Debates of Nov. 5th, 1996

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62, the new fisheries law, will substantially modernize and rationalize the legal basis for fisheries conservation and habitat management in Canada. It is the first major rewrite of the fisheries act since the last century, since the original law of 1868 in fact, and it will provide the basis for a sustainable fishery for the 21st century.

This rewrite is long overdue. Fishery as an industry and as a profession for the fisher people is changing. Markets are changing. Technology is changing. The science of fishery is changing. The law, in turn, must respond to these dramatic changes in our society if it is not to become an unnecessary clog in our economic growth and our community well-being.

A few weeks ago the House passed the Canada Oceans Act. This bill is complementary to the Canada Oceans Act which stakes out Canada's clear legal jurisdiction over its ocean areas.

With the revised fisheries act we are putting in place the legislative machinery and processes needed to ensure that the fishery resources of our oceans' heritage will be used responsibly. We are moving to ensure that those resources are conserved, not only for the present but also for future generations. We are moving to ensure that people who work in the fishery can earn a decent livelihood.

This legislation is in keeping with the best principles of law reform. Its revisions are easy to read. It consolidates provisions for which consolidation is long overdue. It makes possible a reduction of up to 50 per cent in existing regulations.

Let us now examine the new fisheries bill in overview. Bill C-62 will allow for a direct voice for industry in fisheries management through partnering agreements.

It will allow for a fairer system of administrative sanctions that would replace many of the criminal proceedings now used for infractions.

It will allow for an order power to set fishery close times and catch size and weight limits, all these for use by federal, provincial and territorial managers.

It will allow for the integration of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act with the Fisheries Act. This will create a single legislative framework for all fishing in coastal and adjacent waters.

It will also allow for a significant and long overdue streamlining of regulations, with a reduction in volume by as much as 50 per cent.

The emphasis in the new fisheries bill is on self-regulation and self-reliance. It sets a climate for long term stability in the industry. For too long Canada's fishery has been plagued by what we may call a gold rush mentality. Self-regulation, self-reliance and long term stability will help eliminate this capricious and ultimately self-destroying attitude. The revised fisheries act will go a long way to ensuring that the fishery of the future will be environmentally sustainable and economically viable.

There are several other important legislative changes proposed in Bill C-62 as we seek to adjust to the needs of a rapidly evolving industry.

The legislative base of fisheries and oceans will be streamlined by repealing statutes which have outlived their usefulness and by integrating provisions from those into the fisheries act. The Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act, the Fisheries Development Act and the North Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act are being repealed. The few industry support and development powers from the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act and the Fisheries Develop-

ment Act that may still be needed are being incorporated into the fisheries act.

Archaic provisions in the fisheries and oceans legislation are being eliminated. Much of that legislation has existed in one form or another since the time of Queen Victoria. It is no longer required. The great queen is long since gone and archaic provisions continued too reverentially from the historical epoch now passed should be replaced where they are no longer serving a useful purpose. For example, many fishing seasons have passed since we have needed the rules governing cutting wood and drying fish on vacant public lots.

Bill C-62 also provides a legal framework for delegating certain habitat management responsibilities to the provinces. To ensure a consistent national standard for habitat protection, provinces will be expected to comply with certain standards of habitat management as set out in negotiated agreements. However, there should be no misunderstanding about this. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans continues to retain full legal responsibility for the conservation and protection of the resource.

The delegation to provinces of certain freshwater habitat responsibilities is a major change from the version of the bill that was tabled in 1995 and it responds to the government's commitment in the 1996 speech from the throne.

The bill will not in itself transfer habitat responsibilities to provincial governments. It allows the federal government to negotiate on the delegation of responsibilities with interested provincial governments. All parties concerned would be consulted during these negotiations. The bill will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to delegate responsibility to provinces, to authorize certain types of projects and to exercise day to day management powers on provincial lands.

To recapitulate, this delegation of responsibility would eliminate an existing overlap between federal and provincial processes and also correspond with changes taking place in other areas of governmental activity. The federal government will maintain its full constitutional legal authority for prescribed projects.

Provinces would have a variety of powers, including the ability to require the installation of fish guards, fishways and other apparatus designed to protect fish, to require the removal of obstructions to fish passage, to provide authorization of certain projects of local concern. Regulations will set out a list of projects that are to remain within the realm of the federal government. Consultations with stakeholders will also take place to determine those classes of projects requiring permits. The mandatory permit provisions will replace subsection 35(2) authorizations as a trigger for the federal environmental assessment process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

At the present time, the provisions of the fisheries act dealing with physical alteration of fish habitat and pollution prevention are scattered throughout the act. The amendments will group these provisions together for ease of use. Once again we will be making the machinery simpler to operate.

I should also point out what is not changing in the act. First is pollution prevention. An important management tool currently found in section 36 is the prohibition against unauthorized deposits of deleterious substances. It is not being changed. Along with this, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may request that ongoing monitoring take place to ensure that where deposits are authorized, they are carried out in accordance with the authorizations. These provisions, administered by the Department of the Environment, will not be changed in any substantive way.

Second is plans and specifications. The ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to require plans and specifications for physical alteration or deposits of deleterious substances will be retained. Provincial ministers will have the ability to require plans and specifications where there has been delegation. The ability of the minister of fisheries to halt projects with governor in council approval will remain.

Third is flows. Also remaining will be the ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or a provincial minister where there has been a delegation, to require flows of water over and through obstructions, such as dams, to provide for the free movement of fish up and down stream, and for the mitigation of effects on fish habitat.

Finally, a word on penalties. Since the penalties for habitat offences were updated and substantially increased, there is no necessity to amend them at this time.

Let us now turn to partnering agreements. New powers in the bill allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to share responsibility, decision making and management costs with groups within the fishery through long term partnering agreements. Shared responsibility creates obligations for both parties, the stakeholder and the minister. We emphasize once again that the minister maintains ultimate legal responsibility for the conservation and protection of the resource.

Here are some of the specific matters on which fisheries and oceans and any representative organization would be able to enter into a management contract: harvest limits and other conservation and management measures; the number of licences; fees payable for licence issuance and administration; obligations and responsibilities of each party; funding arrangements with respect to management of the fishery; conservation and management programs for the fishery.

To reiterate, under partnering agreements the responsibility and legal authority for conservation protection of the resource remains with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is both co-operative federalism, federal-provincial as law in action but it is also the new pluralism: government and stakeholders in community decision making. The minister will also continue to establish intersection and interregion allocations.

In future, fisheries and oceans should be better able to concentrate on its core responsibilities relating to setting policy for fishers and conservation protection of the resource.

In this bill we are recognizing that the industry is capable of managing many machinery aspects of the fishery. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is committed to developing integrated management plans. Stakeholders will be encouraged to assess whether the partnering arrangements meet their specific needs.

On the new licence and appeal system I stress only that in the new system, the new tribunals are independent, at arm's length from the government. It is a new approach to sanctions.

The Oceans Act established our international law power under international law in the areas we have pioneered over the oceans and elsewhere. The fisheries act, apart from its tremendous work of codification, rationalization and modernization, provides the legal machinery and processes for vindication and enforcement of those international law rights in Canadian internal municipal law.

[The Speaker]

At the beginning you were not asked if you were going to split your time but I have a note here that you are going to share your time.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for neglecting to advise you.

[The Speaker]

I thank you for the direction.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to speak a bit longer because I have the feeling that we both could use more than five minutes to debate this issue. Anyhow, I will try to get to the point with my question, to limit myself to only one thing.

In his speech, the parliamentary secretary mentioned fisheries management agreements. I spoke before the parliamentary secretary and I said that the minister's arguments were flawed with regard to the wording of subclause 17(1).

I do not know if the parliamentary secretary agrees with the minister, but for my part, I have some experience with management agreements called partnership agreements; partnership means transparency, you must know who your partners are and let them know what is up your sleeve.

I will give you as an example the crab fishermen in zone 12 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, who had negotiated such an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans in February. This agreement was broken because the minister used his discretionary power to allow new players in. I have nothing against the arrival of new players per se, but nothing in the act provides for their arrival.

What annoys me is that it says "in the opinion of the Minister"; letting in new players is within his discretionary power, it is not information known to fishermen. The member opposite is also a distinguished lawyer and he must know that to make a partnership work, partners must share information.

In view of what I have said and given the example I described, could the parliamentary secretary tell me whether he agrees with the opposition that there are flaws in the bill as it stands now and whether he will support the opposition to remedy them? If he cannot see them now, he still has the whole second reading and report stage to become aware of them.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must thank the member for his very interesting and well-researched question. We are now talking about a new phase in the development of our domestic constitutional law, since formal amendments to the Constitution are so difficult.

I just spoke about the aspect of new pluralism of our system of government, that is, the system of partnership involves very close co-operation between different levels of government, between the federal government and the citizens in the present case, but it could also be between the federal government and provincial governments.

During my speech, I said a few times that the constitutional responsibility lies with the federal minister. However, the spirit of co-operation would indicate that the essential element is very close co-operation between the two levels and this is exactly what we are implementing in the negotiations with the British Columbia government.

We will examine specific cases when we get to the detailed study of the bill but, for now, I agree with the minister on this point. We accept this movement, this new pluralism, and we are trying to do our best within this partnership with the industry and the fishermen.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last summer the Supreme Court acknowledged that since the time of the Magna Carta there has existed a public right to fish. To date the commer-

cial sales portion of the aboriginal fishing strategy has operated outside the law.

This Bill C-62 will give the minister the right to discard 800 years of common law and allow for these private fisheries and do it without proper debate.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to address that issue, please.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to return to the question of the Magna Carta, of which our distinguished colleague opposite has spoken several times.

One of the problems is that people quote documents but do not read them in the original. This is not the hon. member's fault alone. It is sometimes affects judges too. One of the problems of the Magna Carta is that there is no single version of it and no single language. The original Latin has been translated into Norman French and from Norman French into English. However, when the Magna Carta is read it does not really support the principle he is referring to. I would suggest he go back to the direct sources. It is the only source of wisdom.

Let us come back to this issue as far as aboriginal fishing rights are concerned. This is to misunderstand the nature of this measure. As I said at the outset, the oceans act and the fisheries act in combination take Canada into the 21st century because they establish, in addition to the act of codification, rationalization and modernization, the juridical base in Canadian municipal internal law with the international law rights that Canadian diplomats and Canadian foreign ministers over the years have led. That is the triumph of these bills.

The hon. member should not worry about the petit point needle work at the expense of seeing the large design and the large step into the 21st century that this project of the law represents.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak to a timely piece of legislation, Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries.

I would like to deal particularly with the habitat provisions of these amendments to the Fisheries Act and to highlight their role in the renewal of the Canadian federation.

The federal government currently has constitutional responsibility for both marine and freshwater fisheries. It is also directly involved in the management of freshwater fisheries only in Atlantic Canada, Northwest and Yukon Territories and rivers in British Columbia that are home to spawning salmon.

Day to day management of freshwater fisheries has been delegated to the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec and to British Columbia for non-salmon waters through regulation and general fisheries agreements. These provinces play a significant role in managing fish habitat usually without formal agreements with the federal government. The exception of course is Ontario with which we have a memorandum of intent on fish habitat.

Federal habitat responsibilities are set out in the Fisheries ACT. In this respect the objective of the act is a net gain in productive fish habitat. To meet this objective three goals are pursued: conservation of existing fish habitat, restoration of previously degraded fish habitat and development of a new habitat.

Under the conservation goal the department tries to ensure that adverse impacts on fish habitat are avoided by assessing projects before they are built. These assessments can require the relocation or redesign of projects to prevent damage. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans strives to ensure that unavoidable loss of fish habitat is balanced by habitat replacement on a project by project basis.

Currently inland provinces manage fish habitat with minimal federal involvement and often without clear direction or accountability. This can result in several problems.

One is a lack of formal agreements with the province over which projects should or should not require review by the department. For example, one province may refer a small project to the department for review, while a neighbouring province may not refer a major project with potentially significant impacts on habitat. This leads to inconsistent levels of fish habitat and an inconsistent protection of fish habitat across the country.

Another problem arises from the discretionary nature of some of the habitat provisions, notably section 35 of the current Fisheries Act which prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

To avoid contravening the Fisheries Act, an authorization is required only where a project will result in harmful effects to the habitat. Therefore an offence can occur only when harmful alternation of habitat occurs without authorization.

This is the way we have been operating up to the present time and it is impossible to supervise. In addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition, the way we are operating now, it is impossible to supervise every single thing that goes on in these coastal waters that are covered by the Fisheries Act.

For example, when the Department of the Environment is to look at such things as ocean dumping on the west coast we have tens of thousands of miles of coastline on that rugged coast, as well the islands and all the northern region. I am talking about the Arctic Ocean region with the islands.

Yet the Department of the Environment has only a handful of people to inspect each project and all dumping that takes place in the ocean. Something has to change.

Better habitat protection will result if measures to protect habitat were included in project plans and specifications in advance rather than through enforcement after damage to habitat has occurred.

Some of our opposition is questioning whether that is possible. As an example, I was fortunate enough to be in Nanaimo, British Columbia at a time when there was a very important meeting taking place. Attending that meeting were project supervisors, representatives from the federal and provincial levels and the ministries of environment, outside objective consultants who are experts in environmental affairs, a project engineer from the municipality. Here was a partnership sitting around the table and discussing the environmental impact on a golf course that that community was planning to build. All the concerns of an environmental nature were being addressed in advance.

These people co-operatively, in partnership, came to the conclusion that certain major changes had to take place in the major plans that were being presented by the company that wanted to build a golf course right on the edge of a habitat for a very important fish species. To me, that is a democratic model. That is what we are pushing in this bill.

It is certainly preferable to prevent damage rather than repair it. That is what this bill intends. The provinces manage habitat on a day to day basis while the federal government retains decision making authority. This could create uncertainty over which level of government should be doing what.

Delegation agreements with the provinces under this bill, by clarifying roles and setting out clear responsibility, will reduce this uncertainty by improving habitat management and making it more consistent across the country.

The new fisheries act would enable us to delegate to the provinces the responsibility to make all decisions for certain types of projects under a number of provisions of the fisheries act.

I am aware that some environmental groups are concerned that delegation would weaken habitat protection and lead to a patchwork quilt of habitat management across the country. I want to assure them that the federal government will not delegate to provinces that are not capable or willing to effectively meet national habitat protection standards. The provinces will be required to show that they are meeting these standards through appropriate accountability which could include reports to the federal government and through periodical federal audits of their performance.

Agreements could be for a fixed period of time or before the agreement could be renewed there could be a review to determine if the requirements of the fisheries act had been met.

The question of habitat management standards is not on the table. National standards will be maintained. However, we are flexible about the specific arrangements that would be made with the provinces. We are currently discussing the extent and scope of delegation with the provinces, industry and environmental groups. A major workshop will be held this fall to examine the best approach to take in determining what type of projects or activities should remain under federal authority.

In summary, habitat delegation will contribute to a more effective federation by placing in the hands of each level of government those responsibilities they are best able to carry out. This will end uncertainty over who should be doing what. The results will be more effective decision making that will not delay development project unnecessarily and will simultaneously yield better habitat management.

It is for these reasons that I intend to support the bill.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. I have run into the previous speaker before in committee, but his comments make me feel like I am on a different planet. I will try to explain why.

He went on and on about his fears regarding habitat protection, how the provinces would not be equal to the task. Unless something got lost in translation, but that is clearly what he meant.

He feared that the federal government might delegate some rights to the provinces, thereby undermining federal control over habitat conservation. I want to reassure him. Clause 9 in part I of the bill-which I find irritating-provides that the delegation of powers only applies to licences and related rights, that is to say, the money that may go with this.

What intrigues me the most-and makes me feel like I am on another planet-is the source of the new rights the minister gives himself in part II on habitat conservation. They are encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces, especially Quebec, which owns all the water resources and hydroelectric dams within its borders. People can figure it out for themselves. Is this his way of compromising our entire economic development?

This is not the worst bill of the century, but an attack against the provinces.

Can the hon. member admit that the provinces have done a good job in the past 100 years; that the federal government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction; that the provinces have done a good job of preserving habitats; and that, if it wanted to make the

new fisheries act fully consistent, the federal government should delegate more powers in this area and amend part II as it now stands?

All he has to do is compare the current version of part II with what was in the old law to see there is a huge difference. This is a major case of federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction, and they dare tell us that they will seek our agreement, that they will work in partnership with us. This is off to a very bad start, and second reading is on the principle, and I do not hold out much hope for principles.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand where the member is coming from. Nowhere in my presentation did I make any statement to support what he has just finished stating.

My hon. colleague from Quebec realizes just as well as I do that, as far as fresh water controls are concerned and jurisdiction, it is in the hands of the province. His province has been doing an admirable job, as have a great number of other provinces, regarding fish habitat within those fresh water bodies. That is what I was referring to.

Most of my speech addressed fish habitats outside the fresh water boundaries, in other words those in the salt water. That is what I was directing most of my presentation toward.

The partnership will exist. There is no doubt about it. In my presentation I clearly point out that most responsibilities will be handed over to the provinces. There will be a conference this coming fall where more clearly defined responsibilities will emerge. There is no doubt about it.

Responsibilities that lie in the hands of the Quebec government will not probably be identical to those that would lie in the hands of British Columbia or some other province simply because of so many differences, so many other factors that have to come into the picture.

It is practically impossible to come up with a standard formula or a standard set of rules and regulations for each and every province. The member knows that and I know that.

As more discoveries are made, new information and new knowledge emerges on the scene as time goes on. His province, with its sense of responsibility, will do the best it can to take that knowledge, information and technology and introduce it into the environment or situation to be sure that the fresh water habitat, as well as the salt water habitat, are protected and maintain a certain level of productivity that would be beneficial to the people of Quebec just as it would be in every other area of this country.

We hope for that, we pray for that and we have to ask the member to guarantee that.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I participate in this debate today on Bill C-62, the fisheries bill.

This bill, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament as Bill C-115, is back before this House. It proposes an integrated approach to fisheries management in Canadian waters and adjacent waters. It is the end result of a process to simplify and modernize the fisheries legislation. The words simplify and modernize I just used were certainly not intended to be taken in a positive way.

While these words generally have a positive sense, we do not consider them as such and we will not therefore support this bill put forward by the Liberal government. The fact is that there are serious flaws in the four parts of Bill C-62, which my colleagues and myself will address in greater detail in our remarks.

True to their ways and their vision of Canada, always trying to further centralize power and acting unilaterally, the federal Liberals are once again breaking their promise to decentralize and allow the provinces to play a more prominent role.

Last Wednesday, I watched on the Ottawa station of the CBC, as Quebec's favourite minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is also a favourite of cartoonists, was boasting away as usual about this great federation whose leaders are so committed to carrying this whole decentralization effort through. This is all rhetoric coming from the Liberals and their school bag packing minister. Those who carry a school bag have to do their homework, otherwise they fail. With their Bill C-62, they are flunking the test, they are not swimming, they are sinking, which brings us back to the fish.

The people opposite will not have it any other way, because decentralizing and giving more prominence to the provinces is not consistent with federalism, with the very basis of federalism.

The federal government is certainly not prepared to commit hara-kiri. That is why they are all words and no action. It is becoming a real joke when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs uses all the words in his vocabulary, always the same few words, to try to persuade us that Canada works.

This bill is part of the farce being played out by the ministers and their great leader, who only swears by the red book and whose promises have gone up in smoke. The first part of the bill clearly shows that the regime for the protection and management of fisheries undermines the best interests of the fisheries and the workers whose livelihood depends on this industry. This part of the bill provides for the conservation and management of fisheries.

The various elements of this part of the bill raise a lot of questions. The minister should have looked at what is happening in this industry in Quebec and the rest of Canada. That would have been the logical thing to do. However, the minister chooses to put the cart before the horse by first setting the terms of future fisheries management agreements, as is provided for in clause 17.

Some crucial elements for a relevant and appropriate review of the issue have been left out. These crucial elements deal with the core of the fisher people that needs to be defined and the appropriate fishing guidelines to be applied in the future.

The depletion of the fish stock both in the Atlantic, where ground fish are being threatened, and on the west coast has led to a moratorium on fishing in the Atlantic and forces us to stop and think about the difficulties the fishing industry is facing from sea to sea. We have to sit down with all the stakeholders and get their input to see what the future holds for the industry.

This bill ignores several important and even crucial questions for the fishing industry and those who depend on it. The people the minister had indeed consulted with are complaining because they believe nobody listened to them. What good does it do to consult the people if you do not listen to them? But we must recognize that members opposite are past masters in the art of fake consultations. For almost three years now, they have been having more and more of them in all fields.

They use these consultations as a democratic screen. In fact, it is the finance minister who started this new fad of fake consultations. You will remember the finance minister getting off a plane and running, hair flying, to consult on his first budget. Liberals suffer from a "chronic fake consultation syndrome". They consult to look good while their plans are already drawn and their decisions are already made.

Ministers keep all powers at the expense of all concerned. The whole population of Canada even saw how the Liberal leaders acted this way, a couple of weeks ago, at their last national convention. A fine democracy where the die is already cast. This bill is no exception to the Liberal smokescreen strategy.

Indeed, clause 17 really gives the Minister of Fisheries unlimited powers, which will make him the sole master of the fishing industry. He will be able to sign fisheries management agreements with any association that, in his opinion-and I repeat-in his opinion, represents a class of licensees or people.

These agreements can determine the maximum catches, the number of licenses, the rights that can be levied by Her Majesty, the obligations, responsibilities and funding measures concerning fisheries management and the applicable conservation and management programs. The minister can even establish guidelines for the tribunal on decisions to take in case of a severe violation.

With clause 17, the minister gives himself all the powers and, unfortunately, this is not necessarily in the interest of those primarily concerned, since the minister can make almost any decision without any consideration for them.

If the minister makes a bad decision in terms of resource allocation as a direct result of a lack of consultation or findings on the fisheries situation, he can always change his mind under clause 21. This does not seem very serious and shows a patent lack of will to provide a really adequate mechanism to ensure an efficient fisheries management, which would reflect reality and which all concerned would take part in and be satisfied with.

Given such a lack of vision for the future of fishing, we have every reason to be worried and we should vigorously criticize the minister and the federal government for their ineffectiveness. The future of fishermen and fisheries is once again threatened. The federal government does not do anything in this bill to rectify the situation and to reassure fishermen and all the people who rely on this industry. The future is becoming more and more gloomy.

Because of the troubling situation, this unacceptable bill and the vital importance of this issue, we are demanding that powers for fisheries management be transferred back to Quebec. Why should we trust the federal government in this area any more, when it has not done a good job of managing it and has nothing good to propose for the future?

Even though Captain Canada, who has moved on and is now threatening to pull the plug on the Churchill Falls contract, went to New York with his nets and his fish, we must not be taken for fools with regard to the content of this bill, its impact and the fact that it does not even offer a glimpse of hope for the future of the fishing industry.

I will now turn to part II of the bill, entitled "Fish Habitat Conservation and Protection, and Pollution Prevention", which is of particular interest to me. It is amazing to see the impact of this bill in terms of duplication and overlap not only with the provinces, including Quebec, but also with other federal statutes.

I am thinking about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the bill that the environment minister tabled a few days ago about endangered species, among others. All this is getting very complicated.

Part II of Bill C-62 includes clauses 42 to 64. It allows the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or another minister designated by the governor in council to take action with regard to the removal of obstructions impeding the free passage of fish or detrimental to fish habitat, the construction of fish-ways or canals and the control of activities or undertakings which are likely to result in the alteration or the destruction of fish habitat or in the deposit of a deleterious

substance in waters frequented by fish or in any place where that deleterious substance may enter any such waters.

So that part of the bill concerns all the water environment and, indirectly, the atmospheric and land environment as well, where deleterious substances may enter a stream and alter it.

The powers given under the bill to combat or prevent the various forms of pollution are considerable: authorizations, permits, notices, reports, plans and specifications, inspections, fines, orders to close, emergency interventions, and so on.

These powers are not entirely new. They are already found in the existing Fisheries Act, but they are given greater prominence through various titles and groupings. The bill also provides for more extensive powers to intervene to protect fish habitat. This part of the bill creates a major problem, because it gives the federal minister powers that are identical or similar to those available to the Quebec Minister of the Environment and Fauna under the Environment Quality Act and the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife.

For these reasons, part II of the bill can be considered a major irritant in relations between the federal government and Quebec, just like other federal legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The interference of the federal government in areas already occupied by Quebec once again duplicates legislation, adds to the number of public servants, and increases the constraints on businesses and individuals, all of which lead to inflated costs and an ineffective system. Where is the minister, with his school bag in hand, to tell the fisheries minister that the purpose of Bill C-62 is not to achieve efficiency and the grand designs of decentralization?

There is no sign of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in this debate. He would rather spout nonsense on various stages and mouth pious wishes in connection with our supposedly great and efficient federation. But the bill we see before us, which is almost the complete agenda of the federal government, does not pass the test. The Liberals say one thing and do another.

I would remind you that Quebec has a fundamental responsibility with respect to the protection and uses made of the aquatic environment and its resources. It has ownership of public bodies of water. It also has exclusive rights over civil rights and public property, municipal governments, local structures and industries, land development and resource use, and in general anything of a local or private nature.

It is therefore responsible for integrated management of the aquatic environment, and for taking all protective measures liable to ensure its quality, by preserving aquatic life and the natural processes essential to the species inhabiting that environment, primarily halieutic species.

It seems exaggerated, therefore, for the federal government to use its jurisdiction over fisheries and the management of conditions favourable to the maintenance and development of fishery resources to end up exercising identical or similar powers to those of Quebec over the aquatic environment.

With this bill, the federal government is taking no notice whatsoever of the concerns that have been expressed at all levels in recent years concerning duplication, inefficiency and the dilution of resources occasioned by the current situation.

On the contrary, Bill C-62 reaffirms and consolidates federal domination of an area fully covered by Quebec legislation, which directly addresses protection of the habitat of all fauna, including fish, and water pollution control in all of its forms.

In principle, the department, or any other designated by the governor in council, may duplicate or even countermand the authorizations required by clause 22 of the Quebec environmental control act, and undertake the same impact studies as those covered by that act. Similarly, the governor in council has responsibility for adopting regulations which more or less duplicate or overlap Quebec regulations, as is the case at present concerning pulp and paper plant and oil refinery effluent and the liquid effluent from metal mines.

Even more than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, this bill would provide the federal government with a powerful tool for controlling all activities taking place in the aquatic environment, whether private property, or belonging to a municipal government or the province of Quebec.

The problem is that the jurisprudence on division of powers tends to favour the federal side, since if there is any incompatibility, the federal legislation is generally recognized as taking precedence.

I would also like to point out that most of the decisions the federal minister must make with respect to a new project or activity that may affect a waterway require, according to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, prior examination or an in-depth study, and in some cases a complete assessment.

In other words, part II of the bill would intrude and would continue to intrude in the future on Quebec's exclusive or predomi-

nant jurisdiction over and responsibility for development, protection and management of waterways within its territory.

To the extent that the bill reaffirms and consolidates the federal position in this area, it causes the federal government and the Quebec government to compete directly with each other and ultimately favours complete federal control over environmental management, the economy and the use of water. At best, it would have the effect of restricting Quebec's ability to define its own objectives, priorities and means of action and develop an integrated water management policy.

I wonder what would happen if a project or structure receives the requisite permit and the minister of fisheries were to decide subsequently that the structure is harmful to a certain type of fish. In this area, we will now have four federal acts and possibly a larger number of regulations that, in turn, will duplicate two Quebec acts and regulations. A real mess, in which the average person will be hopelessly lost.

Imagine the number of public servants, bureaucrats and ministers who would be able to intervene. The federal government is entirely responsible for this situation. It constantly walks all over jurisdictions already held by the provinces, especially in Quebec and especially in environmental matters.

We wish the government would stick to its own jurisdiction, and start by harmonizing at the federal level. The environment would be better off as a result.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very interesting speech. I think she understands the major historical trends in international laws and municipal bylaws on environmental protection and pollution control. She agrees that the federal government and the provinces can negotiate in good faith. So why does she conclude there will be a conflict between the two levels of government? We share the same goals.

In this case, I have a question for her: In order to reduce the possibility of conflict, should Quebec not follow in British Columbia's footsteps and negotiate an agreement on fisheries with the federal government? Why not? This might resolve the problems she raised with respect to the administration and purpose of this bill.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of overlap and duplication does not exist only between the federal government and the provinces, but also within the federal public service. I am thinking in particular of the department of fisheries and that of the environment. The problem has always existed. There have always been overlapping laws, and the department of fisheries has always used its discretionary power so it could fulfil its duties.

A bill on threatened species has just been introduced in this House, and this morning in committee we were discussing fish habitat and protection. While we on this side are working to make progress, and I am including the federalists-even though I am not one of them, I can still see that some of their initiatives make sense-the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now comes up with a bill that interferes with the one on threatened species. This makes no sense at all. So when federal departments draft a bill, they should at least consult with one another so as to make their work much more consistent and cost-effective.

Federal overlap alone is a shameless waste. Let us start with this. As far as Quebec is concerned, I think it is doing its job and it is in our best interests to conserve our fish stocks and protect our environment and wildlife. I think the Quebec law on environmental protection, on the protection of threatened species, was one of the most forward-looking we have ever seen. It was even mentioned by some of our Liberal colleagues.

So we can surely come to some sort of agreement, but not with bills like this one, which is another example of the federal government's meddling in areas not under its jurisdiction. Federal departments cannot even speak among themselves to make sure their laws do not overlap those drafted by other departments. That is quite simple.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will address this question to my hon. colleague from the Laurentides but first I would like to made a comment and take this opportunity to take back remarks I made earlier to the previous speaker.

I said that powers were delegated only in relation to the issue of fishing licences. I was mistaken. I read the bill over, and, under clause 58(1), the minister has indeed provided for delegation of powers in relation to the environment and habitat protection.

Having done my mea culpa about what I said previously, the problem lies, and my hon. colleague from the Laurentides is absolutely right, with the environmental law. This is a relatively new field of law. I realize that it may not have existed 100 years ago, when the original fisheries act was drafted in 1868.

But it exists today. Quebec has made significant progress in this area too, but even if fisheries were its responsibility under the Constitution, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not have any power regarding the environment; the law said so. The department was not given such powers by the Constitution. However, in clause 58(3), the minister decided that, where the vision of any given province is inconsistent with that of the federal government, federal law will prevail. That is what it says.

In other words, the minister is telling those who have delegated powers: "Kiss your powers goodbye. I decide now". Which is

more insulting. How could the federal government delegate to a province a right that it is no longer entitled to have itself? As for the right to protect the environment, Quebec is already looking after that, and doing a fine job at it.

I find doubly insulting the fact that, on the one hand, the federal government would be delegating a power that it does not have itself and, on the other hand, where an inconsistency exists, the rule of law will be in favour of Ottawa.

Perhaps one hundred years have gone by before the Fisheries Act was reviewed but, with measures like these and provisions like these, I can see one hundred years of quarrelling lying ahead. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I will not be around for another century. Seriously, such a bill raises concerns. I think that the fisheries minister had a chance to redo his homework, and to make sure that his bill would not once again interfere in the jurisdictions of other departments, such as the environment department, or overlap other federal legislation, such as the Endangered Species Bill, or the Environmental Assessment Act. Why create a statute that overlaps others? It does not make any sense.

As I was saying earlier, we do our homework in Quebec. I think that protection of the environment is a responsibility, not a question of law. It is our future and that of our children. I think we have a duty to protect it. We must also try to administer it effectively. It is all very fine and well to make laws, but how will they be administered? When a bill of this sort is tabled, there must be an assurance that it can be administered. I am telling you it will be hell.

Even on the environment committee we had problems during discussions with witnesses from Fisheries and Oceans, because there is a conflict of jurisdiction. There will be more problems because now there is discretionary power. We will have many more problems, and I will tell you that the more trouble we have reaching agreement, the more the process will be held up and the more the environment jeopardized.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the two minutes remaining to make a comment. I know we are at second reading stage. We are being told that opposition members should speak to the principles. I would therefore say right off the bat that as far as part II is concerned-I think my colleague, the environment critic, did a wonderful job-you have just been told about the potential, but very real, sticking points with the provinces.

We said that we found it insulting to be delegated authority, when we already have it, just as you do. We said that we also found it insulting that, in cases of disagreement between a provincial and federal department, the federal law would prevail.

I would like the minister to tell us that he will redo his homework. If he is trying to draft a bill that it has taken a century to produce, I would like him to tell us that he is not looking for a century of argument, but one of peace and productivity for the resource, for the people who make their living from it and depend on it. As the bill stands, what we see ahead is a century of dispute.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport.

This legislation, an act respecting fisheries, is of great importance to the fishers throughout this country. I can speak in particular for the fishers and the organizations that they represent and the organizations that they have formed in the areas of my constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.

Over the last several years that I have represented this area I have worked directly with the fishers of Atlantic Canada. I have discovered the depth of their commitment to the management and the proper stewardship of this resource. They have learned through interaction with the government, some good, some bad, that if the resource is to be properly managed, if the resource is to be properly conserved, the stakeholders, those who are directly involved in drawing their livelihood from the resource, have to be intimately involved as partners in the stewardship and in the management of this resource. That is what I understand to be the fundamental principle behind this legislation.

I also welcome the fact that Bill C-62 has gone through such extensive consultation under the new fisheries minister since it was introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-115. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken extensive consultations both through his officials and through the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans during the course of the passage of this legislation. That is vitally important.

If this approach to fisheries management, which is the correct and modern one, is to work, if it is to ensure the protection and survival of the species and the ecosystem on which the livelihoods of so many Canadians depend, then those people who are going to be involved as partners with the government need to have a comfort level, need to have their questions answered and need to understand that they are truly partners in the management of this resource.

This legislation signals a major shift in the philosophy by which the federal government manages the fisheries in Canada. Canada's fishing industry has indicated the need to get government out of the day to day management of the fishery. There is a need to redesign our past approach, which has been viewed as paternalistic in

nature. This has resulted, for the most part, in exclusive government decision making in the way the fishery is managed.

These amendments represent a major shift in the fisheries management activities of fisheries and oceans. The department will shift away from the business of managing fishers to managing fish. The department will take a more focused approach to the management of the fisheries resource, concentrating on conservation and sustainable utilization.

The legislation will support this shift in several ways. The aspect that I would particularly like to emphasize is that of allowing commercial fishers, aboriginal groups and other stakeholders to participate in the shared management, shared discussions and shared results of the fishery, and also to participate in the cost sharing of services such as data collection and licence administration.

The legislation will allow for new legally binding agreements between the federal government and fisher groups. It will provide harvesters with a greater role and responsibility in managing the fishery.

The government wants to work with stakeholders to develop the type of partnering agreements that will benefit all parties concerned and enhance the conservation of fisheries resources. However, the minister will retain, as he must, responsibility for conservation and protection of the resource at all times.

New powers in the Fisheries Act will allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to share decision making and develop more efficient management strategies with groups within the fishery and to do so through long term partnering agreements.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and any representative organization could enter into such agreements on several aspects of fisheries management. A typical partnering agreement would clearly set out the harvesting limits and other conservation management measures for a fishery, the number of licences to be issued, the fees payable for licence issuance and licence administration, the obligations and responsibilities of each party, the funding arrangements with respect to the management of the fishery, and conservation and management programs for the fishery.

Stakeholders will assume responsibility in choosing programs and services which will best meet their business needs.

As I emphasized earlier, the responsibility and the legal authority for conservation and protection of the resource will remain with the minister. Specifically, the setting of allowable harvesting levels, the ability to close fisheries and to ensure conservation and protection is not compromised and enforcement of the responsibilities and legal authorities will all remain with the minister.

I will introduce a short example of what this legislation will make possible and what it has already started. In my constituency in the Gulf of St. Lawrence a number of groups representing fishermen have worked out over the last two years new ways of engaging in partnerships to jointly manage and share the resource of the snow crab fishery in the gulf. This is quite a lucrative fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and has caused a great deal of tension in that part of Atlantic Canada. With the collapse of many of the groundfish stocks in the gulf, many fishermen have looked with some envy at those fortunate fishers who were able to draw substantial incomes from limited access to the snow crab fishery.

Through a process of sometimes difficult negotiation we are starting to work out proper partnering agreements that will not only ensure the snow crab resource is properly managed but also that the groups of fishermen who are stakeholders and form companies that harvest the resource will share that resource for the benefit of all those in their communities.

I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his predecessor for showing the flexibility of movement that has allowed for a better sharing of that resource. That is an example in concrete terms of what the notion of partnering and of moving forward by involving the fishermen and other stakeholders in the management of this resource is all about.

I will not be able to deal with all the aspects of this legislation, but if we allow the fishermen to take responsibility for the resource, for harvesting it in the appropriate way or assuming more of a share in the responsibility for the benefits that flow from that resource, we will find their good sense will prevail and will be demonstrated in a more sound fishery.

One of the problems we have had in the past, tragedies in some areas, that has led to the virtual collapse of many fisheries is that nobody took real responsibility for the fishery. The fishermen had no real responsibility because the government took it all. In the end when mistakes were made in calculating harvest levels nobody was there to take the responsibility and as a result we had tragic overfishing.

We have to stop this and I think the direction the government is taking with this legislation is the right one.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker noted that no one was responsible when the fishery on the east coast collapsed. That is simply not true.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible. The beauty of the old act is that somebody was responsible. Under these new partnering agreements he is talking about, all that will happen is that we will have some sort of a collective to manage the fisheries resource. When things do not go right and we start looking around

to pin the blame, there will not be anybody because there will be a committee and it will always be the next guy who is responsible.

The department is admitting in this act that it did not have a solution to the problems and it is looking elsewhere. It wants to delegate that authority to somebody else rather than asking what went wrong and what it could do about it.

For example, it was recently noted that there were over 400 violations of the forestry act in central British Columbia which resulted in degradation of salmon habitat. The fisheries official responsible for the area and habitat made representation to the provincial government.

"There's a problem here. If I can help, let me know". The province never got back to him. The real issue is not that the province did not get back to him, it is why did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister not enforce the act?

The minister has the authority under the old act to do something about habitat degradation. Why was the act not enforced? The hon. member who just spoke does not have to answer in the specific on this but in general. When habitat is degraded as it was in this instance why is the minister not live up to his constitutional responsibility under the old act and doing something about it?

Second, the new act does not give the minister any more authority. In fact, it just takes away authority. How does the member think that will improve the situation?

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that under the old act the government did not have responsibility over the fishery. In fact, the minister of fisheries has always retained ultimate responsibility for the management of the fishery.

What I meant to say was that in the old philosophy of management, the government was the sole entity that accepted responsibility for the fishery. Very often, the stakeholders in the industry deferred to the government to make the final decisions on the quotas.

We saw examples of this on the east coast with overfishing, with high grading, with improper mesh size. Nobody was willing to be accountable for the fact that those things were taking place. The government was unable to enforce the sanctions in the act because there was not a shared responsibility for managing the resource.

That is the new change in philosophy the government is introducing with this fishery. Fishermen have to be responsible for the conservation of the resource. They have to share ownership of that responsibility with the government. That is the philosophy that we are trying to put forward.

I believe that fishermen are happy to accept the responsibility provided they are fully involved in the partnership we are trying to create. That will be the challenge the minister of fisheries will have in implementing these new provisions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay East, Telecommunications; the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, Agriculture.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment. I wish you success in that role for which you have been predestined for a long time. We are all very glad to see you in the chair.

Historically it can be said that the Fisheries Act has played a very important environmental role because of its powers to regulate the alterations or destructions of fish habitat. Many Canadians, therefore, believe it is the most important piece of environmental legislation in Canada. For example, the Oldman dam environmental assessment was made possible by a trigger in the Fisheries Act, section 35(2), which resulted in the environmental assessment and review process.

This bill makes some important changes to the act. Clause 49 of the bill appears to broaden protection of fish habitat by making a general prohibition against harmful alteration. By adding the word "activity" to clause 49, certain types of mining found by the courts not to be included under the term "works or undertaking" used in the old act will now be included. Congratulations to the minister.

It must be said that in most provinces and territories the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions are the only legal protection for wetlands, streams, shorelines and other such ecological significant areas. Hence, the most problematic section of the bill is clause 58(1), which would permit, by means of regulation, the delegation of certain habitat protection and management responsibilities to interested provincial governments.

This delegation would be limited to waters within the provinces, largely freshwater habitat and excludes a list of "prescribed projects", which would remain under the authority of the federal government but have yet to be determined.

The proposed legislation is not a carte blanche transfer of freshwater fish habitat responsibilities to the provinces, but instead would allow the federal government to negotiate agreements for the delegation of responsibilities to interested provinces. However,

because these agreements will have great consequences for fish habitat and environmental protection I would like to dwell on this part of the bill.

One of the reasons advanced for negotiating delegation agreements with the provinces is to eliminate "duplication and overlap" between federal and provincial jurisdictions.

There is only anecdotal evidence to this effect and this may be true in some isolated cases. But in Ontario, after the Harris government's revisions of the land use planning act, protection for environmentally significant areas such as wetland, woodlots and ravines and prime agricultural land has been basically eliminated. Thus, in the case of Ontario, there is very little left in the daily operations of the ministry to operate, let alone to examine overlap and duplication. After Premier Harris' reforms the fisheries act now stands as the only significant protection for Ontario's wetlands, streams and shorelines.

The terms of these agreements are of great importance therefore to fish habitat and overall environmental protection. I am glad that delegation will occur on a province by province basis. This will hopefully allow for the maintenance of high standards across the country.

Not only Ontario has greatly reduced its ministries of the environment and natural resources. In Alberta the environment minister's budget will be reduced by $164 million and 1,360 jobs by the year 1999. According to the premier, industry will monitor and regulate itself.

In Ontario, the ministry of environment and energy is being cut by $200 million and 752 staff by the year 1997-98 and the ministry of natural resources is being cut by $137 million and 2,170 staff over the same time.

These massive cuts will most definitely impact negatively on the ability of these two provincial governments to assume increased responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat. Hence the agreements between the government and respective provinces must incorporate a strong and transparent monitoring system to ensure that fish habitat is properly protected. In addition, strong accountability mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance incorporated into the agreements are needed. Without these provisions, delegation could result in the de facto deregulation, something the federal government surely does not want to do and actually wants to avoid.

The delegation of section 35(2) in the present Fisheries Act to the provinces also has serious ramifications for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act passed in 1995. Under that act section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act triggers environmental assessment. Under Bill C-62 this will not longer be the case and instead the government is proposing the negotiation of a list of projects which would require a mandatory permit. The list of projects requiring permits will be prescribed in the regulations after being negotiated with stakeholders.

In order to maintain the original intent and the environmental protection accorded through making section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act a trigger for the assessment, I strongly urge the minister to make the project list comprehensive and representative of ecologically diverse areas and find ways of tracking and quantifying the cumulative effects of several small projects which might fail to come under those defined under the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act trigger.

Without this capacity our environmental assessment will risk going back to a project by project approach instead of going forward to account for the cumulative impacts of development within a particular region.

The track record regarding the delegation of Fisheries Act provisions to the provinces has not fared well in the past. In his 1990 report then Auditor General Kenneth Dye stated: "In the one area where the federal government has already delegated monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations issues under the Fisheries Act indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in 1988". This is found on page 28 of the auditor general's report.

While congratulating the minister I also urge him to ensure the agreements with the provinces include a very strong and transparent mechanisms for ensuring that proper monitoring and enforcement will take place. The integrity of the fish habitat protection demands such an approach if the Fisheries Act is to continue to protect Canadians' health, environment and our most precious fisheries habitat.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few problems with the recommendations just made by my colleague across the way. Allow me to explain.

When he wants to see the links between the provinces and the federal government reinforced in order to better protect the environment-and no one would oppose such a goal, I too want to be sure the environment is protected-in the fervour I thought I detected at the end of the member's speech, when he said he would like to see mechanisms reinforced in the areas of safety and monitoring of implementation, I take this to mean a form of partnership with the provinces to ensure that everyone does their job and that everything goes well, how will all this work?

I keep coming back to the same two points. I would remind members that what we are now talking about is the fisheries bill of the century. I would also remind them that, 100 years ago, environmental law was not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, the founding nation, Quebec, has just as much right to define its environmental law as does the rest of Canada. But since we are talking about partnership, since we are talking about the bill of the

century, I say that Canada has no more right over the environment than Quebec.

How dare they tell us, in clause 58(1), that the federal government may delegate powers to a province? And how, in a context of wanting to reinforce monitoring mechanisms rather than dictating how they will be set up, will agreement be reached in order to ensure that everyone wants the same degree of purity of water, air and the ecosystem?

This is immediately followed, in clause 58(3) by coercive measures. It says that federal environmental law will take precedence over provincial environmental law.

This is, I would remind you, the law of the century when it comes to the fisheries. One hundred years ago, when the two founding peoples came together to write the Constitution, it did not exist. Today we are being told: "Shove over, you little guys, we are the bosses here". I find that the minister has not done his homework.

First of all, as my colleague for Laurentides has already said, there is a lack of cohesiveness, an overlap between the federal departments themselves, between the federal Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Now what they are planning is to stir up quarrels and to give themselves all of the rights with clause 58(3), saying: "We are going to declare the delegation of power mil if we feel it is not right". Where is there any partnership in that? Where is the desire to create stringent measures of control, mechanisms to ensure a pure environment?

Clause 58(3) thumbs its nose at the rights of Quebec and the other provinces.

We will not understand each other if one side says "If you do not do what I tell you, I will cut off your rights." What entitles the provinces to additional rights? This is the law of the century, I say again.

When the Constitution was drafted 100 years ago, this was not in it. Now, if we wish to rejuvenate the Constitution, to get more modern, let us speak of how the mechanisms of harmonization rather than of coercion will be used.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only have one minute to answer. I wish to thank the honourable member for Gaspé for his question. It seems to me that my colleague is living in the obscurity of his ignorance. Had he read the Constitution, as he should have, he would know that water is exclusively a matter of federal jurisdiction. One cannot say that there is no federal jurisdiction in that area. Thus, it means there is also a federal jurisdiction on fisheries.

Naturally, we want to reinforce the links between the federal government and the provinces. I gave only two examples, those of Ontario and Alberta, to show that at this time, and because of budgetary restrictions in those two provinces, we cannot expect them to address the issue of fisheries and assume a major responsibility in this area. These provinces have reduced their budgets and, hence, the ability of their departments to assume more responsibility than they have at the present time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill of stealth, dressed up as modernization. This bill gives the minister and thus the senior bureaucracy all the power they could ever possibly want to reward their friends and consolidate their strength and powers.

All this is coming from what is characterized as the most centralized, top heavy and arrogant bureaucracy in the federal government. It is amazing to me how the consolidation of powers in this bill can be characterized as modernization. Thank goodness I have not spent my life in academia to buy this logic hook, line and sinker like some Liberals in this place.

In 1995 DFO and the coast guard merged. And guess what? The DFO senior bureaucracy won the turf war which it was so well placed to win in the Ottawa trenches since its last priority was serving the public. British Columbians have seen the negative consequences to coast guard services on the west coast ever since.

There is one thing that I would like to state very clearly. There is nothing the government can do under the new fisheries act, Bill C-62, that it cannot already do under the existing act except extinguish the public right to fish. The central and deplorable change with respect to fisheries management is that the minister gains unfettered powers to do what currently requires the specific authorization of Parliament or cabinet. The power has become the intoxicating element of Canada's proposed fisheries act. For a minister and department that have singlehandedly mismanaged this resource so completely to be handed even more absolute power would be a derogation of the trust placed in us as parliamentarians.

Bill C-62 is further testimony to the government's inability to manage and allocate a resource and further testimony to the government's refusal to honour historic common law regarding the public right to fish.

Despite Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, this bill will also ensure the continuation of a native only commercial fishery. This legislation is contrary to any enlightened and cogent advice proffered by the fishing industry, unions, commercial and recre-

ational fishermen and anyone who knows anything about the industry.

All the bill really accomplishes is to give the minister complete discretion to enter into fisheries management agreements with any group. It is a recipe for a patchwork, piecemeal and divisive fisheries policy. How in the world could the minister allow his bureaucrats to once again snow him by holding him captive to his own ignorance and ego?

Bill C-62 gives the minister the power to end the public right to fish and replaces this time honoured tradition with private fishing agreements, or what the bill calls partnership agreements.

There is an expression in the banking business which goes something like this: "If you owe the bank $1,000 you are a debtor. If you owe it $1 million you are partner". With the omnipotent power Bill C-62 now gives to the minister I can see every good Liberal and financial contributor to the party becoming real partners with the minister and the government.

Ministerial fiats are dictatorial and an abuse of democracy. Can we see one town along the Fraser River in B.C. that votes Liberal becoming a partner and another town that does not becoming a debtor unable to strike a partnership agreement? This is outrageous power.

These fishing agreements would be similar to the aboriginal fishing agreements the government currently enters into with native bands. The native only commercial fishery was undermined by the Supreme Court's August 1996 R. v. Van der Peet, R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd. and R. v. Gladstone decisions. The court ruled against an aboriginal commercial right, saying they had no right to an exclusive fisheries. B.C. natives, to quote, "do not have a constitutional right to catch and sell fish commercially". Here we go again, more appealed decisions leading to Supreme Court rulings in order to bring the bureaucrats and their captive minister to their senses.

Bill C-62 expunges historic common law public right to fish in exchange for a privilege dependent on the discretion of the minister. This is pure and simple fiat perpetuated by this most centralized and arrogant bureaucracy and foisted upon a minister and he upon the public.

If this is not going far enough, Bill C-62 gives the minister absolute discretion to manage the fishery through ministerial decrees or what the bill describes as fisheries management orders. These orders would replace the regulations made by governor in council which are now used to govern the fishery. These fishing agreements and management orders are exempt from Canada Gazette publication and from its more rigorous regulatory requirements. It is sheer arrogance and purely meant to exempt the minister from the scrutiny of those who will most be affected.

Transparency and review are the hallmarks of our parliamentary system. If the Liberal government thinks the Reform Party will roll over and capitulate on this attempt to defraud Canadians of their rights, it is mistaken.

Do the minister and his bureaucrats truly believe that fiat and management through patronage will address the problems in the fishery?

Denial is a wonderful thing and it has become the hallmark of this government. According to it, there is no deficit, unemployment is not a problem, health care is secure and there is no crime. However, the undeniable truth is there are major problems in all these areas. If there is one area of endeavour where public confidence is weakest in terms of the ability of the federal government to properly manage it the fisheries.

On the east coast much of the fishery is closed due to the collapse of groundfish stocks. On the west coast the problems with the Alaskan catch of Canadian bound salmon are unresolved. Again on the west coast the salmon fishery, the key stock, is in disarray. There has been almost no non-native commercial fishery on the Fraser River for the past two years and now, should that ever change, Bill C-62 will ensure that good Liberals can be awarded with the catch.

Furthermore, the undeniable truth is that the government's native only commercial fishery is a mess. Our brilliant bureaucrats and the minister introduced a native only commercial fishery based on the expectation that the Supreme Court would hold that natives did have such a right. I guess that is why the Supreme Court judges and others working at fisheries and oceans regional headquarters in Vancouver do not yet work for the justice department.

As I mentioned earlier, the Van der Peet, NTC Smokehouse and Gladstone decisions highlight DFO's lack of authority to enter into exclusive fishing agreements with aboriginals. Now these same minds want to carry it a step further and enter into exclusive commercial fishing agreements with Liberal friends. Once again the legislation before us is an attempt to extinguish the public right to fish.

Bill C-62 may run nearly 100 pages. It need not have. There is a lot of verbiage intended to obfuscate the central element of the legislation. Specific to the management of fisheries, there is nothing the government can do under the new fisheries act that it cannot already do under the existing act, except extinguish the public right to fish.

With respect to partnership agreements, the minister has absolute discretion to enter into agreements which include provisions on allocation.

The response to Bill C-62 has been universal in condemnation. Fisheries unions fear that this power will be used to allocate fish stocks to large corporations. Recreational fishermen fear allocations to commercial interests. Commercial troll fishermen fear allocations to sports fishing lodges. Corporations fear allocations to inshore fishermen. Commercial fishermen fear allocations to native interests. It is an all around alienation of everyone in one fell swoop. What a statement of mismanagement and an undermining of a resource struggling to survive. The death knell may have finally rung.

Does the minister understand completely what the bill does? I doubt it. Does the senior bureaucracy understand completely? Undoubtedly.

Virtually all commercial and recreational fishing organizations in B.C. oppose the new act and wish to preserve the public right to fish. While commercial fishermen desire increased security of tenure, they feel that the loss of the public's right to fish in exchange for a privilege granted by the minister reduces their security and transfers too much power to the minister.

In the Atlantic provinces opposition appears to be growing for the same reasons.

Bill C-62 does not address the real problems in the fishery, for example, declining stocks, problems with Alaskan interception and the need for strict enforcement of conservation measures.

Bill C-62 is a desperate attempt to deal with the government's political problems, that is, what to do with the native only commercial fishery and the growing awareness that the present Fisheries Act does not give the minister the authority to enter into exclusive fishing agreements. There are some simple solutions to the problem. Clear criteria ought to be established for the transfer of fisheries management to the provinces. Fish tend not to notice political boundaries.

On the east coast chaos could result if one or all of the coastal provinces were to take over management of the coastal fishery. There is a need for comprehensive consultation, not abrogation, by granting the minister such discretion.

As well, clear criteria ought to be established for any transfer to the provinces of responsibilities for the protection of fish habitat. Provinces now regulate forestry, agricultural practices, urban development and waste. Why not fish habitat?

As usual the minister has chosen the easy route on this, but as usual it is ultimately the most divisive and destructive route. Bill C-62 expunges equal access to fishing and replaces it with granting fishing licences by political party membership. Bill C-62 replaces ownership of fish stocks by all Canadians to ownership by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The unilateral actions displayed in this bill and the lack of protection of the public interest coming from DFO are no surprise to people involved in coastal marine activities. I will quote myself on some recent coast guard initiatives that were promoted by the newly merged DFO bureaucracy.

On October 24 I said: "The hole's been patched but the ship's still sinking about the coast guard's reprieve for boats in Powell River, Campbell River and Ganges.

"While the coast guard is leaving the Mallard , Point Race and Skua where they are for the time being, nothing has changed because we have still not heard a clear vision from the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about long term objectives. We still have a top-heavy bureaucracy in DFO in Ottawa and in the regions that does not appear responsive to maintaining a safe waterway on the west coast. Nor do they appear to be forthcoming in providing accurate and timely information about their intentions.

"The coast guard, in August, announced that bases in Powell River and Ganges would close, the vessels would be reassigned and the 70-foot Point Race , stationed in Campbell River, would be moved to Port Hardy. On Tuesday the coast guard announced that temporarily Powell River's Mallard , the Point Race and French Creek's Kestrel would remain at their current stations, along with the Skua in Ganges.

"What we want is a world class marine service that enables safe and efficient marine operations on Canada's coasts. This latest announcement by the coast guard does not deliver this assurance. The announced changes are a case of the bureaucracy trying to wait out and defuse the most vocal opposition.

"The fact that the coast guard did not even mention the issue of lightstations in its latest announcement shows that its plans to press ahead with its agenda using the `damn the torpedoes' approach. The fleet reduction plan is based on a complete focus on downsizing and does not address the delivery of a first class marine service.

"We have been offered a piecemeal solution that addresses some symptoms but does not get to the heart of the problem which is: Where is this new department headed and what is its vision for west coast marine services?

"It appears that DFO's bureaucrats have won the fight for control of the newly amalgamated department. DFO and the coast guard were asked independently about the time of their merger last year to offer spendings cuts. Both DFO and Canadian coast guard identified the same $30 million in spending cuts. These cuts were double counted and the coast guard component of the newly

merged department has borne this $30 million extra cutback from Treasury Board".

I am still quoting myself, just so the House understands the flow: "The U.S. has a clear coast guard objective which involves using people and technology to ensure their coastline has first class navigation and marine services. The Reform Party has addressed the whole issue of creating such an environment in Canada in its recently announced platform which calls for amalgamating coast guard into the Department of National Defence and providing more resources for fishery surveillance and coast guard activities.

"I urge everyone whose battle for the maintenance of services to keep up the fight. I fully credit the efforts of those who have pursued the issue tirelessly with having won this temporary reprieve which helps us for the time being in the lower coast. However, the immediate future for the north coast already looks dire with an already skimpy presence having been further diluted.

"The coastal communities and advisory groups and stakeholders must continue to press for rationalizing the huge bureaucracy in Ottawa and the regions and to press for world class marine services".

For all of those reasons I oppose Bill C-62.