Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-62. The bill gives sweeping powers to the minister to manage the fisheries through ministerial orders, through private fishing agreements, and it transfers authority to the provinces. The
major question is does the bill address the real problems that are facing the fishing industry.
First I would like to take a look at the west coast, where I come from, and advance some problems that are facing the industry there. I would like members to consider whether this bill will do anything to alleviate those difficulties.
For example, I would like to quote from a document which was prepared for congressional staff in the U.S. It mentions the Canadian salmon fleet restructuring. It states that on August 9, 1996 a report by the B.C. job protection commission was released, revealing that in the past two years the B.C. commercial salmon fleet's decline has cost the provincial economy $180 million, with 7,800 jobs lost. At the same time, the provincial sport fishing sector's decline has cost the economy $170 million, with the loss of 2,175 jobs.
By allowing the minister under the new act to give fish to his friends, will that alleviate the difficulties identified in that report?
A document entitled "Status of Anadromous Salmon and Trout in British Columbia and the Yukon", prepared by T.L. Slaney et al for the American Fisheries Society's North Pacific international chapter, attempted to give some idea to the public about the health of fish stocks in B.C. The assessment found that 624 salmon stocks were at high risk, 78 were at moderate risk, 230 were of special concern and 142 were extirpated in this century. One hundred and forty-two salmon species extinguished in this century alone. They were unable to classify 4,172 stocks, or 43 per cent, because of an absence of reliable data.
They go on to note that habitat degradation associated with logging, urbanization and hydro power development contributed to most of the 142 documented stock extinctions.
Furthermore, they say there is little doubt that overutilization by commercial and recreational fisheries has in many cases resulted in severe stock depressions that, when added to other factors, has put many stocks at risk.
The question again is will this act somehow alleviate this problem. I think not.
The preface to the bill notes that this is an act respecting fisheries. The preamble says that the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans extend to seacoast and inland fisheries. The point I want to raise is just how certain is the minister's authority when it comes to this bill and as well to the oceans act?
I would like to go back to December 1995. At that time the oceans act was up for discussion. A House of Commons standing committee received a notice from the president of Nunavut Tunngavick Inc., the Inuit fishery organization in the territory of Nunavut.
It advised the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that sections 35 and 107 of the new oceans act, which was Bill C-98 at that time, were ultra vires given the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The NTI proposed the following amendments to the oceans act. It proposed in section 30(5) that the governor in council may make regulations (a) establishing marine protected areas with approval of bodies established under land claims agreement where required.
Section (b) would have said that the governor in council could make regulations prescribing measures not inconsistent with Canada's international obligations or the authority of bodies established under land claims agreements for the conservation and protection of fisheries resources and their habitat in marine protected areas.
Clearly the Inuit of Nunavut interpreted their treaty as limiting federal authority over legislation affecting arctic waters within the Nunavut settlement agreement. The response of the committee to this request was to acknowledge that regulations under the new oceans act were to be limited by the terms and conditions of land claims agreements.
The committee sent the following amendments to Parliament for consideration at report stage of what was then Bill C-98. The regulation then read in section 2(1):
For greater certainty nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Section 36(1) reads:
The Governor in Council, on recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, may make orders exercising any power under section 35 on an emergency basis where the Minister is of the opinion that a marine resource or habitat is likely to be at risk to the extent that such orders are not inconsistent with the land claims agreement that has been given effect and has been ratified or improved by an Act of Parliament.
That is to say, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans conceded that land claims agreements may constrain the ability of the Government of Canada to protect a resource owned by all the people of Canada. The question again is will this new act somehow improve on that situation. Does it somehow allow that the minister has the ultimate authority? No, it does not.
This will have a devastating effect on management of the fisheries resource in British Columbia. We are looking at approximately 40 treaties which are to be put together in the next few years, each one of which will have the ability to overrule the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Obviously that makes the management of fisheries unworkable.
The fisheries act, Bill C-62, which the government has laid before this House, is a bill that will radically change the management of the fishery as we have known it for over 150 years. Bill
C-62 gives the minister of fisheries unlimited discretion to carve up the public fishery into private fisheries.
There is no requirement for any publication of the private exclusive fishing agreements. There are no guidelines on whom these agreements are to be with. The minister is given unlimited discretion to make his own regulations, to organize the fishery by ministerial decrees or orders. These ministerial orders can even override regulations made by the governor in council. The government can transfer its constitutional responsibilities for fisheries management, enforcement and habitat protection to the provinces without ever coming back to seek the sanction of Parliament.
Before we examine the detail of the bill or the problems it should address, this House would do well to remember some sage advice from a former member of this Chamber, Stanley Knowles. He said: "It is our experience in Parliament time and time again to think we know what we passed when we gave final approval to a piece of legislation only to find months later that things were being done or restrictions were being imposed of a kind we did not believe appeared in the bill at all. We try to find out what happened. We discover that we had given authority to the governor in council to make regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of the act and that under this authority restrictive regulations were passed or restrictive definitions were introduced of such a nature as to produce quite a different result from the result we thought had been intended".
A recent report of this House issued another warning that bears repeating. When delegated authority is broad and use of that authority is not adequately supervised by Parliament, the implied parliamentary control is absent and the supremacy of Parliament is undermined.
I would like to refer to the bill and to some of those sections which give the minister that kind of blanket authority to do what he wishes. Clause 17(1) states:
Her Majesty in right of Canada, represented by the Minister, may enter into a fisheries management agreement with any organization that, in the opinion of the Minister, is representative of a class of persons or holders.
That is any group, whether they be friends of the minister of or of the government, whatever, but there is no limitation as to what that group should represent. There is no coming back to Parliament for authority to enter into policy decisions which, as I will point out later, will impact on the fisheries as it has been run since Confederation.
Clause 18(1) states:
Before a fisheries management agreement is entered into, notice of it shall be given to the holders or persons likely to be subject to it.
Again, no notice need be given to anyone other than those who are going to be covered by it. The public at large does not need to be informed.
Clause 19(1) states:
The Minister shall publish a fisheries management agreement in the manner the Minister sees fit.
In other words, no publication or notice need be given of that arrangement.
The adoption of a set of agreements between the crown and any organization gives sweeping power to the minister to create private fisheries out of the public fisheries of Canada. This would be the first time since Confederation since this power has existed. All fisheries law in tidal waters in British Columbia has so far proceeded on the principle that all Canadians are to have equal access to the commercial licences governing the fishery.
Apart from a brief period during the war when Canadians of Japanese ancestry were denied this right, it has prevailed without question.
A second exception is the recent incursion into the public fishery by the AFS, but that was not provided for in the act and is probably ultra vires of the act. It would not be ultra vires of Bill C-62.