Debates of Sept. 26th, 1995

Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

They cannot make it in the United States either.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

My hon. colleague mentions they cannot make it in the United States where MMT is already banned. However, still they enter into the fray and say MMT must be banned.

The article continues: "Not much else is happening within the environment department apart from downsizing, leaving the MMT ban as the high point of Ms. Copps' reign as minister". This is it. We are seeing the high point of the environmental agenda for 1995. This is as good as it gets. We cannot do the Irving Whale . We cannot do anything of substance so we will get on the MMT bandwagon.

The conclusion of the article states MMT might be approved in the United States later this year. My hon. colleague from Athabasca mentioned it is now 70 per cent likely that this will occur. The article reads: "Ms. Copps' ban could become a major embarrassment. It will be even more of an embarrassment if she goes down in history as the environment minister who introduced legislation that increased ground level ozone layers".

What is happening here? What is the motivation here? I walked to work this morning with a member from the government side. I mentioned that in opposition certain members seem to rise to a level of rhetorical flights of fancy, kind of a high octane, wild spree. However when they get on the government side they become a tremendous disappointment. They do not seem to have a handle on their portfolio. They do not seem to take initiatives. They do not seem to have the gumption to step forward and be bold in their initiatives. Near as I can tell that is what has happened.

We have had nothing of substance from the environment minister. The few things she has ventured into she has blundered into rather than gone through them on a scientific basis. She seems to be intent on somehow raising her profile, which has been pitifully low. If we waited six months our arguments would be proved out. If not, she could reintroduce it at that time.

I certainly concur with this motion and ask that the government wait six months so we can have a proper scientific study.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for moving the motion to suspend this legislation for six months.

It would be a rather smart move on the government's part to put this bill on the side and allow an independent tester to see if MMT is really hazardous to these onboard diagnostic systems in 1996 automobiles. So far there is no conclusive evidence or data that MMT ruins the idiot lights on the dashboards of cars.

We have debated the bill for some time now. I think the bill was first debated on June 19, 1995. I have heard all the discussion from both sides of the House and we still come to the same conclusion. It is not clear that MMT is hazardous to our health, our air or automobiles.

In the debate last week the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated: "The product in question has been known to have effects which are offensive to the health of people". The member presents the broken ideology of the entire Liberal Party: make a statement, substantiated or not, so long as it scares people into thinking it is right. In this case the member was making an inaccurate statement. I guess he has not read his own government's reports and is simply shooting from the hip.

Canadians have a right to hear the truth and have government pronouncements backed up by real data. In the December 6, 1994 Health Canada report "Risk Assessment for the Combustive Products of MMT", all analysis indicate the combustive products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell cannot dispute a study of his own government. What the member does not realize is that if MMT were so hazardous to the health of Canadians his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, could have easily added it to the schedule under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. She cannot and so she has gone through the back door only to find a few snags along the way. These snags are raising questions from some within her own party and yet she refuses to listen.

The Minister of Natural Resources has strong reservations which the environment minister is ignoring. Why? The Minister of the Environment is being pressured by auto manufacturers who have told her that if the product is not banned maybe they will close some plants and maybe lay off some workers. Instead of listening to reason, the minister went ahead and proceeded with the bill

banning the trade of this substance so it would not be uneconomical to use in Canada.

There seems to be considerable concern about what type of replacement for MMT will adequately address the increase in NOx emissions. We know ethanol will not reduce NOx very much. We know MTBE is a very expensive alternative, especially for the refineries.

Another major concern I have heard from those who have an interest in the legislation concerns the main rationale for the bill. What is it? The minister has told us the MVMA has evidence to prove MMT causes failures in its onboard diagnostic systems. However, it has not elected to make that research public in order for third party independent groups to evaluate it.

The minister has stood in the House on several occasions and listed every car manufacturer under the sun and said they have all done studies which prove without a doubt that MMT is hazardous to OBDs. Several members of the Reform Party have asked her for those studies but she refuses to table them in the House.

The minister knows these studies do not exist and she carries on as if they do. What a shame the country has an environment minister who is perhaps full of steam or vapour.

I understand General Motors is currently conducting a testing program to evaluate the effects of MMT on OBD systems. Why is GM initiating a test again when the minister claims it has already done a conclusive test? Clearly there are some inconsistencies. It is time the minister set the record straight.

On several occasions the Minister of the Environment has gone on that the United States has banned MMT since 1978 and that Canada is simply following suit. In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency did not approve MMT because of its view that it might affect the health of Americans. However, the EPA's research was reviewed by the U.S. court of appeals and based on the findings the EPA was instructed to grant the manufacturers of MMT a waiver which will allow the reintroduction of MMT into the American market.

The minister might have egg on her face if she goes through with the bill at this time while a reversal is being made in the United States. At that time will the minister want to conduct further studies in Canada? She may even ask for an independent test to be done. We have been asking for that. This would not be the first time the minister has completed a 180 degree turnabout.

This past summer off the coast of P.E.I. the government had plans to raise the Irving Whale oil barge, sunk for over two decades. Despite the presence of the PCBs on board the vessel the minister went ahead. I questioned the minister in the House on that one and she reassured Canadians that all appropriate testing had been done and that the Canadian Coast Guard was more than prepared to make it a safe lift. The lift did not occur due to bad weather and was therefore scratched for this year. As a result there was a court that was convinced there had been inadequate study of the considerations of the PCB factor. The result was an injunction against the action of raising the barge. We have now discovered that the minister wants to undergo further testing on the presence of PCBs on board the Irving Whale .

I am discussing a pattern of the minister, ministerial responsibility, accountability. First she tells Canadians that everything is a go and there is no hazard at all. Then she says they must do more testing. The minister does not seem to be able to make up her mind. The same is going to happen if the United States lifts the ban on MMT later this year. Will the minister organize independent testing then? Perhaps she will be forced to.

The minister has a chance to save face and vote in favour of the motion that was moved. If she waits for six months she will have the opportunity to see what the U.S. courts will instruct. However, if Bill C-94 passes and the U.S. courts reverse the decision forbidding MMT to be sold again, the minister will have to bring forward another bill that would reverse Bill C-94. This would not only be an added cost to the taxpayer but it would also be a travesty of our parliamentary system.

Does the Minister of the Environment want to really make the taxpayers dig into their pocketbooks just because she is pressured by her political supporters? What about this pressure? The MVMA threatened that if the government does not ban MMT it will void the warranties. In a copy of the fuel section of the owner's manual of for example the 1996 Buick Regal, it bears no mention of a lack of warranty coverage.

General Motors certainly knows how to disclaim warranty responsibility since the 1996 owner's manual contains a disclaimer regarding the use of methanol in the vehicle. The manual goes on to state that the service light on the instrument panel may turn on with the use of certain fuels, not in Canada and the United States, but elsewhere because of a lack of grade of refining. If this occurs the owner should simply contact the retailer for service. What it means is they would want to clean the sensor. This certainly does not disclaim warranty responsibility so those threats that were mentioned in this House do not bear fruit.

If the auto industry has not carried through on its threat to void warranties in instances where MMT is used in gasoline, then why is the government trying to rush this legislation through the House? This bill has been political from the outset. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do what is best for the country and our environment and not what is best politically. The minister is becoming Canada's best non-environmental minister and this in itself is hazardous to the health of Canadians.

We should reflect on the gamesmanship and the deal making related to this bill. It is becoming another instance where the government's political concerns in its own mistaken view have taken precedence over what is good for the country. This bill has nothing to do with helping the environment. In fact, it is said that the result is equivalent to adding thousands of cars immediately to the exhaust load of the air if this bill is passed. It is not good for Canada that we rush into banning trade in a commodity which could very shortly be used in the United States.

I was sitting here listening to the member for Peterborough who claims that the banning of MMT will save jobs. The MVMA threatened the environment minister to ban MMT or else workers would be laid off. The minister has denied that the MVMA threatened her with this. Now the member across the way has admitted that jobs might be lost, or at least that was the threat anyway and he is peddling this as an argument. We now have an admission that contradicts the minister.

I say this is all scare tactics and puffery in the absence of scientific evidence. What seems the most appropriate course in this instance is to use our motion, the six month hoist, so that we will have sufficient time to review all the scientific evidence and make a fair and considered evaluation of the rationale for Bill C-94.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5 p.m. this afternoon, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Oceans Act

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the second reading debate of the oceans act. We on this side of the House believe that with the introduction of this legislation today we are coming to the successful conclusion of a long and at times dramatic chapter in Canada's maritime history. With this legislation we are at the beginning of a new and even more vital chapter in that history.

The oceans act will define for Canada-and for many Canadians this will come as a surprise-for the first time in legislation, an exclusive economic zone covering almost five million square kilometres of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. With the passage of the oceans act, Canada will effectively increase the area over which we in Parliament have jurisdiction by nearly one-half, as the area covered by Canadian law will increase quite dramatically.

Today Canada has the world's largest coastline measuring nearly 244,000 kilometres. Much of it of course is formed by islands in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans, as I have said. The Great Lakes coastlines add another 9,500 kilometres.

With the passage of this bill we should think of Canada and the area over which it has jurisdiction as not just encompassing the prairies, not just encompassing the coastline of the great province of British Columbia, our north and northern territories, east and west, the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and of course Atlantic Canada including Newfoundland. We need to think as well about that tremendous area covered by Canada's three oceans and notwithstanding recent problems, the tremendous wealth represented by both the living and non-living resources of the oceans.

As Canadians we have worked diligently over many years to stake our claim and to establish our rights to control our ocean areas. With this bill that struggle which has been undertaken by successive generations of Canadians and by successive governments of every political stripe is finally coming to an end.

The oceans act expands our notion of Canada as a country. The oceans management strategy increases the priority that we place as a society upon the wise development of our ocean waters. The bill before Parliament will put in place the means for the government to exercise Canada's new ocean responsibilities.

The oceans act will give our country the framework for building a new oceans management strategy. Canadians will have to work very hard together to ensure that we achieve the economic opportunities while at the same time sustaining the environment and the living resources of our oceans. Over the years but in particular in the last two years since the election of this government, we have successfully asserted our rights. Now we have to assume our obligations.

Canada's ocean heritage stretches back to the very opening up of our nation. The oceans enabled our ancestors, explorers and pioneers to establish the basis of modern Canada. The roots of Canada lie in aboriginal peoples finding their sustenance in the Arctic ice and waters and the waters off both coasts and the courageous crossings over the Atlantic Ocean by John Cabot in 1497, nearly 500 years ago.

Coming first to the teeming waters off the new found land Cabot encountered not silver, gold, oil, minerals or other kinds of resources that captured his imagination. Rather he encountered teeming waters full of groundfish, a multiplicity of species, all of which gave rise to the drive to colonize, to capture the new found land, the new continent.

Of course Cabot was followed by Cartier in 1534 and Champlain in 1603, together building the new land. For generation upon generation immigrants came to Canada, wave literally upon wave, building this country. With the oceans act today we salute the historic voyages of Cabot, Cartier and Champlain. We continue with confidence their work and their vision when they founded this new land.

Canada's commerce was founded on ocean trading. Ocean transport, communications, fishing, tourism and recreation have helped forge our national identity. The oceans are as much a part of Canada's soul, how we see ourselves, how we define ourselves, as are the Rockies, the prairies and the Canadian shield.

Canadians have always cared deeply and passionately about our oceans. For the past few decades that passion has been directed toward securing international recognition of Canada's jurisdiction over those waters and their resources. Canadians have been of one voice in pushing for strong international binding agreement on ocean management rules. We have been of one mind as a nation when we have had to be in taking direct measures and yes, sometimes bold measures, sometimes unprecedented and unilateral measures to assert jurisdiction to protect our ocean resources and the marine environment upon which they depend.

In 1958 Canada took a leadership position at the first United Nations conference on the oceans. Since 1967, our centennial year, Canadians have spearheaded discussions which led after many years to a UN convention on the law of the sea.

Of course Canada again was in the forefront over the last several years at the UN convention on highly migratory species and straddling stocks which concluded last August 4 in New York with a new binding convention. Members of this House from all parties participated in that process. Members of this House from all parties worked together united in building and protecting those ocean resources, not only for this generation, not only for Canadians but for citizens of the world.

The kind of influence that we in Canada, a middle power, exercised was only possible because we were able to go to the United Nations and speak with one united voice. We were able to speak with a vision that was greater than the concerns as measured or identified by our own backyards.

That is why we were successful. That is why Canadians in every province today, without exception, can take pride in the work successive governments have done and in the successes we have achieved by working together.

Over the years we have sometimes been confronted with challenges to our jurisdiction and challenges to our determination. Members may recall that in 1969 the U.S. owned Manhattan sailed through Canada's Northwest Passage without prior approval from Canada. There was a tremendous public response. That is the polite way of putting it. That response led to speedy passage of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

I recall the minister of the day who had the responsibility of shepherding that act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, was none other than the current Prime Minister of Canada. It was an act by which Canada extended out to 100 miles its jurisdiction, its responsibility, and made clear its authority to manage the important and fragile Arctic waters. It was the present Prime Minister who presented that bill to Parliament. It was a bill that was supported by members on every side of the House.

In 1970 Canada declared a 12-mile nautical territorial sea. On January 1, 1977 we declared a 200-nautical mile fishing zone. I am pleased to note that it was the minister of foreign affairs of the day who had a very large hand in seeing Canada make progress in this regard, the hon. Don Jamieson, member of Parliament for then Burin-St. George's in Newfoundland. He was, I will not say assisted, in full partnership with the current Governor General of Canada, the Hon. Romeo Leblanc, who was then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. These two gentlemen stood side by side and with the co-operation of all the members of the House and Canadians everywhere claimed Canada's 200-mile fishing zone.

I should note that it was only last year that members of this place in every party of Parliament-the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois together with the Liberal Party-gave unprecedented and speedy full passage within two sitting days in both Chambers to Bill C-29, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

It was that legislation which enabled Canada to take action to protect important fish stocks on the high seas that straddle Canada's 200-mile limit. It was clear that the national interest was at stake. When the needs and the interests of those who live in coastal Canada beyond the reaches of most of us, beyond the experience of most of us, beyond the direct knowledge of most of us, are confronted with the notion that straddling stocks which sustained hundreds of communities for 500 years were being decimated, and we were concerned with flag of convenience vessels, Parliament was able to respond. It was able to rise to the challenge and Canada, because its focus was clear, because its cause was just and because its sense of nationhood was strong, was able to respond. We passed Bill C-29 and we literally moved the flag of convenience vessels off our continental shelf. We protected those resources for Canadians and for the world.

The oceans act is the final major piece of legislation to make All these efforts over so many years by Canada and by Canadians complete and worth while. The act will formally establish Canada's jurisdiction as a coastal state over its ocean areas and over our resources.

The legislation before Parliament is completely compatible with the law of the sea convention and with new global rules on the management of ocean resources and the marine environment.

This bill defines our national maritime zones as consisting of Canada's internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and Canada's continental shelf.

The legislation incorporates all relevant existing law that Canada has, covering our full rights and jurisdiction over internal waters; our fishing zones off the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance; and our rights with respect to the continental shelf. Canada has rights to living organisms belonging to sedentary species in or on the shelf and jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of minerals and non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil.

Last summer, under the provisions of the law of the sea, Canada claimed jurisdiction to manage Icelandic scallops that reside beyond the 200-mile zone and not within it. Some American fishing vessels decided to fish those scallops. Canada asserted clearly, strongly and unequivocally our right under the appropriate sections of the law of the sea to manage those species. Under the appropriate provisions of the law of the sea sedentary species which extend on the continental shelf are to be managed by the coastal state.

Such a claim has never been made anywhere else in the world before. We made it last summer. It led to a period of disagreement with our good neighbour and friend, the United States. At one point some direct action was taken to stop fishing activity. However some months later there was a recognition by the United States of Canada's jurisdiction over Icelandic scallop, even those scallop residing in waters beyond our own 200-mile limit but on our continental shelf. That was last summer.

This summer we staked a claim to control distant water snow crab on the high seas, beyond our 200-mile limit. No country challenged that claim this year.

For all these questions, the oceans act is a consolidation of current Canadian law. What is so crucial in the bill is the declaration of Canadian jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone. Most Canadians will not be familiar with these technical terms, but many Canadians will have heard the phrases 12-mile zone and 200-mile zone.

Canada's territorial sea extends from our coastline out to 12 nautical miles. In the territorial sea Canada has full jurisdiction to ocean waters, to the seabed beneath those water and to the airspace above. This is existing law.

The contiguous zone will extend an additional 12 nautical miles from the outer edge of the territorial sea. In this zone Canada will have the power to enforce our fiscal immigration, sanitary and customs laws. The exclusive economic zone, which we are declaring and prescribing for the first time in legislation today, will absorb the 200-mile fishing zone and cover all economic activity in the ocean area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline. In this zone Canada will have jurisdiction for exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing all the living and non-living resources of the waters, seabed and subsoil.

Canada's jurisdiction in this zone will cover economic activity and will cover marine scientific research, protection and preservation of the marine environment and artificial islands, installations and all structures. The act will grant Canada powers that go well beyond the powers our country has asserted in the past. It puts in place a clear definition of jurisdiction fully supported by existing global agreements.

Canadians should rightfully feel proud and satisfied this day has come. Canadians from every corner of the country and, as I have said, from every political persuasion, from every party and every walk of life, have at one time or another stood together for decade after decade to make this declaration of Canada's oceans jurisdiction a reality.

For all the excellent co-operation that went into establishing oceans jurisdiction, the truth is that Canada's policies for actual management of our ocean areas over the years have been piecemeal, fragmented and scattered on occasion. The same spirit of partnership, co-ordination, co-operation and innovation that enabled Canada to gain authority over ocean resources must now be used to manage the same resources.

The oceans act sets out a basic legislative framework to support a new Canadian oceans management strategy. The act provides the building blocks for integrated management and sustainable development of Canada's ocean resources. The act outlines a new ecosystems based approach to marine resource management. It provides a common focus for federal responsibilities and consolidates federal programs and authorities from as many as 14 different departments under the jurisdiction and administration of one department. It endows Canadians with legislative tools to start working on oceans management holistically rather than sectorally.

The need for sustainable development of resources was made crystal clear in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development chaired by Norway's current prime minister, Prime Minister Brundtland.

That same year, in 1987, the previous government, the Conservative government of the day, committed itself to the introduction of an oceans act. Unfortunately that commitment was not translated into action and no legislation was introduced.

The government is acting. Last year the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology in Canada called for an oceans act equipped to address the needs of ocean frontier development for the present and, more important, for the future. The advisory board called Canada's ocean management policies ad hoc and at times haphazard. The board called for Canada to develop a proactive oceans policy that plans for the future rather than responds to the crisis of the day.

As the present Prime Minister said at that time, "far-sighted, prudent management of our oceans will provide us with a powerful tool for long term regional development from coast to coast in Canada".

In November 1994 I released a document setting out the potential elements of an ocean management strategy for Canada. The government then sought advice all across the country, from St. John's to Vancouver, from Inuvik to Quebec City. Certain things emerged early and were clear. The federal government does have a leadership role to play in oceans policy. There should be one federal department taking the lead in developing new strategy. People want to be involved locally in providing solutions to regional priorities. There is a need to sustain resources and to diversify ocean industries.

All the advice from provinces, municipalities, coastal residents, fishermen, business, labour, environmentalists and scientists was heard loud and clear. The bill now sets out the elements of an oceans policy. However all Canadians must be involved in developing specific mechanisms, planning and management structures, and the guidelines and standards required to bring about sustainable use of oceans and their resources.

In recognition of the need for an integrated approach to oceans management, the government announced the merger of the Canadian Coast Guard with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which came into effect on April 1, 1995. The new organization will provide for a more co-ordinated approach to policy development and a strengthened operational focus. The new organization will comprise the principal civilian marine operational component of the Government of Canada. It is now constructed and consolidated into one of the largest marine fleets anywhere in the world today. As a consequence, we are able to be more cost effective, more cost efficient, we are able to ensure high national standards from coast to coast and be efficient in the provision of services.

There are new and increasing challenges for boating safety, navigation, infrastructure, and under sea exploration. The Canadian Coast Guard provides, in conjunction with the Department of National Defence, the marine component of the federal search and rescue program, marine aids to navigation, icebreaking services, vessel traffic services, safety communications and the dissemination of information regarding marine weather, ice, and changes to navigational aids.

The coast guard brings much in the addition of programs to the department of fisheries, programs that ensure the safety of human life at sea, the safe and economical movement of ships, and the protection of our marine environment. It makes sense to include these programs with the federal minister responsible for oceans and the protection of the fishery.

Bringing together these two fleets and bringing together these two teams, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard, also gives us the ability to multi-task ships from both fleets and consolidate them and cross train them to ensure that people who heretofore were doing primarily coast guard duties are also available for enforcement duties on the fisheries side, and vice versa. It also ensures that the helicopters that were flying resupply missions to coast guard stations, to navigational aids, and to coast guard lights are also available for carrying out enforcement activity on behalf of the enforcement branch of DFO.

We will consolidate regional offices, regional directors general, regional strategic locations into one combined, enlarged, and improved location to find efficiency but at the same time sustain a high level of services, which were heretofore divided between two

marine based departments. It is a common sense approach to dealing with the problem of the deficit that the government wants to undertake, not the hack and slash and burn advocated by some others, who believe that deficit reduction in itself, with no regard to the importance of providing basic services to Canadians, ought to be the goal of governing in the 1990s.

The Canada oceans act will give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the legal authority to draw together all of Canada's ocean stakeholders to develop a strategy, as I said, based on sustainable development and integrated management. The act provides the authority to develop the actual mechanisms to implement new strategies. It gives the minister the ability to enter into new partnership arrangements in order to ensure that the oceans management strategy meets real regional needs and fulfils real regional aspirations.

Every Canadian, I suspect without exception, is well aware of the extraordinary environmental stress placed upon our oceans. We all know too well and some of us too painfully about resource depletion, habitat degradation, and marine pollution. We know that if we destroy the ocean environment we cannot meet the social and economic goals of coastal Canadians.

This act therefore provides the authority to create for the first time protected marine areas in order to safeguard ocean biodiversity and to safeguard endangered species. For the first time we have set out a legislative framework to declare certain of our ocean areas protected marine areas.

While it is too early to say that the government has made a decision or I as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have made a decision with respect to protected marine areas, I am much interested in the possibility of declaring protected zones as a means of ensuring conservation of endangered species. In other words, it is a management tool. If we want to take the precautionary approach in fisheries management, one way to do that is to set aside certain nursery zones, spawning areas, and to hold the areas to be off limits to any fishing activity to ensure that even as we conduct fisheries and even as we harvest what appear to be healthy stocks we give ourselves a measure of insurance by setting aside certain zones. The government will explore that and will seek advice from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the weeks and months ahead.

The act gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the ability to carry out scientific marine research in support of the new strategy. I cannot overemphasize that this act is about building new partnerships among Canadians. That is what we will be seeking with all of the stakeholders in the oceans community and the scientific community in the weeks and months ahead. Indeed, that is what we are seeking in referring this bill now to the standing committee: advice, comment, questions, and yes, criticism where appropriate. We want the strongest possible bill that can be provided.

I am counting on the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, who have a long and distinguished record, both the current committee and its predecessors, for being the conscience and the voice of the oceans and of the living resources of the oceans, to bring forward a bill that is stronger than the one I put before the House today. I am confident that Chairman MacDonald will do just that.

The bill signals renewed federal leadership by consolidating under one authority the lead responsibility for management of oceans. It signals the federal government's commitment to a comprehensive and co-operative approach to oceans policy. It signals the need for shared information, shared planning, shared management. It signals that Canada and Canadians are prepared to act in making the most of our assets.

The act is the last step toward formal jurisdiction over Canada's oceans territory, but it is the first step-

I will conclude momentarily, Mr. Speaker. I can see you are edging up on your feet with excitement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

You have approximately eight minutes to speak. I would ask that when you refer to members of the House you refer to them by their riding name rather than by their surnames.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of that rule. It was my desire to reflect the full responsibility and authority of the hon. member for Dartmouth in Hansard when it is recorded for purposes of householder mailing to refer to him by name. The Speaker of course would be unfamiliar with such considerations.

We all know that the model of Canada is from sea to sea. The Canada oceans act recognizes that Canadians from one end of the country to the other, in every region and in every province, are owners of our seas. Together Canadians from every part of the country have unbelievable opportunities to gain and to keep sustenance and wealth and pleasure from our oceans. Together Canadians from every part of Canada, from sea to sea to sea, hold those oceans in trust for the future. The Canada oceans act is one key move to exercise that trust that has been bestowed upon us with pride and with care.

In coastal Canada for the last number of years we have suffered tremendously from economic loss, economic dislocation, real human suffering. We can find it in every part of coastal Canada. We can certainly find it along the coastline of Newfoundland, where 300 communities have been displaced from the traditional way of life because of the groundfish failure, where 30,000 people find themselves not hauling up their boats and repairing their gear but are contemplating the end of another year when they have been absent from the sea.

We can find it in Nova Scotia, in particular the groundfish failure in northern Nova Scotia but also along the south shore as well. We can find it in P.E.I., less so in New Brunswick, certainly in the province of Quebec along the north shore, in the Gaspé and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where people have suffered real hardship.

We can find a sense of fear and concern on the coast of British Columbia, a concern that the groundfish failures of the Atlantic not be repeated in the west. There are conflicts between stakeholders about who has access to resources, who ought to have access to resources, and what gear types are most resource friendly. These are ongoing discussions and difficult ones between stakeholders.

Whatever our backgrounds, whatever our political stripe, whatever our ideology, the one thing we all must know in this place-and notwithstanding the public perception that we never agree, we have demonstrated it in the past in this place-is that we understand the tremendous importance and value of the oceans heritage. We can and we must. I call on colleagues again to work together to expand and protect and ensure that oceans heritage.

As I am fond of frequently saying, as I think it is a wonderful piece of advice for all of us, may we be guided by the words of the Haida people, who say that we do not inherit the land or the sea from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Admittedly, it has been a while, Mr. Speaker, since we had the opportunity to debate a fisheries bill in this House. I can remember the House having to debate such legislation very soon after Parliament reconvened in 1993, even though we started in 1994 and had been elected in 1993. This morning, I would like to say from the outset that this is a sad day for myself, as a parliamentarian, for two reasons.

First, contrary to what had been the case with the two previous bills presented by the Liberal government, this time, we did not have the chance to familiarize ourselves with the legislation and prepare to provide proper explanations to our constituents. Let me explain.

This bill was introduced for first reading approximately three months ago, on June 14. During all that time, I tried to know more about the bill. I also spoke with the chairman of the fisheries committee, the hon. member for Dartmouth. I hope he can be recognized later, but the fact of the matter is that we do not have all the information. We asked senior officials of the department for information. We made all kinds of inquiries, had several briefing sessions, but never got the answers we were looking for. These could have been included in a precis, the purpose of which, and I will refer to my notes so that I do not mislead anyone, is to identify the scope of each clause of a bill. My point is that the fisheries department, and hopefully not the minister himself, did not make the task any easier for us parliamentarians.

Bill C-98 covers many other existing acts of Parliament. This is why I wanted to know the origin of each of these acts and see how they complement each other. I also wanted to be able to measure the scope of each of the clauses. I that sense, it is a sad day for me.

The other reason why it is a sad day has to do with the fact that we often ask questions in this House but seldom get answers. This is the first time, since the last meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria last fall, that the department has given us an indication of where it is headed. From what I understand, since the department's officials did not provide us with a precis, this new bill provides that the provinces will be consulted like any other legal person interested in the issue. Already, this is something that I have trouble with. Quebec attended that conference on fisheries management, but so did British Columbia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Some of these provinces had stated their needs, as well as their willingness to share with Ottawa the responsibility for fisheries management.

However, this morning, which is the first opportunity for the provinces to give an idea of where they are headed, the whole issue is downplayed. I do not oppose regional meetings and decentralization, but the importance of the provinces should not be overlooked. Moreover, there is no indication of any hierarchy in terms of the consultations and that also makes me sad.

The House is a place where we can express our views. I want to take this opportunity to say that even though some provinces may be prepared to give more power to Ottawa-and I cannot keep these provinces from doing so-we should take into consideration those provinces which are willing to play an active role in the management of fisheries. However, the bill does not appear to do that.

This was my introduction. I will now discuss the content of the legislation for the benefit of the members who did not have time to read it, as well as for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and that of the public watching us on television. The bill contains three parts, as the minister pointed out, but I will summarize them a little faster.

The first part seeks to recognize, in the law of the land, Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. There is a reference to Canada's role in the drafting of the Convention on the law of the sea, which came into effect in 1982. It is now 1995. They have taken 13 years. Now they are asking us to take less than three months to understand it all, to assimilate it all, while refusing to give us the

texts setting out the scope of the bill. This concerns Part I of the bill.

Part II deals with defining the legislative framework necessary for establishing a national oceans management strategy. I will say no more about defining the legislative framework just now, but will come back to it later. Part III addresses clarification of federal responsibilities with respect to oceans management.

I would like to touch upon these three points briefly. I have attempted to take notes of what the minister said, thinking this would help me in constructing my own address as well. But let me start by commenting on how the minister has been able to use this bill to do a great deal of flag waving. He is entitled to do so, except that in my opinion Part I of the bill which gave him such a chance to wax patriotic could, according to what I hear from some public servants, have been handled by the governor in council alone, in other words the cabinet, with ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Or, to put it more clearly, there was no need to bother the House, no need of a statute for it to be adopted.

And that from my understanding of his words is where he has placed the most emphasis in his speech. So you will understand my amazement.

Part II concerns the legislative framework. What is the framework he presents? My initial conclusion is that what is being addressed here is facilitating implementation of this integrated oceans management.

Reference is made to facilitating contacts between federal ministers and other concerned parties. Does it take a statute of the Parliament in Ottawa to encourage federal ministers to talk to each other? Perhaps encouraging ministers to communicate with each other ought to have been put into the Constitution right at the start. An act to encourage communication. Again, Mr. Speaker, pardon my amazement.

A little further on I do see how this legislative framework operates, but it still strikes me as poorly defined. Poorly defined in that the federal responsibilities with respect to oceans management as they are set out still strike me as fuzzy, but the relationships between the ministers also strike me as fuzzy, very very fuzzy.

At the briefing sessions I was told that as many as 14 departments could be involved. Upon reading the bill, we see four or five departments referred to by name. The Department of Foreign Affairs will be responsible for approving the zones. Oddly enough, when the bill refers to sustainable management and the quality of the environment, we see that the minister will be able to set standards. However, unlike certain cases when the Attorney General of Canada is asked to issue a certificate, the minister would not be required to seek the permission of the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of the Environment. However, that is a matter on which the hon. member for Laurentides will expand later on.

As far as I am concerned, I find it rather confusing, and I have the impression it will take more than one bill. The Prime Minister will have to attend quite a few of these meetings to be sure that all ministers are present and are willing to take part in the sessions the fisheries minister will have to set up to implement his management strategy.

Imagine how the bureaucrats and the ministers will react when they have to do it all over again together. I think the sequence is all wrong. I said earlier there were three parts to this bill. They could have set up the first part with cabinet. As for part two, the management strategy, they could have provided a better framework. As well, before second reading they could have asked us to work on the bill in the fisheries committee. It is really too bad that such a poor job was done, according to some bureaucrats and some members opposite, Liberal members. We will not name them because solidarity bids me to respect their silence. They will speak for themselves. However, the confusion this morning could have been avoided.

We could have avoided the sniping that went on earlier, and we could have avoided the partisan remarks. In any case, I will try to be objective to the very end, but I have a feeling that some members have already been given notes for their speeches and will have to read what the party asks them to say, not what they feel like saying or have already said. In clear terms, from what I understand, the minister is not proposing a specific strategy, but merely a duplication of powers.

The minister could have tabled a specific strategy that recognized the respective roles of other federal ministers and the provinces. Once approved, the strategy could have been supported by a bill. There was nothing to prevent the minister, at that point, from calling a meeting with his federal and provincial colleagues to define the strategy. But no, the minister preferred to give himself new powers and, as I said earlier, to put his colleague, the environment minister, before a fait accompli and leave the provinces out of the debate altogether.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois co-operated with the government at the beginning of its mandate on Bill C-29, the legislation to protect straddling stocks. I think that in this case we showed our good faith, we showed we were not influenced by partisan considerations nor by our cherished goal.

[An hon. member]

Separation.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Some call it that, but I have always said sovereignty. When you say in Bill C-98 that its purpose is to strengthen-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I may remind the House that comments should be made through the Chair, not directly from member to member across the House.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, minor disturbances occur from time to time, but as I was saying-I have lost the gist- I was saying that one of Canada's prime objectives in connection with Bill C-98 is to reaffirm its sovereignty over its coastal waters.

One of my colleagues whispered to me that one project dear to my heart was separation. How is it that, when Canadians are talking about affirming their identity, they talk about sovereignty and, when Quebecers talk about wanting to be sovereign, Canadians call it separation?

Nowhere have I seen reference by international journalists or in the international press to Canada's wanting to separate from the rest of the world with the announcement of Bill C-98. It just wants to assert its sovereignty.

I hope my little digression will help some people to understand and to use the proper terminology in the future.

I would also like to add, before getting into this small digression, that the Bloc Quebecois took part in Bill C-29. We knew it would be difficult. We knew that our plan to protect fish stocks in overlapping zones outside our territorial waters had no basis whatsoever in international law. However, I should add that no point of law prevented us from taking the action we unanimously authorized the Canadian government to take, here in this House.

What I want to say is that common sense prevails, always. When we appeal to people's common sense, when we take the time to explain things to them, they understand. When we do not take the time, we keep going round in circles. This is what has been happening in the constitutional context for the past thirty years; we have not taken the time to properly explain to people, and we are going round in circles.

In terms of the bill before us this morning, we could have avoided going round in circles, but we did not take the time to properly explain. Had that been done, we in the opposition would have worked with the government members opposite and talked about our suggestions for part I and whether fundamental principles could be respected and an order of consultation established in connection with part II-that sort of thing. We would have saved a lot of time and a lot of taxpayers' money, and the problem would be solved. At least we would have a timetable that would allow us to say we would progress.

At this point, we do not have anything. I am saying right off the bat that if the government ever uses its majority without taking into account the comments made by members who disagree with it, we will always have problems with this bill. If I understand correctly, the minister of fisheries sees this bill as the way to correct the management errors we made in the past. We should, however, ensure that everybody understands and that the solution is appropriate to the problem. We must first agree on the definition of the problem before trying to define solutions.

All this to say-I am not such a bad guy after all-that I agree with the minister of fisheries that many things in Canada are scattered. I, too, recognize that this management is a little chaotic. I may not be using the same words as the minister but I think the same thing.

In this regard, I could agree to go back and sit with the people on the fisheries committee and work on what could be called an integrated ocean management system. For the people listening to us, integrated management system does not necessarily mean that everything should be centralized. We should first of all ensure that the right hand knows what the left hand will be doing.

At this time, when we are still at the starting gate, I am not sure that the other members of the cabinet are aware of the full import of this bill, but there is one thing I would like to know. If it is supposed to make things easier, I would like the minister of fisheries to show us that he is on top of this by inviting the 14 other ministers concerned by this bill to come and tell us how they see their participation in this proposed management committee, how all this will come together, so that we can see and feel it in front in us. But I have yet to hear the other ministers.

This sums up my position this morning. I could perhaps close with a brief summary of what I said and I will then have a motion to table. In short, this is the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Part I of the bill defines in the laws of this country Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. It is certainly important to recognize one's sovereignty. However, I am not sure that we needed a federal act to do that. Indeed, we were once told by the ambassador representing Canada during the negotiations on the convention that such recognition could be made by cabinet.

As far as I am concerned, Part II is only window dressing. The bill does not meet its objectives. The required legislative framework for the implementation of a national strategy is ill-defined and federal responsibilities regarding the management of oceans are vague. What is even worse is that the bill disregards the provinces' jurisdiction, including in the environment sector-as the hon. member for Laurentides will explain later on-and defines provincial ministers as mere associates on the same level as any other person, whether in the private or the public sector, interested in the issue.

This bill could therefore generate disputes. This is unacceptable, in our view. Consequently, we oppose the legislation. We feel it is

necessary to clearly define a strategy for the management of oceans, but that strategy must be efficient and not lead to conflicts.

In that regard, the minister must go back to the drawing board and come up with a strategy that will clearly define the responsibilities of each one involved in the process, without creating any new overlap between federal and provincial departments.

On that note, I would like to table a motion-although I do not know if I can do so at this stage-which could read as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurentides, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

"Bill C-98, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada, be not now read a second time, but that the order be revoked, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the standing committee on fisheries and oceans".

In so doing, we would create a climate which would ensure the implementation of an ocean management strategy much more quickly, efficiently and constructively, with the participation of parliamentarians. That would also result in significant savings.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore table my motion.

I note that there is still some time left but as I have already stated I would not wish to drag things out in my concern to save the taxpayers' money, and to launch into patriotic speeches as well, a move which I expect would offend some of those present in the House this morning because any flag waving I would do would not necessarily involve the flag of Canada.

Not that I have anything against Canadians, but my objections are instead against the federal system as it exists at present and as it is administered at present. The bill tabled this morning is to my mind a perfect illustration of the fact that no effort is being made to seek agreement among ourselves. The minister makes a decision. Perhaps an ill-advised one. I am, after all, prepared to attribute good intentions to him from time to time. But the minister heads in a certain direction, deliberately closing his eyes and ears to everything around him, probably even within his own caucus.

On these grounds therefore I invite the minister to withdraw the bill, to provide an opportunity for us to develop a strategy at last, but a strategy that must be created in an atmosphere of mutual trust. If we cannot manage to do so I feel Quebecers will understand that if, every time we take the floor to try to get our point of view across to the others, theirs is the one that wins out it would not be surprising if at some point when nothing can be changed from within it becomes necessary for us to break out of this federal morass.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

My colleagues, the amendment by the hon. member for Gaspé is in order.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-98 today. Some of the things in the bill bring back a lot of memories from watching politics over the years as to whether the bill will be a success or failure in future years. One never knows but I trust the minister is going in the right direction on the issue. We will speak to a few things on that in a moment. I want to talk about the minister's introductory comments on the bill in general. I want to spend some time on the fees issue which he seemed to disregard in this comments.

First there is something amiss about planning in the department of fisheries over the last two decades particularly. I can recall about a year and a half ago talking to the previous deputy minister of that department. It took me so long to get out of this fellow exactly how many years the department of fisheries undertakes its strategic planning activities. He really did not want to answer but I badgered him until he did. The answer was three years of strategic planning within that department.

The reason I was asking that question was that if there is a three-year planning cycle in the department of fisheries why then did the previous Conservative government come out with a five-year moratorium plan in fisheries and this current government came out with the five-year TAGS plan?

First of all if there is a three-year strategic planning session, it is beyond me how the department can come out with a five-year plan not really knowing what the end results will be. It seems to me the reason the five-year plan came out was it had a lot to do with when the next election was and a lot less to do with the planning, the conservation value and qualities of fish. That is truly unfortunate.

This government, as was the previous government, is intent on passing money out to unemployed fishermen. That is a subject of discussion in itself, whether it is good or bad or how indeed it is going to deal with the conservation of fish. One thing in Bill C-98 that I heard here this morning is the area set aside for conservation. I think it is good but there is a non-commitment in that aspect of it which I shall address very shortly.

We have a department with three-year plans. The minister would be well advised to have that department look at longer term plans as they do in certain forest industries. The business cycle in some forest industries is as long as the life of a tree, from start to productive cutting. Perhaps the length of planning in the department of fisheries should relate to the cycle of the fish. It would not be a bad idea.

I want to mention some of the comments from the separatist member who talked about some convoluted exercise. He mixed it in somehow with the fact that the minister wants to create a certain amount of sovereignty over our waters. He has it mixed up a bit as to what is right and what is wrong about sovereignty in this country.

The very fact that the government is trying to make the waters surrounding our country a part of our sovereign nation is certainly not only for Newfoundland, British Columbia or P.E.I.; it is for all provinces, including Quebec. Why the member would have a disagreement with that just baffles me.

As much as the government may complain about comments from the separatists, as a member of the parliamentary committee on fisheries I find it hard to understand how government members can unanimously endorse that committee's vice-chairman from the Bloc. On the one hand they complain about the comments about sovereignty and so on but on the other hand they allow that to happen. Do the Bloc members actually represent interests of Newfoundlanders, people in P.E.I., people in British Columbia? I have not heard it in this House if that is the case. What is the mind set for that kind of move? I suspect it is appeasement, once again, and that is unfortunate.

The minister talked about the pride we have in our forefathers, the founders of the nation, people like John Cabot who at times had difficulty steering through the waters off the Grand Banks because of the amount of cod. I wonder what John Cabot would say today after 20 to 30 years of government bungling. He would have probably said: "It is a darn good thing we do not have government or an overbureaucratic organization. At least I was allowed over here. There are lots of fish, but what have you people done?" The question on the minds of most Canadians today is: What have politicians done to the fishery?

I am aware that something like 14 formal reports have gone through the House of Commons on the east coast fishery, most of which were ignored. What do we have today? I have family members on TAGS and they are not proud of it. Their boats are sitting on the slip, never to go back in the water again. They are wishing for work. They are hoping some day that there may be work in the fishery. However it does not look good.

Canadians are wondering what we allow government to present in the House of Commons. How bad will this hurt them? There are so many unknowns and so many people out there saying they have been hurt time and time again and asking if this will help that one never knows.

The minister talked about several happenings in the recent affairs of fisheries. In 1958, 1967 and 1993 there were UN conventions. There was a new binding convention to protect ocean resources. I wish just for once the government would stop talking and start doing. I cannot blame the minister. He has to try to improve operations and bring in organizations, but there is no confidence left that good will come of the legislation.

The bill will formally assert Canada's jurisdiction over its coastal waters. However there was no mention about the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks with respect to fish.