Debates of Oct. 8th, 1996

Canada Shipping Act

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the Reform Party's critic for transport, along with several other members of the transport committee, was involved in a transport problem. Their bus was hit by a flying wheel from another vehicle, and so today you are getting the B team. It is most unfortunate. It seems to be endemic in the province of Ontario. Maybe they should start tying the wheels on to their equipment.

The Reform Party supports the hon. minister's motion that this bill be sent to committee forthwith. It is good legislation. It addresses a problem of great magnitude.

There is a longstanding and ongoing problem in the shipping industry relative to this which is the indirect cause of an awful lot of problems in the marine environment. Many ships are flying flags of convenience and therefore it is very difficult to enforce environmental regulations, safety regulations, labour regulations and so on against them.

Canada has some means under existing law of exerting pressure on its nationals to register. This mechanism is simply to deny access to Canadian ports to foreign registered ships that do not meet our safety, sanitation and environmental standards. However, some ships that fly flags of convenience will slip through that net even though they do meet those standards. They fly flags of

convenience primarily to avoid labour laws and taxes. It is very difficult to deal with these ships.

I have a very modest proposal. Since the Minister of Canadian Heritage is giving away free Canadian flags, maybe she could give some to the Minister of Finance to put on certain ships, of which we are all well aware in this House, that are presently flying foreign flags.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Transport. I would also like to put on the record that the official opposition parties appear to be in favour of this legislation.

It is an historic day for the House of Commons. This legislation will complete the job of environmental protection, as far as substances such as PCBs are concerned, as it will regulate their use and transport in Canada.

We have a law in Canada today which prohibits the use of polychlorinated biphenyls. That law was brought in by a former minister of the environment in a previous Liberal administration, Madam Sauvé. It followed the adoption of other great bills by the Liberal administration of the day: the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Fisheries Act, which govern the protection of the environment as far as the oceans are concerned. This will complete that protection. It will not only ensure that polychlorinated biphenyls are not present in our environment, it will also increase the liability for those companies which have to move the PCBs.

It is one thing to outlaw a substance such as polychlorinated biphenyls, but it is another matter to move it to the location which has been chosen to destroy it.

I would again like to congratulate the Minister of Transport. This is a wonderful bill. I also congratulate the opposition parties for agreeing with it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill referred to a committee.)

The House resumed from October 7, 1996, consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read for the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Oceans Act

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

Many speakers have dealt with this bill since it was introduced in Parliament, and everything would indicate that, true to the spirit of his party and of the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will refuse to entertain the amendments proposed by the official opposition.

It must be said that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have a tendency to draft legislation without taking into account the official opposition's criticisms and analyses, which are all the more significant since they often represent the concerns of those most affected by the actions of the government, and that the government responds only to the large corporations that give substantial amounts to the Liberal coffers. The lobbyists that gravitate around the government are so powerful that we have to ask ourselves who really runs the country. Is it the Prime Minister, from his offices in the Langevin Block, or the Yonge Street moguls?

In any case, there are so many examples of this that it would take all the time allocated to this debate to list them all. I propose to examine Bill C-26, before the House today, and you be in a better position to understand my point of view.

The rules proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are certainly commendable in many respects. Setting up a system of standards to regulate the marine sector and allied industries demonstrates a willingness to harmonize the government's vision with the outlook of the major players in this field. However, if we take a closer look at the main elements of this bill, we see, surprisingly, that this is not the case.

Let us take, for example, the pleasure craft registration plan. If the minister limited this scheme to the registration of merchant vessels and tourist ships, it would provide for a better control of shipping. In this perspective, the government could ensure a logical and accurate classification of craft. But this is not the case. The minister is proposing to have all types of craft registered, whatever their intended use. Can you imagine the costs related to such an initiative? I think the minister's idea is totally absurd and suggests a certain lack of vision on the part of his advisers.

The minister's bill proposes a fee schedule based on the type of craft, ranging from $5 to $35 annually. Would it really be

necessary and appropriate to register one's pedal boat for $5 a year? I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, and it has nothing to do with the minimal costs involved.

Of course, the first year, Canadians will be told they must pay a $5 annual fee to register their pedal boat. So it may be $5 the first year, but since the government will have the self-financing of this registration system as a short term objective, I can assure you that, within five years, the cost of registering a pedal boat will no longer be $5, but $20, $25 or $30 annually. But the government is not telling us that now.

It is nice to know that ridicule never killed anyone because if it did, while we are debating this absurd idea, all the flags in this country would be lowered at half-mast and Canadians would be in mourning for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

But let us get back to what interests us, rather than the minister's state of mind. Setting aside the legislative excesses of the minister himself, this bill is the result of public consultations. At least, that is what the minister says. According to research done by the Bloc Quebecois, three quarters of the witnesses that appeared before the fisheries committee said they were against the introduction of this legislative measure. The Canadian coast guard itself carried out a series of consultations in which almost all those interviewed were against the proposed fee structure.

If you are still with me, and I am sure you are, you should see the connection with my introduction very easily. I continue.

In no way has the coast guard taken into consideration the representations and testimony heard during its consultations. From this point of view, what makes the minister think he can draft even the most elementary bill? I put the question again.

With a consultation process that was biased from the beginning, it was inevitable that they would come up with a hodge podge of vaguely logical standards that are so ridiculous as to defy comprehension, which in the end is rather typical of the present government and its leader.

Furthermore, one is entitled to wonder how appropriate it is for the coast guard to register all pleasure craft for control purposes, when this body, which reports through the department, only patrols the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay, the Richelieu and the Ottawa rivers.

Why should the coast guard take it upon itself to tax pedal boats on the Lac de l'Est, when the coast guard will never in its life be seen on that lake, its work in Quebec being limited at present to the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay, the Richelieu and the Ottawa rivers.

They would have us believe that the user pay concept is involved, but what about the thousands of lakes and the hundreds and hundreds of navigable rivers in Quebec? In my region, for example, there is Lac Aylmer, little Lac Saint-François, big Lac Saint-François, Lac Bisby, Lac Rond, Lac à la Truite, Lac William, Lac Bécancour, and Lac Bolduc by Saint-Méthode, where people will eventually have to pay to register their rowboats, 6 h.p. outboards, and pedal boats, but where no Canadian coast guard officer will ever be seen.

The real reason, the reason the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is trying so desperately to keep from us, is very simple. Furthermore, the coast guard official from Quebec mentioned it. He came right out and said it: "We are $14 million short in our operating budget". I bet that getting the missing $14 million will cost the coast guard some $16, $18, or $20 million in administration costs, salaries and paper work. That is administration as this government sees it, and clear proof of what the federal government really has in mind, and particularly of its roundabout way of getting what it wants.

Still, I never would have believed that the government would stoop so low as to make people register pedal boats, rowboats or kayaks. Why not those little rafts that we probably all built as teenagers in May, then left to rot away on shore when fall came around? And all for the purpose of cost recovery.

Of course, people might well support charging registration fees for seadoos or high power launches. But imposing a fee for a sailboard, when the coast guard provides no services to its owner, might be overdoing it just a bit. And they dare bring up the concept that is so popular right now: user pay.

The minister does not even stop there; he proposes a pleasure craft handling course, and fines, somewhat along the line of the firearms safety courses that are given everywhere in the country. Could the department be intending to make the owners or operators or rowboats and pedal boats take training? You can see just how silly it could all get.

I cannot help but be amused at the idea of my children having to take a pedal boat handling course, or my son Martin having to pay a fine for having done some fancy acrobatics on his sailboard. Of course he would have to have been caught in such an act on the St.Lawrence, Richelieu, Saguenay or Ottawa rivers, for the coast guard does not, of course, patrol Lac Aylmer behind my house, nor indeed other lakes such as big Lac Saint-François or Lac de l'Est.

I just mentioned the less subtle measures in this bill. I could have taken an entirely different approach to demonstrate the absurdity of the proposed legislation. The hon. member for Gaspé broached the subject, without getting the slightest bit of attention from the minister. At best, certain amendments may be discussed, but the impact of that exercise is predictable.

The federal government, through its Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has once again shown its lack of concern for public consultation. The public disagrees with the principle of this bill, and the government insists on adopting it regardless. One wonders about the real motives of this government, in the course of an exercise that has been under way for nearly a year.

We can readily conclude that the federal government is once again trying to invade the jurisdictions of the provinces, not only by wanting to control vessels on the waterways of Quebec and other provinces but also by setting certain environmental control standards, which clearly gives more extensive powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans while diminishing the role of the Department of the Environment.

The minister is intent on duplicating controls within the federal government itself, at a time when we are all desperately trying to limit and reduce this phenomenon as it occurs between the central government and the provinces. No doubt about it, the minister is going through a serious power crisis, which may explain the leadership problems within cabinet and the Prime Minister's failure to make him see reason.

Before I finish my speech, I would like to draw your attention to a situation that is even more critical and revealing of the government's intentions. Bill C-26 does not make it incumbent on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reach agreement with other members of cabinet, any more than with officials of the Department of the Environment. This situation could lead to the kind of overlap and duplication that has not existed so far but will with the forthcoming passage of Bill C-26, since the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on the basis of the mission he has given himself, will be able to appropriate the role of the Minister of the Environment as he sees fit.

The federal government would have the public believe it is intent on putting its financial house in order. Why not call a spade a spade? The people of Quebec are starting to understand what the federal government is really driving at and it will soon be in a position to establish its own rules, and I for one certainly hope so.

Instead of chasing after people with pedal boats or rowboats using them for recreation on provincial waterways such as Lac Saint-François, Lac William, Lac du Huit, Lac à la Truite or Lac de l'Est, in my riding, the Liberal government would be better off ensuring that the 2,000 jobs in our asbestos mines can be kept.

Instead of going after young people, instead of asking that boats such as pedal boats be registered, what is the government waiting for to invest equivalent amounts of money in defending the asbestos industry, to fight against the type of misrepresentations that were aired on TV5 in the special report called "Amiante: 50 ans de mensonges"-50 years of lying about asbestos?

To conclude, I again urge the government to listen to its ambassador to France, who only two weeks ago suggested it launch a major campaign to promote the safe use of asbestos.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc who just spoke is doing exactly the same thing as the other Bloc members are doing concerning this bill.

He is concentrating, as the hon. member from the Gaspé did, on just six or seven clauses in the bill. There are 109 clauses in the bill. The Bloc has picked out six clauses, about that, from clause 47 to 52, regarding the wording that the minister "may". It is not the minister "shall". It is not the minister "will". It is not the minister "has to". It says "the minister may" do this or that.

Then it has to be published in the Canada Gazette after 30 days of its passing. Then it goes before a committee of the Statutory Instruments Act and to be reviewed by a House of Commons standing committee.

The hon. member has not even commented on the main thrust of this bill, which is that the Canadian government on behalf of the people of Canada is declaring an economic zone, that there will be an exclusive economic zone that runs 200 nautical miles out from the territorial sea which goes to the low water mark.

An historic bill in the House of Commons by the Government of Canada to protect the marine resources and the seabed of Canada is the main purpose of this bill.

All one has to do is read what the Department of Justice has put in the summary of the bill, which is exactly what I said, to meet the changing law at the United Nations under the United Nations law of the sea convention.

They decide to not even comment on that. What they are talking about are fees that were introduced under previous legislation that enabled the minister to do this or that in the past. Under this act, the six sections they are dealing with, it does not say the minister "shall". It says the minister "may". There is a whole procedure under this act that the minister has to go through.

I am sure the hon. member will stand in the House and praise the government for the general thrust of this bill that will protect the fishing rights of the fishermen of the north shore of Quebec and the Gaspé.

For once a government in Canada is turning around and doing what a lot of other nations have done in this world. We should have done this years and years ago. However, it is to the credit of this administration that it is now being done.

I hope that the hon. member will rise in his place and congratulate this Liberal Government of Canada for what it is doing for the fishermen of Canada.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had only listened to my whole speech, and not only to the parts he did not like, he would know that I think some components of Bill C-26 are commendable.

However, for this strategy to be implemented successfully, we had better define the relations between partners clearly. Why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans interfering in provincial jurisdiction once again? There is Lac Aylmer, big Lac Saint-François, and Lac Bisby, where the water is barely 18 inches deep. You want to have licences for pedal boats? This is utterly ridiculous. These taxpayers will never see a coast guard officer.

I can just imagine the Minister trying to get teenagers of 14, 15 or 16 years of age to take a training course on the basics of pedal boating. Are you seriously trying to run the country, Canada, by interfering in such a blatant and clumsy way in areas under provincial jurisdiction?

Then there is Saint-François River, that I used to go down on a makeshift raft when I was a kid. Will children at play have to get a $5 to $20 licence from the department when everybody knows that, according to the user pay principle, we should pay for services we get, patrols for instance?

In this regard, I named the bodies of water where the coast guard mighty be seen, but in my riding, in all of the Eastern Townships, we never see a coast guard officer. What we will see is collectors. To begin with, the fee for a pedal boat will be $5 but, again, in five, six or seven years, $5 will escalate to $60 or $70. This is utterly ridiculous.

This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are afraid of these new fee setting powers, and why we did not hesitate a moment to vigorously condemn Bill C-26; of course, all of us in the Bloc Quebecois will vote against it. I sincerely hope that the Liberal government will sit down and go over the consultations it held, as well as those held by the coast guard, and change its mind. To err is human, and going ahead with this piece of legislation will be one of the worst mistakes the government has made over the past two years.

In spite of a few good things in Bill C-26, when you look at the whole thing, it is glaringly obvious that it must be defeated.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Frontenac, explained the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-26 very forcefully in his comments to the member for Gander-Grand Falls, and I admire him for it.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the purpose, to the validity of a national strategy on ocean management. However, we have always said that the relationships between the partners involved should be better defined, and this was supposed to be at the core of the bill. That is what my colleague said; failing such a clear definition, we are very concerned about the new powers the minister is grabbing under this bill.

The minister did not have all those powers before, and look at the horrendous things that went on last spring. It is certainly not for the beauty or the grandeur of Canada they are proposing a national strategy. There are other reasons behind these new powers of set fees.

If Canada really wants its national strategy to succeed, it will have to establish clear relationships with its partners. The member for Gander-Grand Falls knows what I mean. He has been in this House for 22 or 24 years in this House; he has seen Tory prime ministers. He will recall that there once was a Liberal premier in his province called Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford was a fervent defender of cod conservation but he never got a hearing in Ottawa as long as the Tories were in office.

If we want to avoid repeating past mistakes-and the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls will surely agree that the good standing of the prime minister or his success on the campaign trail, both in Ottawa and Newfoundland, will not go on forever-so, if we want to prevent bickering in the future, we must clearly define the roles of all partners and the relationships between them. That is what we must do. I am sure that my colleague shares my views on this.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution Act of 1867, there is a division of powers. There is little doubt that navigable waters come under federal jurisdiction, since many people in this huge country could use waters like the St. Lawrence River, the Richelieu River or the Ottawa River, too name only a few. We agree with that.

However, I mentioned a moment ago some lakes in Northern Quebec. There are thousands and thousands of lakes and rivers which, I am sure, are totally under Quebec jurisdiction. The minister is trying to assume control of navigation on lakes by requiring the registration of boats, and I am not prepared to accept that. We must condemn such action.

I remember the former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, who, little by little, assumed powers which were not federal to start with. His philosophy was a weak Quebec and a strong Canada, the goal was to bring the provinces down to the level of small municipalities. These was your goal, was it not? You were in this House at the time. We will not let you do it. We will not let this government do it and I can guarantee that we will make sure that Quebec jurisdiction is fully protected.

Once again it is shameful that the Liberal Party, using its majority in the House, should impose a fee structure so ridiculous that it will require registration of all boats and penalize children who are simply going to play on the rivers and the lakes. The Liberal Party will be held responsible for penalizing young people, in Quebec and elsewhere in this huge country.

Once again I urge the government to sit down with the provinces and talk strategy with its partners. You are not the only government in this country. There are other provinces, there are two territories. Do you think that the other provinces are willing to give up their jurisdiction? I do not think so. If you give an inch to the federal government it will take a foot and if you give it a foot it will take every last body of water.

I hope the government will review its positions and will reread the notes from consultations it held throughout the country, since more than three quarters of those who were consulted are opposed to Bill C-26.

This reminds me of the Prime Minister, who said last week that General Boyle was the best and that there would not be a new defence minister every 12 months, as under the Conservatives. He insisted on defending his general and his defence minister, and today, the whole house of cards is collapsing. I think you and I, Mr. Speaker, could get a bet going on how long General Boyle will keep his job. Will he hang on till the end of the week?

In conclusion, I urge the government to show some humility by withdrawing large portions of Bill C-26, particularly with regard to the registration of craft on small bodies of water under provincial jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26, the oceans act.

I am going to deal with very specific areas that the government and previous governments have failed to deal with in an extremely important aspect of Canadian society. The oceans surround our country on three sides. Within those oceans exist enormous opportunity and responsibility: commercially, socially, with respect to protecting the environment and the species that live within them. These waters can benefit not only Canadians but also people around the world.

First I want to speak about the minister's plan dealing with the commercial fishing strategy, which to me, living in British Columbia, is a huge disappointment. The various sectors in the commercial fishing groups have met with the minister and have expressed concrete, specific and reasonable proposals that are fair to everybody and would save our fisheries for today and into the future.

Instead, the minister proposed the Mifflin plan which unfortunately is going to decimate the commercial fishing strategy on the west coast. It will produce an east coast disaster on the west coast. This is an entirely preventable situation. What is the minister going to do?

The minister is going to centre the commercial fishery into a very small number of hands. He is decreasing the number of fishing boats, which is a good thing, but instead of doing it in a fair way, he is making sure that commercial fishing in British Columbia is in the hands of a very small number of large players. The outcome will be great unemployment among the commercial fishing sector. The little communities up and down the coast of British Columbia that have survived for decades on fishing for their livelihood will be decimated. The social implications cannot be underestimated.

It is clear to everybody in the House what it means to a small community to have its single industry ripped from it. This does not need to happen. Because of the fees being implemented, the commercial fisheries in British Columbia will be in the hands of the large boats and producers. The little people will be out of a job, out of work and up the creek.

An intelligent strategy needs to be put forward. Along with scientists, the minister should define what the allowable catch should be. That information should be given to the different groups that will decide for themselves how they are going to divide it up. In that way the government does not get involved in how this will be done and it does not get the flack for it. The sole responsibility lies within the different commercial fishing strategies themselves. It would also include the sports fishing strategy which must not be underestimated as it has been in the past.

In British Columbia there are 300,000 sports fishermen. These individuals inject billions of dollars into the British Columbia economy every year.

This minister and previous governments have utterly ignored this important sector. They tell them how much fish they can catch every year far too late. For example, beginning in January are the first trade shows for the sports fishing groups in British Columbia. They need to know before these shows how much they are allowed to catch, where they are allowed to fish, to be able to get visitors and tourists from around the world to come to our waters to fish.

Last year those data came down in the spring. As a result visitors who would normally come to the waters of British Columbia to fish said they are not coming because they believe there will not be any fish to fish and they do not know how much they can fish. A lot of people from around the world felt there was simply no salmon to catch in British Columbia. That is an avoidable tragedy.

If this continues the sports fishing groups within British Columbia will be decimated at a huge loss to British Columbia and the Canadian economy.

These data are available in November. I am proposing that the minister, with scientists, determine how many fish the sports fishing groups can take and where they can take it from. The minister will let them know what that catch is going to be by December 1. That is a challenge I put to the minister of fisheries and the people who work in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

If he can do that one thing then our sports fishing groups will have the opportunity and the ability to get fishermen from around the world to come to Canada, to spend their money and inject money into the Canadian economy. This can happen and I implore him to do this now rather than waiting until the spring when it is too late.

One of the things the minister is not doing is addressing the commercial fishing strategy in an intelligent fashion. He is not setting appropriate limits, he is setting them too late and he is not enabling them to divide up the catch among themselves in a way that is appropriate.

Many intelligent ideas have come from commercial fishing groups such as catching at the mouths of rivers or outside of certain areas and not setting up a wall of net so that the fish do not get vacuumed out of the ocean. The minister must let the fish go up the river in adequate numbers to lay their eggs and smaller fish to come down later one. If he does not do this the stream will die.

The minister has been negligent in addressing the whole aspect of enforcement. It is critically important when you are speaking about enforcement that it take place fairly and equitably regardless of nationality, the colour of skin or ethic origin. It is imperative that the minister tell his Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers who are currently hamstrung by the upper echelons in the bureaucracy that they must enforce the law to the benefit of all.

I do not care who you are, everybody will benefit by the fair and equitable enforcement of the law. Currently that is not happening. A blind eye is given to certain segments of our society that fish and poach. The officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the RCMP are told not to deal with them because the government is afraid of having a confrontation with these people or being labelled racist or anti-aboriginal, and that is not acceptable.

It does a huge disservice to the aboriginal people who, for example, are fishing within their limits in a fair and equitable way, as the vast majority are, and who are interested in having a long term sustainable fishery. It does a huge disservice to the non-aboriginal community members who feel left out of the loop and who feel they are being treated as second class citizens. One law for everybody and it has to be enforced. That way you get respect for the laws of the land. Without that no respect exists.

The minister must also bring together the people who actually damaged the environment in which the fish are living. Habitat rejuvenation is one of the key elements in rejuvenating our west coast fishery. There are a large number of streams that have been decimated by logging and mining.

It is important that these streams get back to where they were but it is equally important that the taxpayer not pay for that. Those who actually polluted are those who should pay. That is where the minister's job comes in. That is where the minister has to take a leadership role and say "you damaged the stream, you are going to fix it up but we are going to work in a co-ordinated way to provide you with the ability to do this". Perhaps some tax benefits for doing this would be advisable.

In doing that we can rejuvenate our streams, increase the flows of wild stocks of salmon and thereby increase the economic viability of our west coast fishery. All of these things are interwoven and all of them must be addressed: adequate dealings with the commercial and sports fishing sectors, setting adequate limits for all of those groups, habitat rejuvenation, law enforcement.

If the minister could stop studying these issues and start acting on them, perhaps we will be able to save our west coast fishery instead of looking into the eyes of the east coast disaster.

Another aspect that is critically important on the west coast which this bill could deal with but does not is the whole aspect or lighthouses. It has been shown quite unequivocally that the destaffing of lighthouses on the west coast is going to have a negative effect on the safety of the people who ply our waters in that area. It has been shown not only from a safety aspect but, more important, from an economic aspect. If we are going to deal with cold, hard facts, let us deal with them.

If we destaff a lighthouse it is going to cost the taxpayer more money to service that lighthouse than if there were somebody there right now. The amount of money that person actually puts into maintaining that lighthouse far exceeds that person's wages, far exceeds the cost to the taxpayer. It is senseless and utterly idiotic to destaff lighthouses on the west coast.

I implore the minister before it is too late to look at this again, look at it intelligently, look at the facts. I am sure he will come to the conclusion that it is better not to deman our lighthouses on the west coast.

There are also other local initiatives that can be supported. The western marine community in British Columbia has put a proposal for the funding of our coast guard. It is a sensible proposal. It is a proposal that would not cost the taxpayer more money. It is a proposal that would provide for effective coast guard search and

rescue responses in British Columbia. I ask the minister again to look at this very good proposal by the western marine community.

As well, there are a lot of local initiatives where the people have come together to put forth search and rescue capabilities in the smaller communities which are not easily serviced by the coast guard. These are inexpensive ways of providing safety on the west coast. The minister can take a leadership role not by putting more money into the system but by encouraging these initiatives with the local groups and again have a user pay situation.

I am sure the boaters who ply the waters on the west coast will not mind paying for this service that they will desperately need at some time in their lives.

Another large area that this bill does not deal with and one that is very close to my heart and I am sure the hearts of many Canadians, in particular the youth of Canada, is the environment. As we speak, there are huge problems with respect to pollution within our oceans. That is manifested, for example, in the elevation of toxic carcinogenic, teratogenic materials such as PCBs and many other substances that are going through our food chain and are magnifying themselves as they go up the food chain. The outcome of that is these animals are dying but in the larger area we can see that if we are at the top of the food chain, these toxins and carcinogens are also accumulating within us.

We may think this is not a problem, but I would draw the attention of the House to the Arctic. The people who live in the Arctic are suffering from greater teratogenic effects, genetic abnormalities and cancer rates than would normally occur. The reason this is occurring is that toxins and carcinogens are accumulating in the food chain. When people eat, the toxins and carcinogens accumulate in them and the outcome is a medical disaster.

I plead with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment to bring forth intelligent and effective solutions to this problem. It cannot be done in isolation. The pollutants in our Arctic also come from other Arctic countries.

I was in Yellowknife earlier this year where the countries of the Arctic got together to discuss this issue. I had hoped to see some action. Unfortunately they chose to study the problem and create an Arctic council to look at the problem. The time for studying and examining has run out. The time has long past for another royal commission or for a House of Commons committee to study the problem. We need action now. The people of the Arctic need action now. If anyone doubts me, let them go to the Arctic and let them look at the horrible diseases which are affecting those people. It is going to get worse.

We are a leader in a number of areas. One of the areas in which we are a leader is research. On the west coast, in Victoria, there is a superb research facility which provides research that is commercially applicable and scientifically applicable. Scientists from all over the world look to us and derive information from our research for their own uses.

Cuts must be made, but we should not cut important research. The research done in these areas will have a dramatic effect on our society which will benefit all of us. It would be penny wise and pound foolish for us to cut research in these areas.

A few years ago we had an excellent opportunity to be a world leader in fish farming. The Chileans took it away from us because we let them. Icelanders came to us a few years ago and said: "Canada, we are very good at fish farming. We are very good at managing our fisheries. Let us work with you in developing co-operative strategies to improve commercial and sports fishing within Canada". They went home disgusted. They went home despondent. They could not believe that Canada did absolutely nothing to save its fisheries. They saw the potential which existed within our great country. Why could we not?

Our fisheries and our oceans provide an enormous opportunity. With that opportunity comes a great responsibility. We have done a huge disservice to the oceans. Instead of taking a proactive, intelligent and effective role in managing our fisheries and oceans we have abrogated that responsibility to the detriment of this sector. We will pay for it in the future. It is not too late to do something about it. I know the minister would like to work with my colleagues in the Reform Party and with members of the Bloc Quebecois. Together we can work with members of the public and interested sectors to provide good, effective strategies to save our commercial and sports fishing and our oceans and their environment.

I put that challenge to the minister. I welcome his response forthwith.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the general thrust of the bill which is of course aimed at conservation, aimed at better fisheries management and the fact that Canada is now declaring its own 200-mile exclusive economic zone outside the territorial sea for management and conservation purposes. Perhaps the member would praise the federal government, praise the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the parliamentary secretary for finally taking this magnificent move for the people of Canada.

The hon. member mentioned the fact that toxins and pollutants are getting into the streams and waterways in the province of British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. Does he agree with a recent move by the Canadian government, this administration, instead of using toxic chemicals such as Matacil and fenitrothion and other chemicals over wide areas of forest land in our provinces,

to the biological use of bacillus thuringiensis, commonly referred to as BT? This was developed in Canada by Canadian scientists. In fact, the scientist who developed it was Professor Smirnoss in the Quebec region.

Does the member agree with the shift away from the use of chemicals in forest protection and in other areas, which chemicals inevitably find their way into the streams and thereby into the oceans?

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

Madam Speaker, the fact is that we cannot manage a 20-mile zone, let alone a 200-mile zone. That is the reality we face on the west coast.

For example, right now fishing boats are vacuuming our oceans, going offshore taking fish and putting them on commercial packing and freezing vessels from other countries on the Pacific rim. This is all done under the table. Enforcement officers and the coast guard know this and absolutely nothing is done.

I know the member is very sympathetic and is involved and has done a lot of good work for the people in his area. He knows this is happening.

We can extend the zone out to 500 miles if we want to, but it will not make any difference because there is no political will to do anything about it. That is the problem: political will. The rest is merely a sham.

I implore the hon. member who has worked so hard for his people to put pressure on the minister, as we are trying to do, to provide effective solutions within the 20-mile zone, the 200-mile zone, or whatever zone he wants to extend it to, because it is not happening now.

To answer the member's other question, the DFO bureaucracy is extremely top heavy. It is working against the very good people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the ground who feel extraordinarily frustrated. The best DFO officers are moved away from their areas of most effectiveness to areas where they are least effective. This is happening to them right now purely because of political reasons. They are doing this because the DFO bureaucracy at the top do not want to see these people carrying out their jobs because part of their job is politically incorrect.

The DFO bureaucracy are afraid of actually living up to the rules and regulations upon which they are supposed to operate but do not. The DFO officers on the ground who are committed, hard working individuals want very much to save our fishery for everybody. It breaks their hearts and demoralizes them to see their own bureaucracy hampering them. Those are the facts.

To answer the hon. member's last question, I agree with him that the movement away from chemicals that are teratogenic and carcinogenic and damaging to the environment is excellent. He raised the example of BT, a Canadian discovery. I would also remind the hon. member that we are probably not going to have any more BT discoveries in Canada because research has been gutted by his own bureaucracy and ministry.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member's speech. The facts are quite different from the arguments he made here.

The member is trying to do two things at the same time. His party makes an argument as to why there should be further cuts in every department of government. Then he gets up in his own local interest, decries the government for the cuts it has made in trying to balance the budget and have a streamlined administration of departments, such as fisheries and oceans.

Quite clearly he cannot have it both ways. He cannot have the leader of his party or his finance critic get up day after day in this place and say: "Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut", and then get up during debates in the House of Commons and criticize the government and say: "Do not cut; put more resources in".

I am quite familiar with this diverse view that is shared by members of the Reform Party. As chairman of the committee that examined this bill, I had to live with it almost daily. Members of the Reform Party would sit down and agree with the individuals who came and made submissions. They indicated quite clearly that this bill was long overdue, that it was a courageous act by the minister of fisheries of the day, who is now the premier of Newfoundland, and the Prime Minister of Canada to come forward with such a consolidation.

Each time they would agree with the witness but when it came time to debate the principles and to support what the evidence had told us during the committee hearings, they ran away and scattered. And then they get other members who were not on the committee to stand up in this place and try to have it both ways. That is not going to be the case today.

The member just said that this government and the current minister and the previous minister basically did not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the issues of the day. I would ask him whether or not his party supported, when we were at committee, the consolidation of programs and legislation inherent in the oceans act.

Did Reform support the efforts of this government to go in and reduce a bloated bureaucracy in many departments, including fisheries and oceans which was reduced by 40 per cent, most of which was at head office? Did Reform support the efforts of the former minister of fisheries and this government in going before

the court of world opinion and saying no to overfishing when it came to Spain and the raiding of our turbot stock on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks?

The member cannot have it both ways. Is he prepared to get up and tell us that yes, in those areas we have been courageous and yes, that what we have done is right, not always what was easy but that we have taken our responsibilities as we should have as a government? If he is, then it is fairly clear to me he is more concerned about playing to a diminishing local audience of supporters in his riding instead of getting up here and engaging in the type of vigorous and knowledgeable debate that is normally the case when bills come before this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member agrees with me that the former minister did not have the intestinal fortitude to make the changes that are required to save our country's fisheries.

Let us examine the kinds of cuts this government is prepared to make. In my riding, in Sooke which is about 35 or 40 kilometres from Victoria, the government closed the local DFO office. Why did it take two active enforcement fisheries officers away from Sooke, one of the most active fishing areas on the west coast? Why did it close that office? Because it wanted a half day secretarial position in Victoria. These are the types of cuts this government is prepared to make, what it calls effective cuts. It gets rid of two enforcement officers and puts forth one half time equivalent in a secretarial position.

I would like to go on but I know I do not have the time. If those are the kinds of cuts this government is prepared to make and is making, we do not support that at all. We support effective cuts that will get rid of the bloated bureaucracy here in Ottawa in an effective way. Bring the power to the local people. Support local initiatives and give the DFO officers the backing they require.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

The purpose of this bill is to allow the coast guard to charge for its services, including navigational aids and ice breaking, by giving the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to impose such fees.

This bill also deals with the environment, as well as the registration of pleasure craft by the coast guard and related fees, aspects I will address later.

The imposition of fees for coast guard services is another fine example of a measure taken without really consulting or co-operating with the main stakeholders, and without knowing the real impact this will have on the affected regions.

Bill C-26 is a fine example of the current Liberal government's real consideration for the respective roles of the federal government and the provinces. In fact, it is impossible to understand or to accept that this bill places the provinces on the same level as any other player like lobby groups, municipalities and industries. This shows a blatant lack of respect and common sense, and we are entitled to think this bill may provoke several other conflicts between Ottawa, the provinces and the various stakeholders.

As for consultations, the Liberal government behaved in its usual fashion. It pretended to consult and listen, but it always ends up doing what it wants without considering the comments made by other parties. All the witnesses who appeared at the hearings held by the fisheries and oceans committee deplored the coast guard's decision making and consultation process, especially the fact that the minister went ahead with the new fee structure without first assessing the economic impact on shipping and related industries.

Furthermore, 75 per cent of witnesses asked the minister to call a moratorium on the new fees while waiting for the impact studies commissioned for this fall. The witnesses also suggested that the minister co-operate with the shipping industry in carrying out economic impact studies. Finally, there was a clear consensus among the stakeholders from the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, in particular the Governments of Quebec and Ontario, against the minister's proposal, which was deemed totally unacceptable.

Everyone agreed that, to avoid causing irreparable harm, we should wait for the results of ongoing studies. But, not surprisingly, the minister completely disregarded all these recommendations and objections, and decided to go ahead with his fee structure, with no regard for its potentially devastating effects on jobs in the shipping industry, a very developed economic sector, especially in Quebec.

How else can we explain that, after weeks of consultations where stakeholders from all regions and all sectors told the government not to go ahead with its proposal, the original version of the bill was not amended in any way? Once again, the costs will trickle down to the public through the user pay principle. This is nothing but a smoke screen.

What is really ridiculous is that there is no indication that the coast guard even tried to downsize its operations before passing on these costs. According to the testimony, the government simply did not do its homework and ensure that such an effort was made.

We therefore find ourselves in the situation where, instead of downsizing its staff, the government is imposing fees on the industry and thus jeopardizing not only the industry but the jobs that depend on it. There is no indication that the coast guard made any effort at all. If the coast guard, which is costing us over $860

million a year, had managed to streamline its operations, that would have meant less money to collect from those who use its services.

Moreover, it is difficult to know what services are actually provided by the coast guard. There was no real effort to make in the most logical and convincing way possible a rational demonstration of the services actually provided to those users and that from now on will have to be paid by the population.

The federal government, for the purpose at hand, is dividing Canada into three regions in order to regionalize its fee policy. Even though the problem is completely the same from east to west, the government is dividing Canada into three big regions: west, central, that is the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and finally the maritimes. As if by chance, Quebec is the one being taken for a ride since, along with the Great Lakes region, it will assume some 48 per cent of the $20 million that will be collected this year.

Thus Bill C-26 is dividing up the fee structure very badly between different regions and different Canadian harbours. Consider for example the ship crossing the Atlantic to unload its cargo at Sept-Îles. It will have to pay a much higher fee for services whereas the ship going to Thunder Bay will have nothing to pay. Yet the latter navigated 3,700 kilometres more on the river, a waterway maintained by Canada.

Another example: the Canadian owner of a ship registered in a foreign country will pay seven times less than the owner of a ship registered in Canada. The finance minister is certainly aware of this fact. These two examples show that the fee structure presented in Bill C-26 is causing problems. Many things are unfair in this piece of legislation. Whether it is plan B or mere chance, this bill is sure to greatly impair the competitiveness of Quebec ports compared with ports in the maritime provinces.

Another major problem is the drop in competitiveness of ports in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes compared with American ports. On the one hand, ships passing through the St. Lawrence and the seaway to reach the United States will not pay for coast guard services if they do not stop at Canadian ports. That is a serious threat to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.

How competitive will our ports be, as compared to those in the northern U.S. states? Take for instance a ship coming from Europe. It goes in the St. Lawrence River estuary, makes its way up the river, goes by Saint-Lambert, ends up in the Great Lakes and heads straight for Pittsburgh. It pays nothing, even though it used the channel, the water and the St. Lawrence. It pays for the locks in Saint-Lambert, but it is getting the rest free. On the other hand, the small coastal trade carrier on the North Shore, or on both shores of the St. Lawrence will be hit hard.

Moreover, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is not consistently applied. In several instances, in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier for example, users will pay up to $5 million a year for only one buoy.

Finally, the fees the minister intends to apply are only the tip of the iceberg since they cover only navigational aids. Harbour and seaway dredging and icebreaking in the seaway are other targeted services for the imposition of fees.

These other fees might be much higher than those for navigational aids and we have every right to be concerned about the survival and competitiveness of the St. Lawrence harbours, especially the port of Montreal and several ports in the regions.

However, several amendments to these clauses were brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, especially by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé, who went to great pains to find a way to work with the government. The proposed amendments tried, for instance, to make the fees principle more fair and to force the minister to co-operate with the industry and the provinces before applying or increasing the fees.

The amendments would have prevented the minister from acting unilaterally, without taking into consideration public consultations, as he did when the fees were first introduced back in June 1996. Of course, the minister continued to turn a deaf ear, as his government likes to do.

Now let us turn to the environment aspect of the bill. The bill also deals with environmental issues in a way that will affect the Department of the Environment. This new bill will transfer to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans powers currently belonging to the Minister of the Environment. This is a further example of overlap between these two departments. Again, it is like yin and yang, as the former Minister of Fisheries Brian Tobin told a parliamentary committee last year, when he commented on the relationship between him and Sheila Copps, the Minister of the Environment at the time, by saying that it was like yin and yang.

By creating more overlap, Bill C-26 seems to establish a sectoral environment department, something like a department of coastal environment.

If each department did that, we would end up with an environment transport department in the Department of Transport, or with an environment industry department, and all the government's ministers would have powers regarding environmental protection and preservation. We can easily imagine how dangerous it could get if environmental issues were to be addressed by various

departments. If this is the way this government wants to go, then it only has to abolish the environment department.

The government's approach to the environment is to centralize powers in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the globalization of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26 matches this approach.

Some clauses give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the powers to develop and implement a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This strategy calls for the development of activity management plans, of managing or advisory agencies, of numerous programs and of environmental standards, as well as the collecting and analysis of scientific data on the ecosystems concerned.

We must realize that several of these activities were already being carried out by the Department of the Environment. This is another case of duplication, as if we could afford such overlap among federal departments.

Nothing in the legislation compels the minister to reach agreements with other federal departments or the provinces. In most cases, he can ask for the co-operation of other authorities, but only if he wishes to do so.

Such duplication, in the long run, will jeopardize the effectiveness of environmental action. It is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the minister not to have to work in co-operation with the officials of other federal departments, in particular the Department of the Environment. There should have been more reflection and more consultations on these points before such changes were made, since in environmental matters, partial responsibility is tantamount to responsibility for the whole ecosystem. When one tries to do too much, one ends up doing nothing right.

Finally, Bill C-26 is another step towards centralization in environmental matters. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a four to three decision, dispossessed the provinces of the management of the marine environment and territory in favour of the federal government. Today, with Bill C-26, the federal government is trying to get the most out of that ruling. This trend toward centralization may lead the federal government in the medium or long term to try to claim overall management of waters and their use.

Let us talk now of pleasure boating. A real user pay principle implies that we go and ask the people who use these services which one they really want to have. Furthermore, the people who are going to have to pay for this service have the right to be heard. They are asking the government if the service will be offered to them at the lowest cost, taking into account what the socioeconomic and human impacts will be for them.

The principle of user fees is not respected at all in Bill C-26 since the coast guard has announced it intends to make major changes to pleasure boating in all the country's waters. Consultations have been announced, but knowing the importance the federal government attributes to the results of consultations, we have no reason to believe that it will be any different with the coast guard.

In its partnership plan, the government neglected to say that, behind this initiative, there is the recovery of $14 million, whatever what the people will say during the consultations. This is basically a hidden tax hike badly disguised as an effort to promote user safety.

Among other measures, the coast guard wishes to register all types of craft, from the 30 foot sail boat to the row boat. Moreover, fees for all types of craft will be collected by requiring all users to get a registration permit at cost of $20 to $35 annually. The governement also wants to require minimum skills for everyone who handles a boat and to introduce a system of fines similar to those that apply to drivers.

According to the coast guard, these measures are essentially aimed at increasing safety on the water by improving the skills of small pleasure craft users. But one has to be blind not to see that safety is only an excuse to impose a fee structure. It is hard to see how paying a $20 to $35 fee to put a boat in the water will make people more cautious. It is a well known fact that information and awareness are the best ways to change behaviour.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the impact of this bill in a riding like Drummond. In Drummond, there are great numbers of pleasure craft, and water sports are very popular. In those conditions, you can imagine the impact of a fee system on pleasure craft in an area like mine. Even the possibility of fees on pedal boats and sailboards has been raised.

Just think of the impact on all the small and medium size businesses which rent this kind of equipment during summer months and which will have to pay registration fees in addition to all their other expenses. All these companies, which do not make a lot of money, will have to pay additional costs to register their boats. Will people who rent this kind of equipment be more cautious because of the fees?

People who own boats, for their pleasure or for renting, are being designated as users of coast guard services. But in a riding like Drummond, there is no coast guard. The main waterway used for pleasure boating is the Saint-François River, a small river running between Lake Champlain and Lake St-Pierre. It is not a river like the Ottawa, the Richelieu or the Saguenay, which are patrolled by the coast guard.

But the thousands of recreational boaters who use the small navigable portion of that river will have to pay for coast guard services in the same way as those who sail on the St. Lawrence. And yet the least we can say is that we do not often see icebreakers on that river during the winter.

In conclusion, why should we adopt this type of fee structure today? Have we done all we can to try and find another solution? Absolutely not. Through Bill C-26, the federal government is launching an attack against Quebec by imposing service fees, and we must not forget that this comes with the divestment of ports.

On the one hand, the government is opening the door to an interesting future by decentralizing the management of ports but, on the other, it is increasing service fees on the St. Lawrence, which will make ports in the maritimes a lot more competitive. So what the government is giving in terms of autonomy, it is taking away by changing the rules and by imposing service fees that are unfair to Quebec ports.

In Bill C-26, the government takes the liberty of transferring the coast guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without knowing exactly if there will be a reform and if services provided by the coast guard meet users' needs, all that without allowing users to have their say in the matter.

We cannot predict the economic consequences Bill C-26 will have on users. No serious study has been made. Yet the government is going ahead with this legislation, saying that we will see how it goes. When we look at the various pieces of legislation the Liberals have introduced, very often it has not gone well because of constitutional or economic problems.

The government does a lot but achieves nothing. This bill is very typical of the way this government has been acting. Again it is interfering unilaterally in all areas without any real consultation, which does not solve anything. On the contrary, it creates problems.

As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I will vote against this bill.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is doing. Like other members of the Bloc, she is concentrating on fees which will be charged by the coast guard. She is suggesting that the fees will be charged on bathtubs as well as on pedal boats.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the main purpose of the bill before the House today. I wonder if she could comment on the main thrust of the bill. It is an incredible piece of legislation. It is an historic piece of legislation.

There is no agreement with another nation. It is taking a convention of the United Nations and it is saying that Canada will manage conservation systems on behalf of the people of Canada. The zone will be extended 200 nautical miles outside the territorial sea, which is 12 miles, which goes from the low water mark all around the coasts of Canada.

This is an incredible piece of legislation. We have not seen the likes of it since Canada was created. It is what is commonly called the EEZ, the exclusive economic zone. The Liberal administration promised to bring in this bill during the last election campaign. The United Nations has held meetings on this subject for years, advocating that this was the way to go for conservation purposes.

I wonder if the hon. member can stand in her place to praise the Liberal government for taking such an historic step as declaring the exclusive economic zone, which is the main purpose of the legislation.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe these are the same as the comments and question directed at my colleague, the member for Frontenac, so my discourse will be almost the same as his as well.

The Bloc Quebecois is not against a national oceans strategy. What the Bloc Quebecois is critical of in Bill C-26 is that the minister had announced that he would take the various partners in the shipping industry and the provinces into account. Right now, what we are seeing in Bill C-26 is that he did not do this. Instead, he turned a deaf ear, as usual.

I congratulate my colleague, the opposition critic for fisheries and oceans. He did an excellent job, and tabled amendments, which once again the government has ignored.

I think that one person who truly saw the need for changes in this bill, because he comes from a region that depends on the fishery, is my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé. He was completely ignored, as were the various stakeholders in the shipping industries and the provincial governments.

What we are criticizing is the lack of a clear policy to define the relations between the various partners. We are also criticizing the fact that, under the Constitution, it was established that navigable waters come under federal jurisdiction. Along comes Bill C-26 and in they charge once again, as my colleague, the member for Frontenac was saying, duplicating services and meddling in provincial affairs.

I was referring earlier to my riding. In my riding of Drummond, there are people who use the small Saint-François river, people who belong to organizations such as Chasse et Pêche, recreational

boaters, owners of small sailboats and so on. My mandate is to represent these people, who came to me and said that they hoped I would speak out against this completely ridiculous fee structure. That is why I have taken part in the debate on Bill C-26 today, to make known the needs of my riding and the wishes of those who elected me.

It would seem that government members have no problem. They have no representatives, no small lakes, no small rivers, and no constituents opposed to this bill.

It is revolting that they should ask my daughters, who have a pedal boat, to register it, telling them they must do so because the coast guard is supposed to be looking out for their safety. The public is not stupid. That is my comment in response to the question from my Liberal colleague.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's speech. I understand that the member opposite is doing what she thinks is best with respect to protecting the interests of her constituents.

I want to say two things. She devoted most of her speech to the proposed fee structure for recreational vessels. I guess that is fine. It is her nickel, she can do what she sees fit.

I believe it would have been wise for the member to check the degree of consultation that went into the formulation of the bill and the almost unprecedented level of acceptance by the government of recommendations from committee members to change the bill after it came to committee.

The member said something which is not true, which is not based in fact. Members of the Bloc Quebecois would like to stand in their place on every single issue that comes to the House and paint it black and white, that everything is somehow against the rights of Quebecers. This government governs as a national government. For the member to stand in her place and indicate that the province of Quebec was not consulted on this legislation is simply untrue.

In the lead-up to this legislation the department and the minister consulted extensively with the bureaucracy of the government of the province of Quebec. Indeed, in a previous life as chair of the committee that studied the bill, I can tell the House we asked the minister responsible in the province of Quebec to come and testify before the standing committee so we could find out the concerns of the Government of Quebec. However, the minister declined. What were we supposed to do? Were we supposed to play footsie with the separatists in Quebec City and drag them kicking and screaming to a House of Commons public hearing on this legislation to find out what was their position?

Members of the Bloc Quebecois sat on the committee and had full access through me as the chair to talk about the interests of Quebec and since they are supposed to be a national opposition, to talk about the interests of Canada with respect to this bill.

I am quite frankly getting a little tired of accepting these statements by the Bloc Quebecois which are not based in fact. The people of Quebec, like the people of Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, had access to the committee throughout the process. They still have access through members of Parliament. For anybody from the Bloc Quebecois to get up and say that access was denied to the people of Quebec is simply false and cannot be tolerated in this place.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member can go ahead and make a fine long speech, but I would like to point out to him that the problem at present is that the relationships between the various partners are not clear.

What I would like to have him think about is this: how can it be that, last June, the B.C. representatives slammed the door because they felt they were not being paid attention to? Just as I feel that my Liberal colleague is not paying attention to me, the same principle. How is it that the B.C. representatives slammed the door?

Let him spare us the reply that they are just the Bloc Quebecois' demands, that it is just Quebec, and that it would be done just for Quebec. We too are in agreement with a national strategy, but one discussed among the various partners, not unilateral.

What is being asked for and what all the partners are asking for is very clear: a six month time frame in order to study the situation and reach an agreement between the partners. That is what is being asked for.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, it seems to be quite a long time ago since we first had an opportunity as a Parliament to debate this legislation. It was introduced in a previous session of Parliament, but the government, and I think all members of the House, in their wisdom thought that this was the type of bill that should be reintroduced and not be allowed to die.

This legislation is very important. As my colleague from Gander said earlier, it is historic legislation. Many times in opposition and in government I have been critical of the slow processes of government when it comes to rectifying wrongs by way of process or when it comes to trying to consolidate various arms and regulatory bodies of government so that the public good is executed and dispatched in a fairly hasty manner.

One of the areas I have always been concerned with is that when we start dealing with ocean management as distinct from fishery management there are far too many cooks at the pot. Far too many departments and programs have some vague cross jurisdiction that really stops the imperative of coming up with a comprehensive policy for the management of Canada's oceans and the resources that are inherent in it.

As the member from Gander indicated, even to modernize the territorial boundaries, the water boundaries, the economic zone, the 12-mile limit, all those regulations and legislation had to be modernized. Because over 14 different departments all could claim some degree of responsibility in jurisdiction for the various and complex issues relating to ocean management, many times the problems would be identified but leadership was clearly lacking in the past to try to pull all of those various departments, programs and ministers together and to have someone who instinctively, inherently and by law had the responsibility to lead on this issue.

This bill sought to rectify that. It is for the first time a comprehensive approach to ocean management based on the precautionary principle of sustainable development and integrated resource management.

This bill was first introduced by the former minister of fisheries, who is now the premier of Newfoundland. It staked out his territory very firmly after he was appointed minister of fisheries. It indicated that he was prepared not just to talk tough but to take tough action in order to preserve our fish stocks.

If anybody doubts the resolve of that former minister of fisheries, currently the premier of the province of Newfoundland, he need only look back and see that for the first time in our history he stood up against international bullying in the rape of some of our transborder and highly migratory stocks off the east coast of Canada.

He was the minister who stood up and said: "I am prepared to say that there will not be another species lost in our ocean on my watch". He was prepared to take on the Spanish and the European Union. He was prepared to stand tall. He was prepared to lead to ensure that the wrongs of the past, the scattered responsibility with management of our ocean resources with regard to the fisheries, were going to come to a close.

That former minister of fisheries did not just gain the support of his colleagues on the government side, he gained the support of his colleagues in the Reform Party, in the New Democratic Party, in the Conservative Party and indeed in the Bloc Quebecois.

As I recall, looking back at the issue of the great turbot dispute, the current premier of the province of Quebec, who was the then leader of the opposition, supported the measures which we put into legislation in this place to ensure that we had the legal tools at our disposal to stop that type of overfishing which had decimated stocks on the east coast of Canada and was a contributing factor to thousands of Canadians on the Atlantic coast of Canada being thrown out of work.

It should not be any surprise to the Bloc Quebecois, to the Reform Party or to any Canadian that it was that same minister at the time who said there is another piece of unfinished business, to come up with a comprehensive consolidated approach not just to fisheries management but to ocean management.

I do not think it is easy at any time to go to cabinet and say to other ministers: "There are certain pieces of legislation and certain jurisdictions which we have in our departments and are part of our responsibilities as ministers. But I think they should be removed from your areas of responsibility because it is in the greater public good that it be a consolidated approach to ocean management". That minister did that and the current minister continues in his footsteps. He saw fit to make sure that this bill, the bill that we are debating today, was reintroduced in this Parliament.

This bill consolidated activities in 14 different departments. It made it extremely clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was the one in the government, in the cabinet who had primary responsibilities to ensure that Canada had a comprehensive oceans policy. It made sure that some areas of jurisdiction which dealt with Canada's oceans and how we manage them were consolidated into one department. It put the Canadian Hydrographic Service, the coast guard services and many other programs and agencies of government under one roof and put them under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The opposition has talked at great length about the fee structure. I can understand its concerns. This government has ensured that when it came to the striking of new fees with respect to coast guard services that there has been broad consultation.

For the member opposite to indicate there has not been some type of a public process by which the proposals could be debated, adjudicated and if necessary changed is simply not the case. I remember quite clearly, because I am concerned about the impact of coast guard fees on the commercial shipping and also as they are applied to recreational boaters, that there was a process in place which was led by the commissioner, Mr. Thomas of the coast guard, now the associated deputy minister of fisheries and oceans. He led a very open and transparent approach. He went into the lion's den in places like Quebec City, Halifax, Saint John and St. John's. He was also on the west coast of Canada. He said: "These are the fees that we are proposing for coast guard cost recovery. I am prepared to listen and to find out what the impact is of these fees and what is a fairer approach".

As much as I may be concerned about the impact I know that I and the people I represent have been allowed to have a say through a very transparent process. For the opposition to hone in on this one area where it has concerns and to neglect to speak about the rest of the bill tells me what an effective opposition it has not become after three or four years in this place.

The other thing this bill does, and it is very important, is for the first time it recognizes the importance and sets up a structure to implement a thing called marine protected areas. Many lobbyists in the past said that because we were first and foremost a maritime nation with literally tens of thousands of miles of nooks and crannies along our three coasts, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, there was a requirement in the management structure and in the line of responsibility for the establishment of marine protected areas.

Indeed this government has received accolades not just from those in Canada who have an interest in this field but from people around the world.

This piece of legislation sets in place a process for the establishment of marine protected areas. Once again Canada has shown that it is prepared to put its money where its mouth is when it talks about conservation not just within Canadian national waters but also in the international waters for species which are endangered for whatever reason, whether toxic pollution, overfishing or any other reason.

We had unprecedented consultations. If opposition members wish to give a true reflection of how this bill came about they will have to acknowledge from the documents that were provided to them as opposition members of the committee that there was an almost unprecedented level of consultation with those affected in the industry prior to this bill.

The Canadian Arctic Resources Committee did a tremendous amount of invaluable work to ensure that those in its sphere of influence who had a reason to be concerned about the new Canada oceans act were fully consulted. At the end of the day, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee gave full marks to the federal government and to the ministers involved for being bold enough and for having the foresight to come through with such a comprehensive piece of legislation.

In the committee which I was very pleased to chair at the time we heard from individuals from around the country. In the interest of trying to save money, the committee did not travel since its takes a lot of the members' time which they need for other responsibilities in this place and in their constituencies. Instead we used teleconferencing which other committees have done in the past.

We used teleconferencing in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the west coast. We listened intently. Positions were put forward by many of the presenters to indicate there could be improvements in this bill. The committee examined those improvements. I believe many of those individuals who participated in that very broad consultative process would agree with me that if there were ever a committee that did its work and that truly had an impact on a final piece of legislation it was this committee.

The minister responsible at the time had given me his undertaking that if we dealt with the bill in a fair and reasonable manner, he would be prepared to accept any amendments that bettered the bill. As a result, what we heard in these very broad consultations at the committee stage resulted in a substantial number of amendments which were moved and agreed to and which have now found their way into this piece of legislation. In my view they have made this piece of legislation a much stronger, more enforceable and supportable piece of legislation.

The member for Gaspé, who is not only a good friend of mine but also has a deep and abiding interest in the fisheries and oceans portfolio, might remember this, as we would all remember. During one of our teleconferences we heard from some fishermen in Nova Scotia. The member for St. John's West will remember this clearly. The fishermen were wailing away at the government and the committee for coming in with these changes which were going to do all these terrible things with respect to access fees in the fisheries.

We all scratched our heads and out of respect for our witnesses I asked: "Has anybody there read this bill?" They answered that they had not read it all but that Mr. Chisholm had. As it turned out he was the person who would soon become the leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Nova Scotia.

He had done something which I think was very unfortunate. I want to put it on record today that he was irresponsible in his approach to this bill. He obviously did not read it. If he did read it, he did not comprehend what was in it, which would not be a surprise.

What he did was misrepresent, in a major way, the provisions of the bill. He tried to tell the fishermen in Nova Scotia whom he purports to want to represent as the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, since he is now the leader of the New Democratic Party, that this bill had to be opposed because it was going to impact on access fees for the fisheries. This bill does absolutely nothing of the sort.

Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to make sure that the record showed unfortunately that the time we spent with some of our very good witnesses who gave up their time in Nova Scotia was spent

trying to correct a misapprehension that was either intentionally or unintentionally put forward about the impact of this bill by the current leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Nova Scotia.

This is a good piece of legislation. I would have hoped that the Bloc Quebec would have recognized it. I understand it has have a particular bend. Every time something comes up in the House of Commons it feels compelled to get up and see it as somehow something that infringes on the legal rights and obligations of the people of Quebec.

I also understand, because I can be highly partisan at times, that this can take on a partisan tone. I would have thought that in dealing with a bill that had such broad support across Canada and internationally, the Bloc for once would have laid down the increasingly discredited arguments for sovereignty and dealt with the substance of the bill on behalf of those Quebecers, just like the rest of those in Canada, who have an interest in Canada's oceans and conservation who would have been well served by this bill.

I still appeal to them-there are still probably a few more speakers left-to drop this silly approach to legislation. After all, in the greatest of democratic traditions, although it is somewhat repulsive to some Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois is the official opposition, properly and duly elected by its constituents. It holds the second highest number of seats in this place.

As such, in dealing with bills such as this, which have broad implications and very positive implications for Canadians in all our provinces, it should deal not as a separatist opposition but as the official opposition and work with the government, not just in committee but also on the floor of the House.

I guess, again, it is not in its interests to show that the House of Commons and the committee structure work well for all Canadians, no matter what their language, no matter what their colour, no matter what their creed or their province of origin.

To Reform Party members I would like to say that we heard during the committee hearings and since then that they have some concerns with respect to the fee structures as proposed by the Canadian coast guard on cost recovery. They have a right and a responsibility to debate those things on behalf of their constituents and indeed all Canadians. I look forward to the continuing debate on that issue.

Let Reform members also look beyond this narrow yet important aspect of the subject matter at hand today and deal with the overall bill, whether or not this government and its ministers should be applauded for being so bold, so innovative and so forthright that they opened up a process and asked Canadians to give their input in a consultative process. It has taken many of their suggestions and come forward with what most in the world who have an interest in this area would agree is a milestone piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will become a model for many other states.

In conclusion, there is still some unfinished business with respect to the consolidation of various pieces of legislation and responsibilities. At the end of our hearings we had indicated that we wanted to see a few more things done with respect to the oceans act.

We thought there should be a further committee study done, perhaps a joint committee, between the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to look at a further consolidation of part VI of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act relating to ocean dumping, pollution and waste as well as certain provisions of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act within the Canada oceans act.

In recognizing that we have gone quite a long way, we must also recognize there may be a ways to go yet.

Let us not condemn the government for being bold and taking an initiative that was difficult to put together but has such positive results for Canadians. I hope that this bill would be able to garner the high level and degree of support in this place that it has garnered with the Canadian public and the international community.

Because it is probably the last time I can do this with regard to a bill that I might have had something to do with by way of process, I want to thank all the members of the committee, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, and in particular my vice-chair at the time, the member for St. John's West, for their incredible dedication and hard work. At the end of the day they proved that this place does work when you get good people who are committed to public service. I want to thank them for that type of commitment and for the example they have shown.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, to begin with I would like to say hello to my colleague for Dartmouth. I had not seen him for a while. It is true that we no longer sit on the same committees.

I would like to go over some of the points he made in his speech, and above all mention that indeed the Bloc Quebecois did help improve this particular point in the bill. We did not oppose the main thrust of this legislation, namely the national oceans management strategy.

Nobody can oppose virtue, but to make sure that we go beyond wishful thinking and that this becomes more than a pile of papers on a shelf, we must ensure that the partners in charge of developing and implementing this management strategy feel comfortable with the lines of communication that are established with them. I can tell you right away that if we cannot define clearly, with everybody's agreement, the kind of partnership it will be, the national oceans management strategy will not be worth the paper it will be written on. This is the gist of what we have been saying in the House, and this is also what we opposed in committee.

The member for Dartmouth is quite aware of this. The then fisheries minister, Mr. Brian Tobin, even assured us that the spirit of partnership would be respected. But when people are told that they will be respected, when an individual provides a definition and is told that there is no problem with it, how is it that it does not appear as the preamble to the definition of what the national oceans management strategy will be? How can this be?

If the member for Dartmouth had carefully looked at the subject of today's debate, he would know that we are dealing with an amendment to postpone third reading for six months. Why? In fact, to give the government a chance to remedy these flaws, define partnership, and clarify the grey areas in the bill. With regard to the environment and open spaces, we are told by the federal government that it does not want to intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction.

Fine. You do not want to intrude? Fine. We will make sure this is very clear when we enter into partnerships. Since the government needs the provinces to act as partners with respect to this strategy it should say so. Why all the secrecy? They accuse us of partisanship. Let me remind you, and the member must remember, that the Bloc was the first to extend a helping hand when Brian Tobin wanted legislation against overfishing on the nose of the Grand Banks. We reached out and offered our co-operation.

I remember, and I think the parliamentary secretary was present at the time, that we passed a bill through all three stages in one single day. That is real co-operation, not stubbornness. Today we ask that the same good faith be applied in the case of a strategy we feel is necessary. If we want it to pass and be efficient afterwards, we must respect that.

To conclude my comments, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question: if relationships are so clearly established, why is it that a premier, namely Mr. Glen Clark, a man I greatly respect, slammed the door during the premiers' conference in June because he felt Ottawa was not listening to what he had to say on fisheries management and all related problems he was faced with at home?

Mr. Clark has now reached an agreement with the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whereby they will see what powers they can share. That is the type of relationship we must develop and should find in this bill. So if what the Bloc member said is false, if we are blinded by sovereignty, how is it that someone at the other end of the country, someone definitely in a different party, is reporting the same problems as we are? How can that be? That is my question.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is good to get into a bit of a debate with my good friend and colleague from Gaspé. However, members of the Bloc Quebecois have to learn at some point that each piece of legislation which comes before this place is not an opportunity to rewrite the Constitution of Canada. That is exactly what they do. Every time something comes up they either see it as an affront to the powers of the province of Quebec or they think the bill should be rewritten to give more powers to the province of Quebec.

It is obvious that the previous government sought, within the Canadian context, to rebalance the powers between the federal and provincial governments. There is a process to do that. It should not be done, with the greatest of respect to my colleagues, on every piece of legislation that comes before this place.

I want to make this abundantly clear to anybody who cares to listen. This bill does not shift powers away from or to any government in Canada. The powers of the province of Quebec are respected in this legislation. The powers of the federal government are not enhanced by this legislation. The responsibilities of 14 different departments have been consolidated and transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under the jurisdiction of the minister.

Perhaps Bloc members could speak to the principles of the bill instead of wasting their time in the House by getting up and talking about constitutional matters.

I say to the member, as I said to the previous speaker, it is absolute nonsense for any member of the Bloc Quebecois to indicate that, under the Canada oceans act, the government of Quebec was not asked for input and did not have an avenue to be heard. The member's voice was loud. It was strong. He participated in the committee process, as did some of his colleagues. It was a very transparent and open process which showed what can happen when we have transparent and open processes and people who are prepared to work within the committee structure of this place. It was a model, in my view, of what can be done when good people sit down and use the rules which they are given through the parliamentary committee structure.

I say once again that there was plenty of opportunity. We heard from Quebecers during our committee deliberations. We did not hear from the minister responsible in Quebec. That was not because we did not ask, it was because the minister did not want to appear.

Perhaps the vision of Bloc members is clouded. Perhaps their minds are clouded by visions of grandeur and a separate state of Quebec. Surely to goodness, when we are elected by democratic principles in every province in this great nation, we have a fundamental responsibility to participate in the processes on behalf

of the people. The minister responsible from the province of Quebec chose to be negligent in that regard and did not participate when asked.

With respect to my colleagues on the other side, and I have a great deal of respect for many of them, they would serve their constituents and all Canadians better if instead of constantly going off on their jurisdictional rants, they leave it for other forums and venues. They should use the grey power that some have to try to ensure that the processes we are privileged to avail ourselves of as members of the House of Commons, the highest court in the land, are used appropriately on behalf of their constituents to ensure that the legislation that comes before this place is the best it can be for all Canadians.