Debates of Sept. 29th, 1995

The House resumed from September 28 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

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join with those in support of Canada's oceans act this morning.

Last November the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans released a document setting out the potential elements of an oceans management vision for Canada. The government sought the advice of all Canadians and the message was loud and clear: the federal government has a leadership role to play in oceans policy. Federally, ocean related responsibility has been fragmented and there is a need for focus in order to meet the needs of all Canadians.

Several key oceans programs are being brought together under one department to promote synergy in operational policy development, to eliminate duplication and overlap and to provide a more efficient and effective service to Canadians.

In recognition of these principles, the Canadian Coast Guard was merged with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last April. This merger has already improved the government's ability to manage and protect Canada's oceans and marine resources and has strengthened its commitment to marine safety.

This merger decision was not taken lightly. The decision to seriously consider a merger was made in mid-October of 1994. A study of the proposal was conducted by a joint program review initiative by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, with input from the Department of the Environment, the machinery of government, the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Natural Resources Canada.

The purpose of the study was to propose measures to strengthen the policy and program framework and policy delivery capacity for the administration of Canada's oceans.

The goal was, first, to ensure the environmental protection and sustainable development of Canada's oceans resource; second, to provide essential marine safety services; third, to foster efficient and competitive commercial and other marine activities in Canada.

The feasibility study was completed in November 1994 and it confirmed that a merger of the two organizations could result in a number of benefits at the policy and program level.

One of those benefits was improved policy development and direction of the environment and response to the United Nation's Convention on the Law of the Sea. Another was increased effectiveness with respect to fisheries management, enforcement, marine safety, environmental response and one focal point for industry.

With the merger, DFO has assumed responsibility for coast guard marine operations, including search and rescue, marine communications, vessel traffic services, aids to navigation, icebreaking and pollution response.

The Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have many things in common. They have similar backgrounds and traditions. They have similar operations and marine policies and they both share similar views on improving ocean management.

While becoming the principal marine of the new Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the coast guard brings to the organization a reputation for distinguished service from coast to coast.

Collaboration is not new to the government. The coast guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pull together as a strong team in responding to the Grand Banks fishing dispute on turbot. The coast guard played a valuable role in helping solve this dispute and one for which all Canadians are most grateful. Together the coast guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans demonstrated their commitment to preserve and protect our fisheries

resources when others wanted to continue their destructive practices.

This merger can serve only to enhance Canada's efforts in conserving and protecting fishermen, fish and our marine environment. Together they now have a combined fleet size of 148 vessels, including 42 offshore vessels that will improve coverage in the area of search and rescue, as well as the ability to move more aggressively toward a tougher conservation regime through increased enforcement activities.

This will allow the maintenance of the frontline enforcement presence while strengthening surveillance, fishing enforcement and environmental protection activities. The coast guard has a well earned reputation reflected in its motto: Safety First-Service Always.

Both DFO and the coast guard are strong organizations with a common history of working in the marine environment and with shared goals and interests in ocean safety and environmental protection. Together they are building a stronger and more effective department.

With the merger, Canada has the opportunity to become a world leader in oceans and marine resource management.

To make our oceans vision a reality, we need to manage Canada's oceans and major waterways so that they are clean, safe, productive and accessible to ensure sustainable use of our fisheries resources and to facilitate marine trade and commerce. We need to build on our understanding of the oceans so that we can be more responsive to the changes and priorities.

With this merger we will be better able to deliver marine safety services effectively and efficiently while maintaining high national standards. Issues such as boating safety and licensing, marine navigation infrastructure, safety systems and emerging technologies, levels of service as well as user fees and other cost recovery mechanisms must be addressed.

As I pointed out, Canada's ability to manage and protect its oceans has improved with this merger. Amalgamation of the two fleets has increased offshore enforcement capabilities on both the east and west coasts. I am convinced this merger forms a very strong partnership that will streamline oceans management in Canada. I am delighted to speak in support of Bill C-98.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that Bill C-98 before the House today on second reading is a typical example of the kind of bill I like to discuss.

Indeed, it will give me another chance to show Quebecers it would be both useless and dangerous to leave Quebec's development under federal control.

Consider the endless jurisdictional squabbles that would be generated by the passage of this bill. My colleagues from Laurentides and the Gaspé have already discussed this but I feel I must say more on the subject, at a time when Quebecers are about to make an important decision on their collective destiny.

The bill starts by identifying, in Canadian domestic law, Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. To do so, however, the text merely incorporates provisions of the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act and the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. Since the legislation I just mentioned has not been amended in any way, this part of Bill C-98 is redundant. Especially since Canada's sovereignty over its ocean areas is recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which Canada is a signatory.

Part II of this enactment is supposed to provide for the development and implementation of a national oceans management strategy based on the sustainable development and integrated management of oceans and coastal activities and resources. This is, in fact, one of the most ambitious attempts by the federal government to invade jurisdictions over which it has no authority and which it would be folly to cede to the federal government.

According to officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Part II of the bill could have been dropped, since it does not give the Department of Fisheries any new powers to manage a national oceans strategy. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is merely to encourage the minister to collaborate with his colleagues on identifying a strategy. Obviously, the minister cannot assume the authority to manage a strategy that has yet to be defined.

In the light of the foregoing, I wondered why the government bothered to table a bill that apparently is no more than a series of good intentions.

A closer look at the bill gave me the answer. First of all, the bill identifies two classes of intervenors in the process of implementing a national oceans strategy: the federal government and interested persons and bodies. In other words, provincial governments are considered on a par with any lobby group. This is one way of telling Canadian voters that "if you voted for the right side, we will consider what your provincial government wants".

In the case of lobbyists, particularly major ones, this government tells them "If you contribute to our slush fund-the slush fund of the right party-our government will lend a much more attentive ear to your concerns". For examples of this we need only think of the role of the Liberal government in the case of Power DirecTv or the purchase of MCA by Seagram, the sale of Pearson airport, and most recently the privatization of Petro-Canada. We have learned just this week that the sale of federal shares in the latter will be

handled by Gordon Capital of Toronto, the Prime Minister's former employer. It will be remembered very clearly that, when it came time to vote on a private member's bill on public funding of political parties, the government opposed it in order to be good and sure to go on playing the little game of "he who pays the piper picks the tune".

The parallel to be drawn between businesses contributing to the right party fund and voters supporting the right party is obvious, particularly since there is no obligation for the minister to follow any recommendations by the governments of Quebec and the other provinces.

Similarly, sections 31, 32 and 33 of Bill C-98 empower the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to develop and implement a national management strategy for estuarial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Such a strategy will require a number of elements to be created. First, activity management plans; second, administrative or consultative bodies; third, a number of programs; fourth, environmental standards; fifth, scientific data gathering and analysis on the ecosystems concerned.

These are already functions of either Environment Canada or the provinces. We have seen that the minister is seeking through this act to encroach on the provinces' influence over the environment. Thus, the only useful purpose that we can see in this bill is to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It is also worthy of note that the bill before us, as I have already pointed out, will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to encroach upon areas over which the Minister of the Environment has jurisdiction. Like my colleagues, I wondered why cabinet failed to see that and I concluded it was doubtless because, when the Minister of the Environment tries to invade Quebec's area of jurisdiction, she can be seen coming so far off in the distance that the job had to be given to someone else.

The fact that the minister is not obliged to come to an agreement with the provinces, which have a keen interest in the management of the marine environment, is both incomprehensible and unacceptable.

I would also like to point out that the environment is not one of the areas of jurisdiction the constitution attributes explicitly to one level of government in particular. It is what they call an ancillary jurisdiction and is subordinate to those jurisdictions the constitution explicitly mentions.

In theory, the Department of the Environment is responsible for the administration of this ancillary jurisdiction in co-operation with each of the departments concerned.

Until the mid 1980s, the Government of Quebec, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a leading role in environmental matters, occupying the largest part of the field of jurisdiction. The federal government limited its involvement to areas relating to its jurisdiction, as the constitution provides.

After 1985, the federal government began to meddle in environmental matters. It did so primarily by virtue of its spending power and the new powers the courts had accorded it. That was the beginning of many instances of duplication and overlap. They continue to exist and have grown more numerous since the election of the present Liberal government, which is trying to centralize decision-making in Ottawa. The Government of Quebec considers Bill C-98 another step toward centralization.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, which Mr. Lévesque likened to the tower of Pisa, always leaning the same way, took management of the marine environment and surrounding territory away from the provinces and gave it to the federal government in a decision of four justices to three.

With Bill C-98, the federal government is trying to get the most out of this decision. Quebec fears that this centralizing tendency means the federal government will sooner or later claim management of the waters and the use of the tributaries to the coastal estuary and ultimately all fresh water rivers on the pretext that the contaminants in these waters are a source of degradation of the marine environment.

There is currently a great deal of overlap and duplication in federal and provincial environmental regulations. As a result, private businesses very often have to spend time, money and energy on many things such as collecting information on the many government programs, providing the two levels of government with the required data, participating in the various advisory committees and subcommittees in charge of regulating the industry, preparing for the inspections carried out alternately by the federal government and the province, and complying with the requirements of both governments.

In this regard, the toxic waste regulations are a convincing example. At this time, eight federal regulations overlap similar regulations that already exist in Quebec. Let us take, for example, the storage of PCB material regulations and the pulp and paper effluent regulations. Quebec sovereignty would effectively end this duplication.

Although it must recognize that it can no longer afford to take environmental action, since cuts of 32 per cent over three years were announced in its last budget, the federal government continues to usurp the role of the provinces in setting national standards and priorities. The new Environmental Assessment Act that came into effect in January 1995, which encroaches directly on provincial jurisdiction, and the eco-government policy in which the federal government favours relations with citizens and the private

sector rather than with the provinces are striking examples of this kind of attitude.

On the face of it, the federal government has noble objectives and respects these areas of jurisdiction but, in practice, it bypasses the provinces, forcing its agenda on them and effectively taking over provincial responsibilities.

Bill C-98 adds fuel to the fire as the federal government, despite its financial situation, allows itself to create new structures to protect a particular ecosystem.

Bill C-98 sends an ambiguous message. It seems to reflect a concern for marine ecosystems while at the same time taking away from the Department of the Environment part of its responsibilities and treating provincial environment ministries on the same basis as the industry or municipalities. Will Fisheries and Oceans withdraw just like Environment Canada? It is obvious that Environment Canada is becoming a policy generating department instead of taking real actions-the Irving Whale is a case in point-mainly for budget reasons.

This leads to a number of problems. Here are the main ones. First, environmental concerns must clearly be identified by the grassroots. Policy coming from Ottawa is less likely to be suited to local circumstances, let alone be endorsed by the community. In fact, it has become increasingly clear that efficiency in terms of the environment is dependent upon a sense of ownership at the local level. For real progress to be made the people must be concerned about their rivers and marshes, their environment.

Second, one of the federalists' arguments for centralizing environmental management is that pollution knows no boundaries, travelling from one province or state to another. Acid rain and river pollution are good examples of that.

The federal government is apparently the only one who is able to legislate with efficiency and make international agreements, and to take a holistic approach in order to provide global solutions to global problems. Also, it is unthinkable that the minister not be required to work together with EC officials, as my hon. colleagues from Laurentides and Gaspé said earlier. Unsatisfied with creating jurisdiction conflicts with the provinces, the federal government has now set out to create jurisdiction conflicts between its own departments, all this in a context of fiscal restraint.

Once again, we have before us a bill which, like many others before, is designed to centralize it all in Ottawa.

I have much respect for my friends from the Reform Party because they say what they think and they think what they say. They are the only ones actually to speak about decentralization. They are pretending to offer decentralization for the good of all the provinces, including Quebec. I think that would be a good thing and I think they are really serious about it.

However, in that offer somewhere is a catch 22 because my friends in the Reform Party will never form any government in Canada as long as Quebec is a province. Quebec holds the balance of power in the country as far as the vote is concerned and Quebec will never vote Reform. It is not because we hate Reformers; we love them very much. It is because our philosophies are too far apart. We just have to look at our positions on gun control, gay rights, bilingualism and on all of the bills which have been presented to the House. Most of the time we and the Reform Party have voted differently.

My friends all know the country will soon hit the wall. They all know we are going bankrupt, as it was said in the Wall Street Journal not so long ago.

[An hon. member]

The second richest country in the world.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

We need a change and a fast one. My friends in the Reform Party should realize they should support the sovereignty of Quebec. I hope sincerely that somewhere down the road my Reform Party friends will finally see the light on their way to Damascus and find within themselves the courage to follow the logical path of their reasoning and bring it down to the right conclusion.

Most Canadians have actually come to three assumptions about Quebec: first, we are a bunch of troublemakers, never happy with what we get; second, we receive much more money from Canada than what we give to Canada; third, the economic disaster in Canada is partly due to the political instability in Quebec. If those three assumptions are right, then the sovereignty of Quebec should normally be seen by all Canadians as a good way to solve the problem once and for all and make money out of it, providing of course that we assume our fair share of the Canadian debt.

That is exactly what we intend to do through the negotiations which will start after the yes vote, although by all international rules and regulations Quebec has no legal obligation to take any part of the debt. Four studies were produced for the Bélanger-Campeau commission. Two were done in Canada, one in England and one in France. Those studies all came to that conclusion.

In 1994 David Crane in the Toronto Star stated: ``Canada's foreign creditors would not want to transfer part of Canada's debt to Quebec. This is money they loaned to Canada, not Quebec''.

That helps Quebec in a way. It means that Canada would have to reach an accommodation with Quebec since Canada cannot force

Quebec to take its share of the debt. The article continued: "Technically Quebec could walk away from its share of the debt".

In the Gazette on December 13 William Johnson said:``Ottawa would suddenly lose one-quarter of all its taxpayers, but would be responsible for the entire national debt, some $600 billion, nearly half of which is held by foreigners. Ottawa signed for the loans so only Ottawa is responsible before the creditors. Legally, Quebec would have no obligation to pay anything''.

In spite of all this, we are offering to all Canadians that we will assume our fair share through negotiations. It is a shame the Prime Minister of Canada is refusing to negotiate. It jeopardizes Canada and Quebec at the same time.

Canadians should have the right to run their country the way they want without having to please Quebec at each moment. The referendum which will be held quite soon in Quebec will have an answer: yes or no. If it is a yes vote, and I think it will be-

Because every Quebecer remembers full well what Mr. Bourassa himself said, that status quo would be the worse solution for Quebec, and what we are being offered is exactly that, the status quo.

If it is a no vote what will happen? If it is a no vote we are back to square one. Fifteen years of constitutional debate to the next referendum. Nobody wants that.

I quote perhaps the greatest political analyst ever produced, Mr. Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over". It will never be over with Quebec until we win because the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois do not exist to support an idea. They exist because there is an idea to be supported.

Bill C-98, and I will conclude on this, demonstrates Ottawa's will to centralize, which permeates every bill. I would like to point out to my hon. colleagues that, in almost every committee we sit on, the Bloc Quebecois has had to produce minority reports each time Quebec's jurisdictions were at risk of being encroached on.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, before moving to questions and comments, let me say that I find it very regrettable for my constituents, many of whom are fishermen who work hard, to hear the opposition, and in particular a member representing an urban riding, say with such arrogance that the federal government is responsible for the problems in the fisheries sector.

What I find even more regrettable is that the member probably never set foot on a fishing boat, does not know that sector, and did not bother to meet fishermen and see for himself that these people are honest, hardworking people.

I find that regrettable and I think it is an insult to the intelligence of fishermen and plant workers from the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands to say that the only way to solve the problems related to fisheries, including dwindling stocks, is to become sovereign. The opposition is exceedingly arrogant when it makes such comments.

The fisheries sector must, to a large extent, rely on close co-operation with the provinces: New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and, of course, Quebec. But I can tell you that the federal government is also involved. It is there to look after the real interests of fishermen by protecting the integrity of Canada's 200-mile zone. What the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc are actually proposing is to close these 200 miles, this natural access, to Quebec fishermen, if that province becomes an independent country.

I find it regrettable to hear opposition members tell us that we will reduce the fishing rights of Quebec fishermen by 60 per cent in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean. The opposition did not even consider the ocean perch industry, for example, which will resume its activity some day, but our fishermen must fish that stock along the Nova Scotia and Atlantic shores. Unfortunately, the opposition does not take that into account.

It is only concerned with sovereignty, with independence at any cost, and that is what I find regrettable. The opposition could not care less about the plight of my constituents. I invite opposition members, and particularly their leader, to come to the Magdalen Islands and to tell us that they are prepared to protect the real interests of Quebecers-

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon. member, I want to tell him that I was born in Val-d'Espoir, in the Gaspe Peninsula, about two minutes away from his riding. I spent all of-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he used the word "traitor".

[An hon. member]

He must apologize.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I heard the word clearly. You may not have heard it, but everyone on this side heard the member use the word "traitor".

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment. However, I invite the member to go back to the Gaspe Peninsula and withdraw his own comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It seems that the hon. member has withdrawn his comment.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

I am glad the hon. member opposite, who seems to think he is the only person from the Gaspé in this House, withdrew what he said.

I was indeed born in the Gaspé, in Val-d'Espoir, and my family still lives there. I know all about the problems of the fishermen down there. I also spent my holidays in the Gaspé, on Chaleur Bay in the hon. member's riding, and I have seen for myself what the problems are.

The hon. member mentioned the economic future of this country, Mr. Speaker. We want the sovereignty of Quebec for economic reasons. I remember when in 1980, at the time of the first referendum, Mr. Bourassa told us, and this will conclude my speech: "If you say yes to the sovereignty of Quebec in 1980, you can expect a lot of debt, taxes and unemployment". So people decided they should vote no. They did, and we remained a Canadian province. The federal debt rose from $80 billion to $600 billion; the unemployment rate practically doubled; the number of welfare recipients doubled; our young people no longer have a future, and we are still in Canada.

I think the hon. member should do his homework, visit his riding again and check with the people there, because in the Gaspé we are going to win.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a warm wind blowing from this side of the House.

I was interested in hearing the remarks of the member from the Bloc. He made some statements with which I do not agree and I have some questions for him.

He suggested the Reform Party was honest in its approach. I agree with him that we are being direct and honest in our approach. He also suggested it is unfortunate that we are in a catch 22 situation. While the people in Quebec can identify with the aspirations of the Reform Party because we represent the aspirations of people in other regions of Canada, the Bloc feels that we will never have the opportunity to form a government because philosophically we are miles apart.

When the gun control legislation passed through the House we were approached by organizations in Quebec representing 1.2 million law-abiding gun owners in Quebec who could not get representation in the House or at the committee meetings.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask hon. members, especially those who were here during the previous Parliament-the people of Canada must think we are pretty silly. I would ask members to show some courtesy to their colleagues who have the floor, and the hon. member for Skeena has the floor at this time.

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, on a point of order.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize his microphone was not turned on, but since a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has been uttering threats at me. I would like him to withdraw what he said, as well as his invitations to step outside the House. After all, this is not a kindergarten. I would like him to withdraw what he said.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I never threatened a single member in this House, and I would invite the member to withdraw, because today I have heard nothing but personal insults from the opposition.

I only invited the junior member of the opposition, who is my age, to talk about this in a civilized way outside the House, and I invite him to do so now.

Mr. Speaker, I never uttered threats at anyone in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, this may be a matter of interpretation, but the gestures he made earlier along with his invitation to step outside, anywhere, anytime, were self-explanatory. In other words, the hon. member wanted to settle a matter in a way that is unacceptable in this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In the circumstances, I will again recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a school yard. This is the House of Commons. And as I said, if the hon. member has anything to tell me personally, I would invite him to do so outside, that is all, to settle this matter once and for all.

However, to say that we are threatening members of the opposition-I think it is unfortunate the level of debate should sink so low.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also witnessed this incident, and I can confirm to the House that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine actually invited my colleague to step outside and fight.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough of these denials of what happened and these attempts to convince others that this was not the case. It was. He invited my colleague to step outside of the House and fight.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, I did not hear the words we are discussing now. I will review the blues, the minutes of the proceedings, and if I see anything, I will get back to it later in the House, if necessary. For the time being, we must take the hon. member at his word. The member for Skeena has the floor.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to finish my remarks before we get into school yard tactics here, the hon. member from the Bloc was suggesting the Reform Party would never form the government. I beg to differ with him. I feel genuinely sorry for those members because they earnestly believe they will achieve their goal. However we all know they will not.

When the people of Quebec vote no in the referendum on October 30, they will then be looking for alternatives and the Reform Party is the only political party on the national landscape right now that offers serious alternatives.

Members of the governing party have a vested interest in keeping the debate ongoing for the rest of their lives because there is a political gain in it for them.

The Reform Party has a completely different vision of that, a completely different point of view. If the Reform Party gets the opportunity to form the government, which we believe we will in the next federal election, there will be an opportunity to discuss a new federal arrangement with all the provinces, not just with Quebec.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the trouble in the minds of my friends in the Reform Party, but it is a reality, it is a fact, that within the country there are three major voices. The first one goes to Ontario, the second one to Quebec due to the demographic compilation, and the third one goes to westerners. In my own opinion it is a shame. Even the Liberal government is always calling the Reform Party the third party because that is the way it is.

I sincerely think westerners should have a real say in Parliament. They should be entitled to run for power, which is not the case actually.

My friend suggests that if the no wins, the Reform will probably form the next government. However, if the no wins, for a short period of time the Prime Minister of Canada will be seen as the saviour, Captain Canada, and he will be elected again. We will be here too. To have the potential to take power the Reform Party must assume that it should support the sovereignty of Quebec.