Debates of June 10th, 1996

Oceans Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 35 stands deferred.

Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 24 to 27, 39 and 66.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-26, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 12, with the following:

"25. The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments, on the".

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-26, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 12, with the following:

"Affairs, after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations".

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-26, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 13, with the following:

"26. (1) The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments, on the".

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-26, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 13, with the following:

"after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations".

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 16, with the following:

"appropriate, members of those bodies, in consultation with the provinces and with the approval of the standing committee,".

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-26, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 26, the following:

"(2) In exercising the powers and in performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister under this Act, the Minister shall, as far as possible, see to it that the provinces affected by the application of this Act are consulted."

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

Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate may I make the preparatory comment that one has been fascinated by the debate tonight. I point out to those trained in the great Cartesian tradition that balance and form are an integral part of its mode of reasoning. Therefore what we are suggesting here was in that full spirit.

This is an oceans act and it is not the proper forum to tack on American congressional style, other matters that are better dealt with elsewhere.

There is nothing in this debate that indicates the government regards the comments made opposite as irrelevant or not of importance and worth consideration. Surely they belong in another forum and we would welcome the members of the official opposition to co-operative federalism through federal-provincial discussions of the sort referred to by the hon. member for Chambly and bring these matters there.

In terms of the oceans act, it has its own integrity and it should be left with that. The references to clause 9(5) of the oceans act are misplaced. That is a simple interpretive provision. As a matter of law in the Latin sense it is inserted ex abundante cautela. It takes away no rights, it creates no rights. It is a simple provision of interpretation. It leaves the situation as it was before.

Getting back to the specific amendments now proposed by the Bloc, we would have to recognize that the government has applied multi-disciplinary approaches here. It looks to an integration of economic, environmental and social considerations and it seeks to involve all affected stakeholders.

Stewardship of the ocean and coastal resources is responsibilities we must all share, federal, territorial, provincial, municipal and aboriginal governments, in partnership with the larger community, the extended family, business, unions, non-government organizations and academics.

The government is prepared for the leadership role in oceans management and embraces the reality of co-operative stewardship and partnership.

Although the government is committed to collaboration with the provinces, as evidenced by its preambular statements in the Canada oceans act, the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments such as Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 which would require further consultation with the provinces and would obligate the review of decisions made by the governor in council by the standing committee.

This is a fundamental change in the structure of government that may well be worth considering in another forum. Everything is open to discussion in those terms, but it is the wrong approach to try and tack it on to the oceans act, which has its own integrity and its own purposes.

The Bloc amendments apply to other ministers and to the governor in council. To require the governor in council to consult with the provinces and with the standing committee before issuing a regulation recommended by another minister is in legal terms a preposterous proposal.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be making recommendations to the governor in council on the delineation of maritime zones. It is a question of international relations, not one of federal-provincial relations, as suggested by Bloc Motion No. 24.

The Minister of Justice will be making recommendations respecting the application of federal and provincial laws to the maritime zones of Canada.

Regulations respecting the application of federal and provincial laws to the maritime zones under the provisions of part I of the Canada Oceans Act are the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. It is not the role of the provinces or of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to alter the responsibilities of either of these two ministers, or to interfere with the recommendations they make to the governor in council.

Further, Motion No. 39 proposes to require that the minister consult with the provinces and receive approval from the standing committee before establishing advisory or management bodies and appointing members to those bodies. The minister is already required to take the views of the provinces into account, so this motion in legal terms is redundant.

Again the Bloc is proposing that the minister's abilities to exercise his mandate be fettered, this time by proposing that the valuable time of the standing committee be taken away, time that is better spent representing the views and interests of Canadians.

In short, we have found the debate interesting and fruitful in terms of ideas. We do regard the amendments in essence as ones in which the Speaker could have exercised his discretion the other way, but we have made no proposal to that effect. I would suggest the thrust of these matters is not germane to the oceans act under consideration and would be better taken up in another forum at another time. And be assured this government is prepared to consider every proposal in those other fora.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have some difficulty understanding the parliamentary secretary's scheme of thought tonight when he says this is not the right place to discuss the motions I have tabled. It is indeed because we were not able to agree in committee that it is my prerogative as a member of Parliament to submit to the House certain observations that could not be heard during the committee's proceedings.

The implied spirit of all the motions before us tonight did not transcend the committee's work. I get the impression the committee was pressed by time, given Minister Tobin's imminent departure. The machine went somewhat out of control and we were forced to limit our work a little.

As a general rule, I am easy to work with, to communicate with. I must say that things were going well on the other side for a while, up till the moment when pressure from the government machine or the department, perhaps in anticipation of Mr. Tobin's departure, caused them to put aside the spirit underlying my motions. That is why I had to wait for the bill's debate in the House to explain what I mean to all hon. members and those watching us, since in committee we are not always able to speak directly to the people. That is why we are here tonight.

I always come back to the underlying spirit. I will read again the group containing Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27. It is quite simple. Since they are short, I will read them again. Motion No. 24 says "the Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments". Why refuse to mention one of the main partners?

Motion No. 25 says "after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations". Provinces have direct contact with populations. I feel it is normal that they should be consulted before regulations take effect. If we adopt that line, we deprive ourselves of a source of information. Since provinces are closer to them, they are normally able to convey or express their populations' problems.

I quoted a figure in jest a few moments ago in the anteroom for the members who were there. I told them that if we were to take simply this framework, we would not be rebuilding the Constitution and the history of Canada, but just giving ourselves the tools that would allow us to settle in advance 90 per cent of the problems before they appear.

So, we must find information sources.

Motion No. 26 reads:

"26.(1) The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments, on the".

I mention this motion again because we have here four groups of motions which say that consulting the grassroots is a good thing, that having a communication process, a feedback process is a good thing. Without such a process, we will run into problems.

Ottawa, the national capital, is a beautiful place, but it is right in the middle of the country. Of course, departments have regional offices, but that is not good enough when, as in the case of those in our ridings, they are all managed according to the viewpoint of Ottawa. Regional offices are maybe full of goodwill, but they have no contact with the grassroots. Therefore, it is very important to go back to the base.

I will try to go a bit faster. Among the other motions, there is Motion No. 39 which I find interesting. I will read it and explain after. I propose the following amendment:

"appropriate, members of those bodies, in consultation with the provinces and with the approval of the standing committee,".

Clause 32 says: "For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the minister ( a ) shall develop-( b ) shall coordinate-( c ) may-establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate, as appropriate, members of those bodies''.

If an organization responsible for the integrated management of oceans must be created, do you not think it appropriate to establish a good working relationship from the start? I would ask the federal government to discuss it immediately with those who created Canada, namely the provinces. That is the kind of ideas that should be discussed.

If there must be integration and implementation of a management strategy, it would be appropriate to consult provinces, since there will be more than two members on advisory or management bodies and those members will have to come from somewhere. It will not be from Mars. So it would be important to give the provinces a say in who will be appointed to these organizations, giving them a chance to ensure that the appointees will reflect or at least know their basic philosophies. As for the federal government, it will also ensure that this organization includes people who will reflect its basic philosophy.

I think that our actions are dictated by common sense so that, to make progress, we must share our ideas. We must then ensure that we have a say in the appointment of the people who will manage them.

My time is running out, but I also want to read Motion No. 66. If I do not have enough time to complete my comments on this motion, perhaps one of my colleagues could do so.

"(2) In exercising the powers and in performing the duties and functions assigned to the minister under this act, the minister shall, as far as possible, see to it that the provinces affected by the application of this act are consulted".

That is what I am asking. There was no mention of this in clause 40 of the bill. Clause 40 deals with the powers, duties and functions assigned to the minister in part III of the bill. This clause sets out in concrete terms the management powers assigned to the minister. Part II stipulates that he must implement an integrated management strategy, while part III lists the powers he will have.

I think that, whenever the minister takes a measure affecting a province or its people, he should consult this province. That is the least he can do. Why do I have to put this in writing? Because, as we just saw and as I have seen in my two and a half years as a member of Parliament, the federal government does not usually react that way.

Among other things, how come, in the case of the coast guard and the new fee schedule for commercial ships, there was no direct meeting between the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the transport officials from Quebec and Ontario?

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking myself questions and calling on this House to include this kind of provision because the federal government does not react in a normal way. In other words, we should protect ourselves in all our relations. So this, in a way, would be our safeguard.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motions in this grouping speak to the governor in council having an obligation to listen to the concerns of witnesses who appeared before the

standing committee and to take them into consideration when making decisions.

For the most part we can support these motions. They do not speak to the issue of jurisdiction, but they do require the federal government to move with some sensitivity and with some obligation to consult.

There is certainly nothing wrong and as a matter of fact there is a lot right with the federal government having a requirement to consult with the stakeholders, the provinces and others when making changes to legislation and when making changes to the rules and regulations which govern Canada's marine areas. For that reason the Reform Party supports these motions and thanks the hon. member for Gaspé for submitting them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question on Group No. 6?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The recorded division shall also apply to Motion No. 26.

The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen: