Debates of Nov. 5th, 1996

Fisheries Act

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, may I take us back to the subject of the debate. We began with King John, wicked King John. We have referred to Queen Victoria and she of course is dead. I seemed to be coming back to Henry VIII when I heard the hon. member speak.

Let me remind the House that this bill is an act of codification and rationalization. All countries do that with their laws. They bring them up to date, 1868 to the present. The co-partnering arrangements are a response to the requests and demands by stakeholders, fisher people, for more effective participation in government decision making. This is the new pluralism to which we have referred. Also, we seek to complement the Oceans Act by incorporating the implementing sections of the international law that Canadian diplomats fought for and won in the new Law of the Sea developments.

My I suggest some clarification. The rules of interpretation have been thrown around. Common law yields to statute law. It is elementary. The Magna Carta has been incorporated into Canadian law in its due process section. It is part of the charter of rights. I feel the hon. members opposite should have a look at the Magna Carta. Do they really suggest, for example, that sections 10 and 11 are part of Canadian law? They are the most viciously, religiously discriminatory features of the Magna Carta which was, of course, a medieval document with all the prejudice of the medieval age.

Let us come up to the present. Common law yields to statute law. Magna Carta is only part of Canadian law so far as we have adopted it. We have adopted the best parts for our charter. Delegation of powers is responsible to the ultimate principle, respondeat superior; that is to say the delegation is controlled by the law itself. The minister when he delegates power is ultimately responsible under the act.

On constitution and statute law, section 35 of the charter is not abrogated or changed in any way by this act. Statute law cannot prevail over the Constitution.

If we get back to some elementary rules of interpretation it may guide us to a more relevant debate in which we do not have to quote ourselves when we run out of inspiration.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not bring forward Henry VIII, Queen Victoria or the Magna Carta. The fact that my colleague from Vancouver Quadra brought them forward is fine with me.

I do not want to argue about the fineries of technical detail. The broad detail and the broad thrust of this bill are the public right to fish which has been around forever. It is a very strongly held public right and something the public feels very close to. This bill replaces it with ministerial fiat and ministerial order. This bill will be challenged.

The problem is the government has exceeded its authority time after time. It created native only commercial fishery agreements which also exceeded its authority. There has been challenge after challenge. We now have a circumstance where because the challenges have come to the point of succeeding, the federal government now wants to change the legislation to allow it to do what it has been doing which is inappropriate anyway.

Why do we want to create another piece of legislation, Bill C-62, that will be challenged by an even wider range of groups? Do we want to get into a multiple year challenge that tests the Supreme Court once again only to see the potential for a government to finally get itself in such a jam that it wants to create another piece of legislation? Let us get back to basics, let us get back to square one and let us get back to what is actually good for the resource.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the Magna Carta and the fact that some of us here do not speak the language of the time that document was written and so somehow that document itself is dated. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member across who referenced this is ignoring that the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the Magna Carta repeatedly since Confederation.

Earlier this afternoon I quoted the part of the ruling in the 1913 case of the Attorney General of British Columbia v. the Attorney General of Canada. The ruling stated in part:

It has been unquestioned law that since Magna Carta no exclusive fishery could be created by Royal grant in tidal waters and no public right of fishing, in such waters, then existing, can be taken away without competent legislation.

This past summer it was the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who stated again quite emphatically that since the time of the Magna Carta there has been a public right to fish and that public right can only be removed by competent legislation. So we are not dreaming over here when we talk about that. We are talking about real issues and real concerns. They are concerns that have been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

One of the other concerns we have, which I am sure my friend from North Island-Powell River will share, is delegation of authority for conservation issues. I referred to a study earlier this afternoon which noted that habitat degradation associated with logging, urbanization and hydro power development contributed to most of the 142 documented stock extinctions. It was referring to extinction of particular salmon runs.

We are concerned that what the government is doing in this bill is simply transferring the authority for conservation to the provincial government rather than addressing the question itself. It is obvious that whole area of concern has been neglected by the government, but rather than responding to it and trying to do something about it, the government is prepared to let the provincial government look after it.

I wonder if my friend from North Island-Powell River would care to give some examples of the inability of the provincial government to manage the habitat. Perhaps he could also address the fact that what we should be talking about are principles to manage habitat rather than simply getting rid of the problem.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not really know where to begin other than to say that one of the most often asked questions that I am asked when I am at home on the west coast is what I think about provincial authority to take over the fishery.

The reason people are asking me that question is clearly that they are so dissatisfied with what has happened under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What my colleague from Delta is talking about is the need for the federal agency to fix what is wrong, not go about consolidating a whole bunch of power and authority that really abrogates the public right to fish and other things.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-34.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions. Nos. 2 and 3.

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you would find unanimous consent to take the deferred recorded divisions on the private members' motions at the end of the votes later today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The House has heard the proposal of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

There is not unanimous consent.

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I declare Motion. No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the vote the government whip was seeking unanimous consent, with the concurrence of the other whips, to have private members' votes today voted on last. I interpreted that to mean private members' business was not as important as government business. If that is not the case and the government would like to explain the reasons why it wants it done that way I would be pleased to reconsider my objection.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by our colleague opposite, the member for York South-Weston, the intention is simply to avoid any confusion, as we have now taken the practice of applying votes. Private members' business, giving it the due respect it deserves in this House, we felt that we should first deal with the government bills and subsequently, simply to avoid confusion, we would deal with the private members' motions at the end of the process. There is nothing else.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I accept what the government whip is indicating. Perhaps we can deal with private members' business first and then the government business, and that will avoid confusion as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I do not sense a consensus in the House on this. I think we should proceed as we planned.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is there consent for the proposal of the chief government whip?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Members of the official opposition will vote yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting nay unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP caucus present this evening votes yes on this matter.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the PC caucus will vote yes.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of York South-Weston will support the government's position on this matter.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to Bill C-49.