Debates of Sept. 26th, 1995

Victims Of Crime

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No. The attention of the hon. member was focused on two words in one subsection of a 70-page bill. If he had read the bill in its entirety he would have seen that Bill C-41, which has now been enacted by the House of Commons, provides in a very meaningful way for the restitution of victims of crime through the criminal justice system in ways that are innovative and will be effective. That is the response of the government toward victims of crime.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, more words. I know how the vote went last night and so do all Canadians.

This minister is willing to spend hundreds of millions of tax dollars on a registry that frontline police officers and criminologists say will have little or no impact to reduce crime, but he is not willing to make criminals pay for their actions by financial compensation.

Why does the government follow the wishes of special interests that want to punish law-abiding firearm owners yet will not listen to grassroots Canadians when they demand compensation to victims of crime? All they can do now is sue.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, it is the tradition of the House usually not to reflect on a vote that has been taken by the House.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Is that public?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, when in the preamble we refer to votes the Speaker is put in a precarious position. Is it the preamble that leads up to the question? I am trying very hard to listen to the questions themselves, which may be in order, but I find sometimes that you push the preamble so far that you seem to want the Speaker to intervene earlier than he ordinarily would.

I ask you once again, in your preambles you must stay within the confines of the question you are going to frame. Once again, I will permit the Minister of Justice to answer the question, but he is under no obligation to do so.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. The preamble that preceded the hon. member's question is so filled with errors that time will not permit me to address them all.

The very purpose of the restitution provisions in Bill C-41 now passed by the House and which the hon. member opposed was to

permit the court to award restitution and the victims of crime to collect it without having to sue simply by registering the order.

If the hon. member had a genuine interest in the victims of crime then he would join with CAVEAT and victims groups across the country that are calling for him to support gun control.

Peacekeeping

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Foreign Affairs will address the UN General Assembly on a government study entitled: "Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations". This study began when the Minister of Foreign Affairs first addressed the UN General Assembly in September 1994.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell the House how Canada's report on rapid reaction capability will improve United Nations peacekeeping operations?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be outlining this afternoon the Canadian government's response to some very tragic situations seen in recent years with respect to international peacekeeping. That is moving toward an international rapid reaction force, a standby force which we call the vanguard principle of up to 5,000 troops. This multinational force will be ready to intercede in places like Rwanda to ensure that the kind of horror we saw there last year does not occur again.

Employment

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Stats Canada reports that in 1993 the median family income with inflation factored in declined by almost 3 per cent. For single parent families mainly headed by women their standard of living dropped by an incredible 8.6 per cent in that one year.

Can the minister tell us by how much more the income of single parent families will drop when the changes to UI and the new Canada health and social transfer gets implemented?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, in my view the statistics the hon. member cited are the most important and dramatic reflections of what is taking place in Canada overall and the changing society we are in.

I would ask the hon. member to look very carefully at the cause of that circumstance. It is because single parent mothers have substantially fallen out of the labour market. There has been almost a 15 per cent decline of single parents in the labour market. Therefore, the answer to their problem is not more transfer payments. The answer is helping them get back to jobs, get back into the labour market, get back to being employed. That is the most effective way of putting additional income in the hands of our single parents across Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the amendment.

Oceans Act

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak on Bill C-98, the oceans act.

What we need is a coherent oceans policy that embodies a full range of economic environmental issues that pertain to the management of our oceans and coastal territories. Our government realizes this is the time for action in this area.

Ocean stakeholders have been calling for a coherent vision for some time now which is why soon after coming to office the Prime Minister called on the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology to study, consult and report on Canada's oceans policy. It did not give the federal government high marks.

The NABST report criticized the federal government for the neglect of its ocean responsibilities. It then suggested steps to set up our oceans policy on a more favourable course. These steps included an oceans management strategy and new legislation in the form of an oceans act.

I am proud to say that my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not waste any time in responding to these suggestions. Since the NABST report and the minister's 1994 release of the vision for oceans management, the minister and his officials have consulted widely with many stakeholders in the oceans sector. They have spoken with fishermen, business representatives, government officials, aboriginal groups, environmental interests and others. The result is a set of proposals for an ocean management

strategy to be developed by the federal government in partnership with other key oceans interests.

The plan as outlined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is to create an integrated oceans management strategy that would have as its primary goal the sustainable use of our ocean resources. A second goal would be to help each coastal region bring together and co-ordinate the elements needed to build a flourishing and diverse ocean based economy.

The concept has received widespread support throughout the oceans sector. However, before the government and its partners can proceed any further with this initiative, we must establish the legislative framework within which an integrated strategy can operate. This is what we are doing now by introducing the oceans act.

It is fundamental that the oceans act is enabling legislation. It removes barriers and sets the stage for Canadians to begin a new era in their relationship with the sea.

The oceans act has three main components. There is the declaration of Canada's jurisdiction over both its exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a contiguous zone of 24 nautical miles. Another component is the provision for the development and implementation of a national oceans management strategy based on sustainable development and integrated management of oceans coastal activities and resources and the consolidation and clarification of federal responsibilities for managing Canada's oceans. These are all essential steps if Canadians are going to work together to develop a new, integrated approach to oceans management.

First, it is absolutely vital that the Canadian government expand its jurisdiction over the ocean areas within our 200-mile limit, implementing the sovereign rights to which we know are under the law of the sea. This is essential both to protect the environmental integrity of these areas and to ensure that the oceans' precious resources are available for use by future generations of Canadians.

Second, an integrated approach to oceans management will help ocean stakeholders to consider a wide range of ocean activities all in one big picture. This includes everything from shipping, offshore oil and gas exploration, fisheries management and coastal development to the creation of special marine protected areas for fragile ecosystems. An integrated ocean strategy will help decision makers to consider environmental and developmental issues in relation to each other rather than in isolation. As was the case in the past, in this way it will enable Canadians to achieve a better balance between environmental protection and human activity than we have ever had before.

Third, it is essential that the federal government and its partners in the oceans sector work together to bring an end to the current ad hoc fragmented approach to ocean management that has worked for so long to the detriment of both the environment and many of our ocean industries.

Ocean and coastal issues cross many jurisdictions. They can be international, national, regional, provincial and local all at the same time. In the past, this has given rise to a host of problems, including conflicts over jurisdiction, duplication and inaction. Yet marine ecosystems know no artificial boundaries and neither do trade and business. It is time to work together in a new spirit of co-operation and to learn to harmonize our efforts.

All of these steps will strengthen our ability to protect the ocean environment. They will also enhance the potential of the many ocean based industries that are so important to our coastal communities. Allow me to take a few minutes to outline some of the benefits of both the oceans act and the planned oceans management strategy to industry.

First, extending our economic and environmental jurisdiction out to 200 nautical miles will provide greater stability to all of our ocean industries. It will build upon the exclusive fishing zone which we already have and will expand to include other opportunities for development. It will further cement our right to protect the environment.

Second, the clarification of federal roles and ocean responsibilities will help to simplify the relations between government and other stakeholders. Business will especially appreciate both this move and the consolidation of regulations.

Third, the commitment to build partnerships will allow other levels of government, industry and non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders to develop shared goals in oceans management. This approach should lead to better communication, greater co-operation and increasing harmonization. All these are welcome spinoffs for industry that should reduce the cost of doing business and stimulate growth.

Fourth, an increased emphasis on the co-ordination and dissemination of scientific, environmental and management information should place our ocean policies and practices on a much firmer scientific footing. In addition, improved communications between the private sector and federal scientists should stimulate innovation and technology transfer.

As a package, these benefits will help to generate new opportunities and improve the business environment for our ocean industries. An integrated oceans management strategy will place Canadians at the forefront of ocean management and the development of related technologies.

Canadians already have many of the needed tools to fill this ocean vision and to move ahead in the world economy. Both our west and east coasts have world class research facilities that make important contributions to an international climate and oceans research. Both of these regions have clusters of thriving private sector enterprise that have the know-how to design, apply and

market specialized ocean based technology to clients around the world.

Allow me to provide a few examples of how the Canadian oceans industry is selling its products and expertise to clients around the world.

A good example is New East Technologies of Newfoundland. New East started out as a ship to shore radio business but a few years ago started to design and build an improved switch system that routes radio signals to specific destinations by satellite. Now a cluster of satellite communication firms, New East companies track the progress of ocean going ships and provide radio links for some 40 airlines. In addition, it is exploring the telephone switching equipment markets of Hong Kong and China.

Another example is AGI, Ariel Geomatics of Nova Scotia. Formed in 1993, this growing company undertakes airborne environmental mapping and monitoring surveys using a compact airborne spectrographic imager, CASI for short. AGI is one of the few private sector owners of this advanced technology.

AGI has used CASI technology for ocean mapping but is also marketing its potential application in other areas such as land use and vegetation studies, urban mapping, agriculture, forestry and geological work. Already its services have been used by clients in Italy, Chile and the United Kingdom.

The future of this new industry looks bright and with the oceans act and the oceans management strategy it will look even brighter. Countries ratifying the United Nations convention on the law of the sea will have to map the 200 mile offshore exclusive economic zones. With Canada's demonstrated leadership in this field, many of these nations will turn to Canadian companies to assist them in fulfilling these and other requirements.

The oceans act and the oceans management strategy will help Canadians to make the most of our ocean expertise and resources. The benefits will be many and varied. The extension of Canadian jurisdiction and the adoption of an integrated approach of fisheries management will better enable our Pacific and Atlantic fisheries to achieve sustainable harvest levels. The more effective protection of our marine and coastal environment will make Canada a prime destination for ecotourism. The application of new technologies will make Canada a world leader in aquaculture, marine safety in shipping, resource assessment and offshore petroleum production.

I am very proud of our government's leadership in working with Canadians to draw up the oceans act and oceans management strategy. Together they are proof of the government's commitment to create prosperity and a better quality of life for all Canadians. An ocean of opportunity lies before us. With careful consultation, management and sensitivity to the environment all of our ocean industries can be encouraged to flourish and grow.

I encourage all my colleagues to join me in voting in favour of this long term oceans vision for Canadians.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I would like to set him straight on some very important issues in western Canada, on the coast. The member mentioned we do not have a problem with shellfish. That is simply untrue.

Shellfish stocks on the west coast are being pillaged. They have been pillaged for years. Even with abalone, which was banned in 1989, there has been widespread poaching of abalone all over the coast, in Nanaimo, in Victoria, in Sooke. Stocks of mussels and various other subspecies of shellfish, geoducks, abalone, are being pillaged all over the west coast.

DFO officers have been told to look the other way when this is happening. This is a problem of low level management. They have been told not to enforce the laws in fisheries.

The ministry cannot even handle two miles out of the country, let alone 200 miles. I suggest it get its act together now, otherwise we will not have any fishery left on the west coast.

I ask the hon. member what he and his ministry will do to help the decimated subspecies of groundfish, of salmon and of shellfish on the west coast so we can avert an east coast disaster, because we are close to that.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

All hon. members know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken a lead role in conservation in the international community. When I was at the recent convention in St. Petersburg, many people came up to me and said they were glad we have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans willing to take a lead role. He has put conservation on the front lines. He has put sustainability of fisheries on the front lines. He has made people all over the world aware of how important our fisheries are and how important it is to have a sustainable fishery and how important conservations is. The minister has taken a lead role in terms of assuring we as Canadians take a lead role.

If the hon. member would look at what happened in the United Nations on the convention on straddling stocks and migratory stocks, it was Canada that took the lead role. It was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who took the lead role to ensure that even

beyond the 200 mile zone we have a dispute mechanism system so the international community will respect our marine resources.

The minister has admitted we can do a better job. We can improve the way we are doing things. I talked about the 40,000 Canadians who are not working because of the collapse of the groundfish. We have to work harder. We have to ensure we do have a sustainable fishery. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has put that as his number one priority. He has taken the lead not only in Canada but he is known as someone who has taken the lead in the international community in ensuring we preserve our marine resources and that we have a sustainable fishery for future generations and that we preserve our coastal communities and their economies.

The bill will ensure that we look at our oceans on an ecosystem basis, not manage on a species basis. It ensures we take into consideration coastal communities and the economy. We have to treat our oceans as an asset. We have to ensure exploitation of those resources are done in a way that we have a sustainable fishery to protect our coastal communities and to ensure they have an ongoing fishery for the long term.

I assure the member the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will take a lead. I hope the hon. member will take the opportunity to study this bill. I know he will support it because of his concern that we have an ongoing sustainable fishery.

I assure the hon. member we will have strong enforcement. As he knows, we have increased the enforcement budget on the west coast to make sure all people comply with the Fisheries Act and we will make sure we take action when someone does not abide by the Fisheries Act.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to use the few minutes that are left to make a comment and put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

First of all, in his answer, he often referred to "our good minister of fisheries who did this and that". I would like him to focus on Bill C-98, which will become an act of Parliament.

This means that the law will still be in place even after the current minister of fisheries leaves his post. So he should not cite the current minister's popularity as the reason why things will stay the same in the future. He should be aware of that. I know that the hon. member comes from the west coast while I come from the east coast. He probably attended the meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria last year. Since the parliamentary secretary has invited us to read the bill carefully, I would like to hear his comments on clauses 30 and 31, which provide that the provinces will be consulted only on the same basis as all other parties interested in ocean management that the department wants to consult with.

I am getting to my question. I understand that, at last year's meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria, British Columbia was ready to take on part of the responsibilities for fisheries management, as were Newfoundland and Quebec. This is the department's first opportunity to answer publicly, and from what I understand, there is no link, no consultation hierarchy.

Is this the future of Canada, all interested parties on an equal footing while the provinces must fend for themselves? Is the parliamentary secretary endorsing this kind of attitude? I would like him to comment on this.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I also thank him for his contribution to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I was at that meeting and just as in any other government department if there are areas in which we can improve the way fisheries and oceans works, if we can eliminate areas of duplication and if there are areas in which we can create more efficiencies, we are open to that. The minister is very open to that. He has stated we always want to look at how we can improve things.

One of the things which was done, of which the hon. member is aware, was the merger with the coast guard. That was part of a process to create a synergy in which we can operate more efficiently and in which there is greater flexibility.

The hon. member should support the bill because it takes a much broader view of our oceans. The bill does not in any way take away from provincial rights. It will enable us to work with the provinces. It will encourage us to all work together. For those reasons I hope the hon. member will support the bill.

Part of the reason the bill came about was the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology said as a federal government we have to do a better job in managing our oceans, that we are not doing a very good job. We accepted its advice.

We will have to manage in an ecosystem and in broader terms. We have the longest shoreline in the world and we have to look at it differently. We have to look at our oceans in terms of an asset we have to treat with respect. When we exploit that asset we have to look at what the interdependence is. The bill finally brings together a strategy on how to deal with our oceans.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the words of my friend across the way. I am a little surprised at some of the conclusions he is drawing with respect to Bill C-98.

Bill C-98 at first blush looks like a pretty innocuous bill. It is a good bill in some respects. It recognizes Canada's jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone and a contiguous zone in accordance with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. That is a positive move.

It is also supposed to allow the management of all oceans and coastal activities to be co-ordinated under the oceans management strategy and it tries to clarify federal responsibilities in the management of our oceans. I say it is supposed to and tries because the bill is an attempt to address the concerns of the oceans and the fisheries, but it is a failure.

The bill manages to impose a new tax on fishermen. It manages to retain the duplication in the bureaucracy which exists now. It also manages to introduce new levels of bureaucracy.

This is not what fishermen want. It is not what Canadians want or deserve. Canadians want less government, not more. The minister and members of the Liberal government seem to be the only people who do not understand that.

The bill represents the Liberal government's complete lack of understanding of what life is like in Canada as a taxpayer. What will it take for the government to understand it is impossible for Canadians to shoulder any more of an already unbearable tax burden?

What will it take to make the government understand the fishermen of Canada, already victims of a fisheries crisis on both coasts, can barely make ends meet right now? It is either a complete and utter misunderstanding on the part of the minister, although not surprising since he just awarded himself a generous pension out of all proportion to what most Canadians could ever expect, or it is a complete disdain for the plight of the fishermen. As long as his pockets are full and he does not have to make serious cuts in his department, he simply does not care. Look at the attitude he had toward the Canadian taxpayers when he refurbished his office last year at the cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

As I said, times are tough for most people involved in the fishery in Canada, but the fisheries minister proposes a new tax on them anyway. Clause 49, page 21 of the bill, explains that the fees are for the service provided by DFO. Would that be the privilege to fish? This is not a service. It also states that fees may not exceed the cost of providing the service. Would that be the cost of DFO, TAGS, unemployment insurance, and other social programs or what? Where does it end?

A tax would only serve to hurt an industry that is already in trouble. DFO already collects $13 million in fees from fishermen, and it wants to increase that to $50 million. That is a 400 per cent increase paid in one lump sum. The fees are based on the landed value of the catch but are paid in one lump sum at the beginning of the season. They will be incremental, not fixed.

The parliamentary secretary said last week in response to questions that were asked in the House that there had not been an increase since 1985 and therefore he was condoning the decision. A 400 per cent increase paid in one lump sum is not reasonable. Imagine if you will your hydro bill going up 400 per cent in one lump sum, or your phone bill or your mortgage payment. If this were happening to me I would push my MP to oppose such attempts. But alas, Atlantic fishermen have no one to turn to. Reform is the only party here to hear their voice.

This tax is a way for the Liberals to get the fishermen out of the industry. The minister wants to tax them out of the water. The minister calls this a user fee, but he is wrong. User fees are in return for services rendered. There are no services rendered here.

There are 31 Atlantic Canadian Liberal MPs and one from an extinct party. Where do the fishermen have to go? Reform is their only voice. We were in Atlantic Canada a couple of weeks ago and this is what we heard consistently. I feel rather bad for the Liberal MPs who come from Atlantic Canada who are going to be required to support the bill, because the people in Atlantic Canada are going to remember them for it.

The minister enjoys trying to impress the international community, but what about Canadians? Is the tax supposed to impress them?

Let us talk about another aspect of the bill; it is called partnershipping. This means that the minister under the bill will have the discretion to enter into partnership agreements on the management of the fishery resource in Canada-at his discretion.

I would like to read an excerpt from a letter I received from people in Atlantic Canada who are concerned about where this is going to lead. I quote:

In general, our concerns arise out of a potential that the Bill will permit delegation of actual resource management authority to anyone whom the Minister may see fit to nominate for this purpose. This regime has potential to be even more unpredictable and unchallengeable than the present "absolute discretion" of the Minister for which Section 7 of the Fisheries Act provides. "Management" of fisheries resources (including such decisions as access to and allocation of the resource) are critically important to individual fishermen. The delegation of such decisions to committees, who are not subject to even the dubious control of political accountability, would create opportunities for management by special-interest groups.

Fisheries management in Atlantic Canada has had a dismal history of inability to ensure that the greatest good accrues to the greatest number of participants in the industry. See, for example, the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, dated June 23, 1993. Strong leadership, a fair and reviewable decision-making process, and clear legislative mandates as to exactly whom benefits from the fishery are to principally accrue to, are required to address and to correct the fundamental problems in the industry.

The special provision in Bill C-98 which raises the concern expressed above is in Section 32(c):

1. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister may

(c) on his own or her own or jointly with another person or body or with another minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada,

(i) establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate, as appropriate, members of those bodies, and (ii) recognize established advisory or management bodies;

The scope to which this provision would permit delegation of unfettered and unreviewable authority to unidentified and unaccountable persons is of great concern to the independent fishermen whom it is my privilege to represent.

Mr. Speaker, you can see there is a great deal of concern in Atlantic Canada over these partnership provisions in Bill C-98.

Let us talk for a minute about the bureaucracy. Will the size of the bureaucracy be affected in any way by Bill C-98? Is this consolidation of legislation under one umbrella called the Canada oceans act going to in any way affect the bureaucracy? On paper the shuffle looks good, but the reality is it is not going to affect the bureaucracy in any tangible way.

The DFO is already a bloated department and is extremely top heavy. With the cutbacks we see the minister is talking about destaffing lighthouses while the offices in Ottawa on Kent Street remain fully staffed. Nobody has made any concerted effort to rationalize DFO's bureaucracy from the top down. They are starting from the bottom up. We see conservation officers being taken off the beat, we see enforcement officers being taken off the beat, but we do not see the bureaucracy addressed in any tangible way.

This bill was obviously drafted by bureaucrats, not parliamentarians. I guess we cannot expect them to address the need for cuts by cutting their own department, can we? It is really unfortunate that with this opportunity the minister and the government did not seize it and seriously address the size of DFO's bureaucracy.

Let us talk about ocean protection. Yes, this will be a step toward ratifying the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but what else? What about the extension of the 200-mile limit? The minister crusaded so proudly against the Spanish fleet off our Grand Banks, and he was supported by a great number of Canadians for doing so, but what of the protection he so strongly hinted was on its way? This bill does absolutely nothing to address the extension of the 200-mile limit to cover the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. I understand the minister made such indications here in the House earlier today. I am here to say that it does nothing to extend Canada's jurisdiction in those areas. This bill does not give the governing body any real authority. It has no teeth. Governing is only possible with authority.

As with gun control, cabinet will iron out the details of this bill later. We are talking about order in council decisions. Understandably, the fishermen in the industry do not trust it. After all, it was the government's mismanagement that got us into this whole mess in the first place. Why trust them? They have only shown that their own interests are at heart and not those of their constituents.

This bill does not invoke thoughts of government accountability in the minds of Canadians and in particular in the minds of fishermen. Instead it promotes fears of trickery and backroom dealings. The Liberal cabinet needs to make the decisions by order in council because even some of their own members are upset about this bill. We all know what the Prime Minister does with members who represent their constituents.

Cabinet could hike fees again next year without parliamentary scrutiny and without public debate. It is no holds barred for the Liberals. These are legitimate concerns. If the Liberals were implementing legislation they knew would better the fishery, why hide behind cabinet? Why would they be afraid of a public debate on the matter?

I am concerned that this will mean the special interest groups will be allowed to control the agenda. The conservation of the fishery should be in the interest of all Canadians, not just a select few.

The Reform Party cannot support a bill that would increase taxes and increase the size of government. Do the minister and this government not understand that Canadians want less government and taxes, not more? This bill is nothing more than a cowardly tax grab to ensure the job security of bloated DFO offices in Ottawa. The minister could not really have thought that fishermen and Parliament would ever condone such an act.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague from the Reform Party.

I know my colleague from the Reform Party has just been to Atlantic Canada, but there is an old saying that a little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous. I know they feel they know Atlantic Canada, but I can assure this House that we have members who know it very well, are well informed and can advise us on the issue.

Let me first make a few statements. The member should go back to the budget, which outlined the cost initiatives. Obviously his party did not look at the budget very closely, because some of the

issues in terms of cost recovery were already indicated in the 1995 budget. They should go back to that. Obviously they did not read that part.

In the second part, in terms of the headquarters, that is where the biggest cuts are coming. Once again they should go back to the budget, because the headquarters are going to be cut by 26 per cent when the average cuts in the department are only 16 per cent.

Let me also ask the member a question in terms of his position on the licensing fee. Our main resources are a public resource. As a public resource, certain people have beneficial privileges to that resource. Should the fisherperson who catches or lands $10,000 worth of fish and pays $30 for a licence pay the same fee as those individuals who have a landing value of $1 million? Should they pay the same licence fee of $30 when they are taking out of a public resource that belongs to all Canadians? This government has said that those who take the most out of the public resource should pay a little more. This is only common sense.

The Reform Party always talks about user pay. They want to have user pay for all those people who go to the doctor. All this is saying is that if you are taking a huge amount of a public resource then you should pay based on how much you benefit from that public resource. I think all Canadians and all members from Atlantic Canada would support that view.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Halifax saying she invites me there. She may be aware that I just came back from there. I talked to a number of fishermen in the Halifax area, the Dartmouth area and Central Nova. I went down to the wharfs and talked to the small guys with the small boats, not the big guys. I heard what they had to say about this fee increase.

It is interesting to see the parliamentary secretary over there defending what the government is doing when it flies in the face of what I heard back in Atlantic Canada. I would suggest to the hon. member for Halifax that maybe she wants to go and spend a little bit of time talking to some of the fishermen in her riding, because she might get a different point of view from what she is getting from the parliamentary secretary.

I ran into one old fellow and asked him how he was making out in the fishery this year. He said: "Well, it is pretty tough. My fingernails are all wore out trying to hang on." This is the kind of attitude the parliamentary secretary displays to these fishermen who are having a very difficult time surviving from year to year.

The parliamentary secretary defends the increased fees and says it is a public resource and the fishermen ought to be paying a suitable fee for access to that resource. I do not think anybody in Canada would disagree with that, but is a 400 per cent increase in one lump sum reasonable? Regardless of one's income for the year, the person pays it up front in one lump sum. Is that reasonable? I do not think most Canadians would find that reasonable.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. colleague from the Reform Party had to say. This prompted me to take another look at my history of Quebec fisheries, and I would like to share with you these facts that bear a direct relation to the bill.

Between 1922 and 1980, in Quebec, fisheries were managed under an administrative delegation agreement whereby the federal government had transferred fisheries management to the Government of Quebec.

Therefore, during this time frame, we were able to develop a network now referred to as a sustainable development network, because small processing plants and refrigerating plants that pretty well met the needs of shore fishermen sprung up along the coast.

About 1980, following a fight-another one-between the federal minister, who has now become a senator, and his Quebec counterpart, this delegation of power was cancelled. After that-a coincidence perhaps-fish grew scarce and can no longer be found in our oceans.

I would draw a parallel between this and the remarks made by the hon. member because we are often told that big is beautiful. The larger the structure created, the larger the number of people involved and the better the chances it will work and be successful.

I tend to say that maybe the word is "small is beautiful" in this instance. Perhaps, if we had structures better suited to the people's needs, we would have a better chance of getting by. Take for example the fishermen of Rivière-au-Renard, Newport or the Lower North Shore. They keep running into problems with respect to fisheries management in Canada.

While fishing is a major economic activity in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Lower North Shore and the Magdalen Islands, Quebec fisheries are a very small part of the whole Canadian picture and we have always sought ways for our fishermen to have a greater weight in the balance by providing expertise, supporting them through the work of biologists, so that they can adequately argue their points.

The cod stocks were depleted in part because the politicians in charge had frequently given in to pressure. We now find ourselves with many endangered species because the policies did not reflect the reality in terms of the market and the fishing of the species. Some fishermen are forced to stay home because they cannot get the required service.

I will conclude by asking the Reform member if there is a way to ensure that fisheries management stays close to the people, in a concrete and daily fashion, while also taking into account the

opinion of fishermen, instead of having huge structures where the power ultimately rests with whoever has the largest number of biologists or provides the biggest report. Such a structure is of no help to users, namely the fishermen, who do not have enough of a say in the process.

Does the Reform member feel that this bill is headed the wrong way since it promotes a "Big is beautiful" instead of considering also a "Small is beautiful" approach?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. He made a couple of observations and I think he is right on.

I was not aware that there was a withdrawal of delegated authority in his province in 1980, but it does not surprise me because that is the way the federal government has acted over the last 25 or 30 years. It has tried to consolidate more power for itself all the time: Ottawa is always bigger, better and more beautiful. Obviously that is not what Canadians think. Canadians would like to see decentralization of power such as the member is alluding to. It certainly is a philosophy and a vision of the party I am representing in the House today. Our leader was trying to make that point with the Prime Minister during question period.

We believe the federal government ought to look at devolving powers to provinces, municipalities and communities wherever possible and get away from the notion that only Ottawa has the brains and the ability to run the country.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as vice-chairperson of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans I am pleased today to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on the oceans act.

Further, I make note of the fact that contrary to statements made earlier today by the member for Fraser Valley West this vice-chairperson is not a separatist. He neglected to mention that there were two vice-chairs of the committee, myself and the member for Gaspé.

Parliament is called upon today to formalize Canadian jurisdiction over vast new areas of ocean waters and numerous resources off our coasts. The bill before us challenges all Canadians to unite in the development of a strategy which will incorporate the harnessing of the oceans' economic potential and command respect for the oceans' environmental necessities.

In the red book we stated that Canadians increasingly understand that the national environmental agenda can no longer be separated from the national economic agenda. It is long past the time for the federal government to act on this understanding by adapting economic and environmental agendas that converge. As a government we will stand behind our agenda and devote attention to this important piece of legislation.

The oceans act encompasses the fundamentals which ensure that Canada's economic and environmental agendas for our oceans are a priority. It is a pivotal turning point in providing a foundation which will ensure that ocean resource management is properly administered. Painfully we have come to discover that the ocean resources are finite and that human activity can and in fact has jeopardized fragile ocean ecosystems.

Just as everything that lives exhibits interdependency, we have seen the environmental health of our oceans connected to the economic health of our country. As children we were told not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. As teenagers we learned the basic laws of physics which state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. These laws and proverbs are represented in the oceans act. It is based on implementing a few simple lessons. If we destroy the oceans they will not provide us with the sustenance we enjoy on a daily basis. If we abuse them we will pay a grave price.

The oceans act provides direction for the Canadian jurisdiction of over nearly five million square kilometres of ocean. Through the act we create a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone for Canada in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. We will have the right to explore and exploit resources within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone and at the same time be given the right and responsibility to conserve and protect the same resources.

It is our duty as Canadians to preserve and to protect the marine environment not only for ourselves but for generations to come. We cannot continue to shortchange generations of the future. That is why the bill before Parliament today goes beyond the simplistics of one statement of jurisdiction. The bill is a cornerstone, a building block and a framework for a new ocean management strategy which consolidates and clarifies federal responsibilities for implementation of the new strategy.

The key to the future is sustainable development of Canada's oceans and an integrated approach to management of ocean resources. Only through this approach will Canadians be able to make our economic and environmental agenda complete.

It has been 12 years since the United Nations General Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development, more commonly recognized as the Brundtland commission. The commission urged the world to embrace the concept of sustainable development. The Brundtland report was the cornerstone of all forthcoming legislation. It embraced the concept of sustainable development where the environment is fully incorpo-

rated into the economic decision making process as an aforethought and not as an afterthought.

The oceans act is based on that wisdom. The philosophy of the bill is strengthened in its foundations of sustainable development. Unfortunately a philosophy is not a plan of action.

The new bill breathes light into the principle of sustainable development by putting in place the framework necessary for a Canadian action plan for our oceans. In developing an oceans management strategy the federal government must show leadership, and the bill exemplifies leadership.

The oceans act will extend Canadian environmental legislation to include the new exclusive economic zone. The act will make the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the focal point for the co-ordination of federal oceans activities. It will authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to develop marine environmental quality guidelines and establish marine protected areas.

The act will also give the minister responsibility for conducting marine research, preparing scientific reports, and operating and maintaining the necessary federal research facilities. Most important, the minister will have the authority to lead in the co-ordination of activities to promote the development of a shared Canada oceans strategy, in turn uniting all Canadians and promoting international unity.

The minister will be able to enter into new partnership agreements, to share ocean information, to share ocean research, to share ocean planning and to share ocean management. Through the basic principles of sharing we can reduce duplication and conflict. Only by working together can we adopt a comprehensive ecosystem based approach to comprehensive ecosystem problems.

This unified approach to ocean management provides the criteria necessary for the creation of a legal framework which will enable provinces and territories, businesses and environmentalists, fisher people and ocean industries to pull together and to strive toward a common goal.

We have a common goal. We all want Canada's oceans to be productive, safe and healthy for all generations. We can only achieve that goal by making Canada a world leader in oceans and marine resource management.

On Canada's coasts there are hundreds of fishing communities. My riding is made up of many such communities, one of which I was raised in.

The minister has already mentioned that when John Cabot reached the shores of Newfoundland in 1497 he found the sea: "swarming with fish which can be taken not only with a net but with baskets let down with a stone". This illustration of the former abundance of fish is now in contrast with the shortage of northern cod off Canada's east coast.

The oceans act is our management strategy to ensure that the devastation which has occurred on the coasts off Newfoundland never happens again. Many fish stocks on the coast of Newfoundland were severely depleted prior to Canada's declaration of a 200-mile fishing zone in 1977. Although some Atlantic codfish stocks have begun to recover somewhat since that time, many stocks continue to be subject to high fishing pressure, particularly the stocks that straddle the 200-mile limit where foreign fleets have ignored internationally negotiated catch limits.

Our fishers on the Atlantic coast and throughout Canada have suffered. They have lost their livelihood, their pride and their sustenance. It is not too late to provide legislation countenance. We must amend the marine conservation policies in the country and prevent future tragedies from occurring. The oceans act will do just that.

Canada's fisheries will continue to face a variety of pressures imposed by an increasing world population. This will produce more wastes which will impair the natural productivity of oceans and inland waters. Managing the fisheries in the face of these pressures will require co-operation on national and international levels.

The oceans act will ensure that proper management of the ocean resources both living and non-living will be sustained. Each one of these communities houses a wealth of accumulated knowledge about currents, salinity, water depth, temperatures, tides and navigational routes. We must link this knowledge to a shared ocean management strategy. We must understand how each of these regions is unique and independent.

The bill before us today confirms the merger of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It ensures boating safety is placed in the highest priority.

The legislation makes it possible to form new domestic agreements to increase prosperity in trade and commerce. Through basic principles of sustainable development, the transfer of technology from government and academic researchers to the private sector will be facilitated. Together we must work to improve resource assessment and inspection. Harmonized regulations will guarantee services provided by different levels of government effectively meet the needs of our sea coast communities and ports.

The oceans act makes it possible for Canadians to work together to shape the best national answers and the best local answers for ocean sustainable development. Better understanding of oceans, better resource management, better environmental management,

increased safety and increased trade and commerce are all components of an integrated ocean strategy.

By providing the legislative tools to enable Canadians to get our act together on these issues the oceans act will help to ensure Canada is a forceful and effective voice on global ocean issues. By demonstrating our own responsible attitude to ocean sustainable development we will be in a strong position to push forward for greater global responsibility. In effect, Canadians must seek the same force for good on all ocean issues that we have for our fisheries conservation.

The Brundtland commission called its report "Our Common Future". That is what this bill is about and that is what we are really debating. Canada has a special responsibility as a country which borders the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. Our common future depends on whether we use those oceans wisely, whether we actively seek to promote sustainable development and whether we actively seek to pursue both our environmental responsibilities and our economic opportunities.

I am happy and proud to support the bill and urge all members to join me in allowing this legislation to move forward quickly for study by the standing committee. The oceans act charts a wise course for the future of ocean policy. It is a course which would bind our country with a common future, a course we must all sail together.

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

Madam Speaker, for two years now the Liberal government has presented legislation it says will make government more streamlined, more responsive and more responsible to Canadians. Its comments have been merely smoke and mirrors. I am sad to say Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, is another example of the government's saying one thing and doing another.

The government told Canadians its changes to the Young Offenders Act would raise ultra-violent youth to adult court and that this action would give 16 and 17-year old cold blooded murderers sentences equal to their heinous crimes. The government's statements were not equal to the realities of the bill.

The government has made numerous statements that Bill C-98 will end duplication, bring control of Canada's traditional fishing grounds on the open sea into Parliament and ensure the success of fisheries. Again we have statements which do not match the realities of the legislation.

How can the fisheries be successful when the government intends to tax them to death? The government tells Canadians we on this side of the House do not understand the problems of the east coast. We understand all problems facing Canadians better than the government.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans bored himself a place at the trough by accepting his gold plated, self-imposed pension. Now the minister wants to pay for his pension on the backs of the fisheries, an area where it is impossible for those Canadians to bear the brunt of an already unbearable tax burden.

The Liberal government claims the bill will end duplication and provide efficient operation through the oceans management strategy. Again we have a catch phrase for media consumption which has no bearing on the realities of the bill.

Bill C-98 suggests all government bodies co-ordinate their activities relating to the oceans surrounding Canada. Nowhere in the bill does it state that all government bodies dealing with oceans must co-ordinate their functions. There are no penalties, consequences or even government scrutiny for any departments which refuse to end duplication.

In effect, the bill will create even more bureaucracy. How does the government intend to pay for this new bureaucratic nightmare? The government will raise licensing fees for fishermen. That is the tax I have been talking about. Not only that, it will increase the fees to such an extent that family oriented fishing boats or small fishing groups will be put out of business.

It is either absolute and utter ignorance of the reality on the east coast that the minister does not understand or it is total disregard for the east coast fishery, large and small.

To the minister it seems as long as his pockets are full and his future is assured he does not care about those he is supposed to be helping. The government gives itself all the power to set fees through orders in council.

Parliament is bypassed once more as the body that decides issues for Canadians. This proposed new tax will punish those who have finally achieved a harvest worthy of their effects.

Just as a previous Liberal government crippled the western Canadian economy by placing punitive taxes in place for the oil industry, this government now intends to place punitive taxes on fishermen who do not manage to get a decent catch.

If fishermen obtain a catch large enough to cover their bills, large enough to give them a decent living once again from the ocean, those members opposite intend to raise their fees to the point at which fishermen will be simply taxed out of business.

The east coast fishery has had enough hard luck and has had enough businesses driven to extinction through failed government management of the fisheries without having government finally drive the last nail in the coffin by higher and higher taxes. Of some

of these smaller and medium fishermen the government will demand tax increases as high as 400 per cent over current levels.

We from the west understand the social disintegration and punitive taxation imposed by an uncaring federal government and what that can create. We from the west know how punitive taxation can cause breakdowns of marriages, losses of homes and an increase in alcoholism, suicide, bankruptcies and affect many other social programs. If the bill is passed the east coast will experience the same.

U-Hauls behind cars driven by grim faced drivers will proceed like caravans down east coast highways as those forced from their homes seek employment in other areas of the country.

As Canadians trying desperately to keep their families and homes together on the east coast know, times are hard enough without the government making it worse.

I oppose the bill not because of what the government says it does but because it does not do what it says it will. The bill will give cabinet dictatorial powers and remove the elected representatives chosen by the people of Canada from that decision making process. The bill will continue a policy adopted by the Prime Minister that elected representatives must not be responsible for their constituents.

The Prime Minister stated that members of his party who support their constituents and not decrees from the top will not get their nomination papers signed or will be punished in other ways.

We have already seen these threats in practice when some members who followed constituent wishes were removed from their committee posts. The bill will give the cabinet even more power to punish the east coast representatives of its party who vote the wishes of their constituents and not the wishes of the ministers' inner circle.

The bill will not consolidate the operations of various government departments related to the fisheries or oceans but instead will allow another level of bureaucracy to be formed.

It is very clear the government has no desire to reduce the taxation load on all Canadians by bringing in efficiencies in any department. The minister is probably the worst offender.

Canadians are tired of larger and larger government taking more and more money from their pockets. The justice minister recently appointed 11 supporters, failed candidates and fundraisers to taxpayer funded posts within his department.

Liberals love larger bureaucracy because that gives them places to appoint people at taxpayers' expense, while this bill will create another bureaucracy for the government to fill patronage appointment positions.

We agree fisheries and oceans should have jurisdiction over the coast guard and marine science but only if it will save money by ending duplication. The bill simply will not do that.

We agree that small and medium size fisheries are the lifeblood of many east coast families. The bill will create punitive taxation that will destroy their very livelihood which the government states it will defend.

Under those circumstances the members opposite elected to represent constituents dependant on the fishery to survive absolutely must vote no. All decisions on future actions, be they fee increases or regulation, will be enacted by special interest participation with cabinet and not Parliament.

Special interests will dominate environment discussions relating to fisheries or oceans and paralyse realistic growth or use of fishery or development of ocean related industry. Just as they have with issues relating to realistic and safe development within Canada's borders, special interests will again have the ear of the minister.

Here is an example of how special interests have held up needed expansion in the country. I am thinking of the TransCanada highway through Banff that had been planned and put off for years even though study after study said the twinning of the highway could be done with more than adequate concern for large animals ranging throughout Banff. Thankfully this type of process has come to an end and that twinning will commence. However, many serious injuries and possibly needless deaths of motorists have occurred because government would not listen to the voice of reason and preferred to hear the voices of special interest groups.

Even a study by Parks Canada officials said the improvements could be done on this stretch of road without harm to the environment. However, it was not until the government lost two frivolous court cases that were only instituted to appeal the special interests having the government's ear did the harassment stop.

How long will needed projects, realistic economic development and opportunities to enhance the lives of those living near the oceans be delayed? The bill would impose a duty on the minister to collaborate with all interested persons.

I cannot support the bill. With all honesty I do not see how any member whose constituents depend on the ocean for their livelihood can support the bill. I am certain those members opposite will be told they must vote according to the decree of the few and not according to the wishes of many. That is the saddest point of all.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I listened very closely.

His speech is very similar to the speech made by the member for Skeena. I do not want to repeat some of the remarks I have already made. I once again remind him he should read the budget. He has put forward concerns about the licensing fees which were budget items in February 1995. For every $5 in cuts there is only $1 in cost recovery. This is part of the cost recovery. The hon. member should also keep in mind there was public consultation right across the province.

More to the point, hon. members often mention special interest groups. When special interest groups represent the ideology of these people they work hand in hand. They are holding hands with special interest groups. Look at the gun lobby. They are joining hands with the gun lobby so they should not tell us about special interest groups. When they represent their view, they are happy to work with them.

The licence fee was $30. For those who use the resource, it does not matter if they have a landing value $12,000 or a landing value of $1 million. The fee was an insignificant amount of $30. Now those people who take the most from the resource will pay a higher amount. It is a public resource. They have a beneficial access to that resource that not everybody has only because they have to pay that licensing fee. Should we charge the same amount?

Should we not charge those people who take more out of the resource? The figure of 400 per cent was used. Some fisherpersons make $1 million in a six to eight-week fishing season. Their fee is only going to be 1.6 per cent of their landed value. Do you think that is a huge burden on those people? Obviously, this amount is going to be rated depending on how much the landing value is. If there is a higher landing value then more will be paid. I do not think 1.6 per cent is very much. I am wondering if the member thinks that is too high.