecting ``the'' oceans of Canada. Had we used the singular, Bloc members might be happier today.

Canada is bordered by the Pacific ocean, which gives us access to all sorts of foreign markets. It is important that Parliament pass the act respecting "the" oceans as quickly as possible. No, that legislation should certainly not be postponed to a later date.

As you know, some people always want to postpone everything. In the last few days, we even heard some say that the referendum should be postponed. The fact is that the referendum date must not be postponed, and nor should the review of the Oceans Act. We must put an end to uncertainty and we must do so in the best interests of Canada. As the hon. member for Laurentides just mentioned, we must make the best possible decisions for the future of both Canada and Quebec. This is why we are here.

Federal-provincial considerations are a major component of this bill. Earlier, the member for Laurentides said that the proposed partnership agreements could be a source of conflict. It goes without saying that if you want to separate, partnership agreements are indeed very difficult to implement and can lead to conflict. However, if we want to get along, co-operate and reach agreements, anything is possible and partnership is definitely the best option for Canada today.

I want to ask a question to the member for Laurentides, regarding federal-provincial relations. Does the hon. member know that the act allows for the implementation of guidelines on the quality of the marine environment, as well as-and I want to overlook her comments on the sources of conflict-the reaching of partnership agreements with other interested persons or groups? Is the hon. member for Laurentides aware of the importance of federal-provincial relations in that regard?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, once again I have a flagrant example of the member for Brome-Missisquoi's using environmental issues for reasons of petty partisan politics. Nothing surprising about that; that is his usual way of doing things.

Yes, there will be a referendum in Quebec, and it has nothing at all to do with this bill. We are talking about a statute. Here in this House today the Minister also has made a highly patriotic speech, and when such questions are asked, do not try to tell me that the problem of an unworkable bill will be solved. Not in the least.

I have not spoken of the referendum, I have spoken of a bill that we feel is unworkable. It will not work between departments and it will cause conflicts between federal departments. Imagine what will happen when it gets down to the provincial level. What we have here is a bill that needs to be redone. It has been badly drafted.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given himself all sorts of powers not even within his jurisdiction. This should be handled by Environment.

I strongly believe that the member for Brome-Missisquoi should study the environment a little more. It could not do any harm. Second, this is not a matter for partisan politics but truly a matter in which there are problems, one that is unclear, that has been dumped on the House and is unfamiliar to us, this Bill C-98. I reiterate my demand that it be studied in the Department of the Environment, so that we can find out where it is headed. Let the Minister of the Environment do her homework for once and let her

ensure that decisions affecting the Department of the Environment are made in conjunction with her department. When true environmental decisions are involved, let it be the Minister of the Environment who makes those decisions, and not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is Environment that possesses the environmental expertise, not Fisheries and Oceans.

This is totally senseless. Why dump one's duties onto someone else? This is totally senseless. We are prepared, our consciousness is raised, very much so I believe, we are prepared to address this matter, to look at what can be done to ensure that it heads in the right direction, but not this way.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the concerns of the hon. member.

Some of the points she has made about the environment are very important. I have made these points in the past about how important the environment is, how important it is for our future generations.

I know she is concerned about the environment. I know that when she has an opportunity to really have a close look at this bill she will understand that it is very important for the environment. I know she is concerned about the duties of the Minister of the Environment. I can assure her that the Minister of the Environment would be willing to bring forward new ideas if she thought this in any way would impede upon her work as the Minister of the Environment.

This bill will in fact create more opportunities for our coastal communities. Contrary to what the hon. member says, this will have no effect on provincial rights. In fact this approach is an integrated approach. The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology recommended this. It looked at it. We have to heed some of those recommendations. As we are often told by members on the opposite side, we as the government have to listen to some of the advisory boards we have. Should we reject what the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology said when it said we need an integrated approach, we need a better approach? I know she will want to support the idea of putting in protected marine areas.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I wonder if I might ask the parliamentary secretary for clarification. Following the intervention of the hon. member for Laurentides we were on questions and comments and not on debate. I wonder if he could clarify if he is engaging in debate or question and comment.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC

I am going to proceed to my question, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has noted how important the environment is. I agree with her that the fundamentals of the bill talk about sustainable environment, about protected marine areas and about managing our ecosystem. Are they not important for the environment, as she has said?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC

Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is running out. The secretary of state for fisheries and oceans said there was no likelihood of interference with provincial jurisdictions. But I have here a short text that says that the main source of contamination in coastal areas is not disposal at sea but urban waste water, urban and agricultural run-off, industrial waste, urban waste, uncontrolled dumping and erosion.

This bill will open the door wide to interference in jurisdictions that are provincial and municipal as well.

If the government starts creating conflict situations-and I refer not only to Quebec, but to provinces like New Brunswick and British Columbia that are already concerned, want to protect their coastal areas and their fisheries and say they want more powers in this area-if the government starts interfering again, the result will be chaos. The environment does not need that.

I think anyone who, like the parliamentary secretary, is concerned about the environment should realize that we do not need further concentration of powers in Ottawa but more powers for the provinces which are closer to their ecosystems than the federal government and could play a far more important role than they do at the present time by assuming all authority over this area.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to support Bill C-98, the Canadian Oceans Act. The provisions contained in the legislation will be of tremendous benefit to all Canadians. Most especially, they will bring new opportunity to those Canadians who live and work in our coastal regions. It is this economic opportunity I wish to focus on today.

Canada is such a large country that it is easy to overlook the fact that Canada is one of the world's great maritime nations. Our shores are bordered by three oceans: the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Pacific. Our coastline is the longest in the world. We have the world's largest archipelago, the world's longest inland waterway, and the world's second-largest continental shelf.

All this is about to get bigger in terms of doing a lot more out to the 200-mile limit. Under the terms of the 1992 United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which came into force in November last year, Canada can turn its 200-mile fishing zone into a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. This gives us the right to extend Canadian economic environmental jurisdiction over almost

five million square kilometres of coastal and ocean territory. The result is oceans of opportunity: opportunity to better protect our oceans' fragile resources, opportunity to strengthen our historic fisheries, and opportunity to channel creative energy towards a new ocean industry that can enhance the economic potential of our coastal communities.

This is an opportunity our government recognized as essential for our future, and it is an opportunity our government intends to act upon to secure jobs and economic growth for all Canadians.

For centuries the wealth of our oceans has sustained hundreds of communities, large and small, all along our Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic coasts. In each region an entire culture and identity has been built around the exploitation of our ocean resources and maritime economy, especially around the three pillars of fishing, transportation, and tourism. However, in recent years these traditional activities have been supplemented by an increasing variety of new ocean-related industries, each with its own success story.

For instance, with our world demand for protein from fish on the rise, aquaculture has become one of the fastest growing industries in Canada. With successful operations on both our east and west coasts, aquaculture revenues reached $280 million in 1993.

At the same time, firms such as Geo-Resources, International Submarine Engineering, and others are leading the way in developing and applying high technology to oceans management and exploration. In Atlantic, Pacific, and central Canada, firms specializing in remote sensing, computerized geographic imaging, cold water technology, offshore and coastal engineering, and new sectors are creating thriving new enterprises capable of competing in the changing global marketplace.

Furthermore, we are now realizing the promise of ocean energy exploration and development. After years of patience and investment, the Cohasset oil field to the southeast of Nova Scotia came onstream in June 1992. The giant Hibernia oil field off the coast of Newfoundland is scheduled to go into commercial production in 1997. Just this year, there have been new discoveries in Newfoundland itself.

These are all positive developments. What is more, they come not a moment too soon. Canadians cannot escape the fact that our oceans are under increasing stress from such factors as overfishing, marine and land based sources of pollution, and longer term phenomena such as global warming.

The collapse of our Atlantic groundfish industry has left some 40,000 Canadians out of work. While lobster, crab, and scallop fisheries are prospering, the Pacific salmon fishery is requiring closer and more careful management than ever.

Clearly it is time to protect our marine environment and further diversify our marine economies. Our government has recognized both of these needs and we are taking action. We have acted in the international arena to strengthen the protection of straddling and highly migratory stocks. We have taken strong international action against overfishing and we are strictly enforcing fishing moratoriums on commercial fish stocks to give these resources a chance to rebuild.

These are just first steps. We need to back these up with an integrated and comprehensive approach to ocean management that emphasizes environmental conservation as its first priority. We need to accelerate and develop our ocean industry strategies so that our coastal economies will be able to diversify and prosper in the new global economy.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, it goes without saying that you will have the floor immediately following question period.

It being 2 p.m., we will go to statements by members.

Municipal GovernmentStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Len Hopkins Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians we have always prided ourselves on having three levels of government: federal, provincial and territorial, and municipal. In my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of many members of the House, municipal governments have not been given the national recognition they deserve. In Canada we are very fortunate to live in a nation where municipal governments work toward providing decent standards of every day life.

Today we welcome the 36 reeves and the staff of Renfrew county council. They held the first ever county council meeting on Parliament Hill. I invited them here to hold one of their regular sessions as a gesture of appreciation for their work and to remind all Canadian citizens of the importance of their individual municipal governments.

Let us move ahead with a united Canada and a continued dedication by all levels of government.

Intergovernmental AffairsStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said yesterday in Sherbrooke: "After October 30, we will offer Quebec various arrangements in many areas". What kind of arrangements is he referring to? What miraculous offer would the federal government, which stubbornly refused to go along with the unanimous consensus among Quebec stakeholders on the manpower training issue, extend to us? Why did this government so abruptly shut down the military college in Saint-Jean last year, if Ottawa is prepared to offer a compromise solution after October 30?

Is the ax that will fall on the unemployed after October 30 included in these arrangements? The people of Quebec want to know why the Prime Minister of Canada wants to "clobber them" before announcing his proposed compromises. It seems obvious to me that this government is confusing compromise with revenge.

Un Conference On WomenStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Sharon Hayes Reform Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, equality, democracy and peace were the themes of the fourth UN conference on women recently held in Beijing. Just what was advanced by our Canadian delegation? Not equality but gender equality that put feminist issues above all other considerations in government policy and direction and called for a social revolution based on a new definition of gender, affirmative action and sexual and reproductive rights.

Not equality, but a blatant refusal to speak against the most basic human rights abuses. That our minister would declare no problem after counting an equal number of heads in a preschool is an insult to the sensibilities of Canadians.

Not democracy, as our delegation put forward a token representation of MPs, senators and academics. Instead Canadians were represented by bureaucrats with no accountability for policies that had no public input. Not peace, but division with over 500 actions to be taken by the government. This agenda will drive a wedge between women and men, families, religion and custom.

Canada's position at this conference was nothing but a sham.

Government ContractsStatements By Members

September 26th, 1995 / 1:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian van line owners are very distressed about a new tendering process that has been put forward by the Department of National Defence which will radically change how government contracts out moving services in Canada.

The present tendering system ensures each local or regional moving company shares in the winning contracts by matching the lowest bid, thus everyone gets a piece of the pie. The new proposed tendering process will allow one bidder to take all, with tenders open to anyone in any country, thus creating a monopoly.

If allowed to proceed, this new moving tendering process could destroy much of Canada's moving industry. Atlantic Canada will lose approximately 2,500 jobs.

Atlantic Canada cannot afford to lose any more. I ask the government to stop this proposed new tendering process before jobs are lost and an industry is destroyed.

General Motors PlaceStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anna Terrana Liberal Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to announce the opening of General Motors Place, in my riding of Vancouver East.

Last week international recording superstar Bryan Adams, a Vancouverite, opened GM Place. Home of the Vancouver Canucks and the Vancouver Grizzlies, General Motors Place is the most highly advanced sports and entertainment complex in North America.

General Motors Place is truly the eighth wonder of the world, with excellent viewing, luxurious seating for 20,000 and state of the art sound. GM Place has one of three diamond vision scoreboards in North America. With four giant video boards, it offers the highest resolution colour technology in the world.

General Motors Place has already created 250 jobs and will soon create another 1,000 full and part time jobs. GM Place was completed in 20 months and immediately became one of Vancouver's largest and most important buildings.

The people of Vancouver are pleased to be able to count on entrepreneurs like Arthur Griffiths, John Mcaw and Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment, who gave them a great building like GM Place.

Congratulations to all.

Bill C-68Statements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, when constituents write to members of the House they do not write without meaning. They write with passion, with reason and frequently with pain.

Recently a woman from a Toronto women's centre wrote to an hon. member of the other place to voice her support for Bill C-68. In her letter she pointed out gun related violence adds $70 million a year to Canada's health care bill.

That person responded by saying the firearms industry is worth more than $1 billion per year to the Canadian economy and that the GST alone ought to cover the health care costs.

At what level do we value a bullet over an arm or a leg? At what level do we value a trigger over a breath? At what level do we value a barrel of a gun over the life of a daughter or a son?

Bill C-68 is not based on economic gain. It is based on the value of life, the value of Canadians and the value of a country which is not rooted in a culture of violence or a culture of guns.

Un Conference On WomenStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, the fourth world conference on women has recently concluded with the ratification of a solid agenda for the equality and advancement of women within the United Nations.

In a great spirit of co-operation between 180 nations, a general agreement on the platform for action was reached in an effort to achieve social, political and economic equality for women around the world.

This agreement includes the protection of women from violence in the home and in society, women's rights as human rights, freedom of expression, equal rights to female children, control over our health, alleviation of poverty and improvements to education.

Canada was instrumental in the negotiation process and in bringing about the ratification of a progressive platform for action.

I commend the leadership of the secretary of state responsible for the status of women and I applaud the work and contributions of all the women from across Canada who represented our country so successfully.

Referendum CampaignStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, these past few days, Quebecers have had a foretaste of the arrogant and contemptuous tone the federalist side intends to use throughout the referendum campaign. When federalist spokespersons are not calling politicians elected by the people of Quebec traitors, they believe they have been vested with the mission of crushing once and for all any resistance from Quebec.

The No side uses a mean and arrogant tone that reveals their desire to crush and clobber their opponents. They think that, if they are defeated, the claims, ideas and hopes they represent will disappear with them.

As Lise Bissonnette wrote this morning in Le Devoir , the real strategist of the No side, the Prime Minister, has always wanted to put an end to Quebec's claims, hence the War Measures Act, the fight against Bill 101, the 1982 Constitution, the opposition to even the slightest demands of Quebec in the Meech Lake Accord and, now, the refusal to make any offer to Quebec. For the Prime Minister, even moderate nationalism, as practised by Robert Bourassa, Claude Ryan and even Daniel Johnson, is to be knocked down and crushed.

Gun ControlStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, on August 24 the Saskatchewan Chiefs of Police Association reported that 100 per cent of the chiefs of police in that province are opposed to the planned gun registry. On August 22, I released the results of a survey showing that 91 per cent of RCMP officers in Saskatchewan are also opposed to the registration system. Last week a similar survey in Alberta showed that 85 per cent of RCMP officers opposed it.

With such overwhelming opposition from police chiefs and police on the street how can the justice minister still claim he is bringing in the firearm registration system because police are requesting it?

Between December 1994 and July 1995 Environics reported that support for a law requiring all firearms to be registered had dropped from 90 per cent to just 60 per cent. Public opinion polls show support for Bill C-68 dropping like a spent bullet. By the time the Senate is done reviewing it support will be below 50 per cent. How far does support for his bogus bill have to drop before the justice-

Gun ControlStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.