Debates of June 10th, 1996

Oceans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division shall also apply to Motion No. 27.

The next question is on Motion No. 39. 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 next question is on Motion No. 66. 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)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now move to Group No. 7 which includes Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 41, on page 14, with the following:

"27. A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make pursuant to paragraph 25( b ) or section 26, and any amendments to the proposed regulation, shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least 60 days before the proposed effective date of the regulation or the amendments to the regulation and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested persons to make representations with respect to the proposed regulation or the amendments to the regulation.''

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 41, on page 14.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved:

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended in the French version by replacing line 31, on page 14, with the following:

"d'effet, les intéressés-notamment les provinces-se".

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise once again in support of the Canada Oceans Act.

I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I include here the hon. member for Gaspé, for ensuring that Bill C-026 is an accurate reflection of consultations with Canadians and of the views advanced by witnesses who appeared before the committee.

Motions Nos. 28, 29 and 30 concern clause 27 of the Canada Oceans Act. Clause 27 repeats the prepublication obligation found in the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act which has its interesting mnemonic CLOAA which is an obligation required of the government prior to the proposed effective date of the legislation.

Currently the clause includes special consideration of the provinces with respect to providing feedback on proposed regulations. Federal legislative policy and practice already calls for consultation with stakeholders on proposed modifications to regulations.

In our view, the Bloc's Motion No. 28 would only serve to increase the administrative burden of this act by obligating the government to prepublish all proposed amendments as well as continuing with the public consultation practice.

Administrative burden is something the government is trying to reduce because it costs the taxpayer money. I think I can safely state that there is not one individual or organization that in consultations or when appearing before the standing committee in the autumn of 1995 requested more red tape be introduced into this legislation. Therefore the government is not prepared to support Motion No. 28 or Motion No. 30 which eliminates the clause that recognizes that legislative policy and practice does not call for the prepublication of amendments or regulations.

Additionally, to obligate the government to prepublish each and every single proposed amendment to each and every regulation would not only burden the process unnecessarily but it would serve no purpose. To accept this motion will only serve to increase the administrative burden the government is trying hard to reduce. At the same it would offer no benefits to Canadians.

I am happy to support the regulation making provisions of this legislation and the government's Motion No. 29, a technical amendment to clarify the intent of clause 27 which is to say that interested provinces will be given the opportunity to make representations with respect to proposed regulations published in the Canada Gazette .

This and similar technical amendments are being proposed to show that Canada Oceans Act makes it possible for Canadians to work together to shape the best national answers and the best local answers for the sustainable development of our ocean resources.

I ask all members to reject the Bloc proposed amendments to the regulation provisions of this act, specifically Motions Nos. 28 and 30, as unnecessary and without grounds and to support the government's amendment, Motion No. 29.

I am happy to support the bill and urge all members to join me in allowing the legislation to go forward.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to be reading these documents differently.

[An hon. member]

It is due to jet lag.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

It is perhaps not due to jet lag, but I do not understand. Just to make sure all the hon. members in this House and everyone watching are clear on this, we are currently on Motions Nos. 28 and 30. Here is what they are about. There are two clauses on regulations in the bill, namely clauses 25 and 26. Clause 25 deals with recommendations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Clause 26 also deals with regulations made by the Governor in Council, but on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice this time.

If I am calling your attention to this, it is because the bill before us is trying to establish integrated management, which would effectively force all cabinet members across the way to talk to one another. That is great. Second, channels of communication also need to be provided for. Publication requirements are stated in each clause. But when we get to clause 27, it is not quite clear.

What I find shocking in all this is that, and I am getting to my Motion No. 30, and read the following in clause 27, paragraph 2: "No proposed regulation that has been published pursuant to this section need again be published under this section, whether or not it has been altered". What is the catch here? What it says is that regulations can be made, but that if they are altered, changes will not be published. I do not understand. Not only have we been told over and over all evening that this is not the place to talk about constitutional amendments and the kind of changes we would like

to make, but now we are told that changes will be made but that we will no longer be informed of changes made. What does this mean?

I will give the other motion the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned. It is from the fisheries department, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The proposed change relates to the provinces, and for once there was a clear reference to the provinces in clause 27. It was clearly stated that relations had to be established with the provinces, but they want to take that out offhand and write "notamment les provinces" instead. That was not said openly, but that is my understanding.

Since the beginning of the evening, I have been trying my best to make it clear that the intent of this bill is to establish integrated management, which means teamwork. To work as a team, you need partners. This spirit of partnership has to be honoured. Hence the need to clearly state who the other players will be. I for one believe it should be the provinces who make up Canada. How will all this be put in place?

Earlier, I mentioned that organizations would be established to oversee the implementation of the management plan. But we are denied the right to be consulted on appointments to these organizations. This time, we are told that it will be possible to make regulations without having to publish them again. Can you believe it?

It is becoming a tiring exercise. We spent a long evening discussing the issue. I spent hours and even weeks debating it in committee. This is the end result. It is supposed to be important.

You will notice that we mostly heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. But there are others who worked on that committee. I would like to hear them. This bill on the oceans of Canada is important. How come there are not more people discussing it? Are we to understand that either it is not important or it is controversial and people do not really want to discuss it? I am a little disgusted by all this. I would like the whole issue to be clarified.

After all that was said, what will people at home think of the debates that take place here? This is like a dialogue of the deaf. The hon. member rises and tells me this is not the place to discuss amendments. I rise and ask where I can discuss these amendments. I am trying to make things clear.

I tell government members precisely what I would like to see included; I tell them I would like a clear reference to the provinces; I tell them I would like the government to respect the spirit of partnership that is required. But the time is never right. When and where will it be appropriate? Given the government's attitude, it should come as no surprise that it refuses to do a reform, to modernize things, and to take certain factors into account.

The government should not be surprised to see the population, at least in Quebec, express its discontent. We are used to having a referendum every 15 years. It is little things like this that, over the years, result in accumulated frustration. In a business and a partnership, if you want to be successful in the long term, you must first make sure that the parties involved will not feel they got taken.

How come this is precisely the feeling I have this evening? I am all the more convinced of that when I read that: "No proposed regulation that has been published pursuant to this section need again be published under this section, whether or not is has been altered". Can we believe this to be merely a typo that escaped the lawmakers' attention? I do not think so. But, since the evening began, when I tell you that I think we might really get taken with this bill, that is a striking example, which shows the sort of thing the government will say.

As well, why is there such a rush for Canada to pass this legislation? Earlier, I mentioned the relations between the various departments, and I told you about the committee minutes. The former fisheries minister said himself that his relations with the former environment minister were like the yin and the yang.

If it is not yet clear across the way, how will they manage to agree when it comes to speaking with the other partners described? The point I am making, but I see my time is running out, is that for once the objective seems a laudable one. I am forced to admit that, at a given point in time, a bill that sets out to explain to the left hand what the right hand is doing is very wise, but it would not do for the government to get carried away, with the risk, in wanting to see all its bills pass, of removing what is important in them. I repeat, if we listen to this, these are management tools to ensure that 90 per cent of problems will be resolved before they find themselves in-Pardon me.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement with my colleague from the Bloc.

This series of amendments has the effect of requiring the government to do nothing more than advise Canadians through the gazetting process of changes that it proposes to make. When the parliamentary secretary opposed these motions, he was of the opinion that this would create a lot of bureaucratic red tape and would serve no useful purpose. It would only cost money.

I would suggest to him and to the government it is exactly that kind of attitude of executive federalism which has failed this country miserably, so that we have the problems that we have right now. I do not see what is wrong with the government putting Canadians on notice, through the gazetting process, of changes it intends to make in regulations or in legislation.

Reform believes that any amendments to regulations should be done in an open manner and, as such, should be published in the Canada Gazette as would the implementation of any other regulation. Forcing the governor in council to print all amendments to regulations as well as the original regulations will serve to ensure all regulations are made in an open manner. It would also allow the public 60 days to make a representation to the minister on a particular regulation or amended regulation that may affect them. Consultations are imperative and not to be viewed as negative but must instead help to ensure that regulations are fair and take into account the interests of the affected stakeholders.

Reform has a saying and we are learning how to say it in French: the problem with Canada is Ottawa; le problème du Canada, c'est Ottawa.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, a great deal of work has been done tonight on Bill C-26. There is a large number of motions. The official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, has indicated it would have one more speaker for a maximum of five minutes, the member for Chambly would speak for no more than five minutes, and that would conclude the debate on Group No. 7. Would that be agreeable to the House?