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.