Debates of June 10th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform Party member for his support. Obviously, if he moves this type of amendment to Bill C-27, the Bloc Quebecois will support it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Oceans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are 92 motions in amendments standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

Motions Nos. 6 and 10 are the same as amendments presented and negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(5), they have not been selected.

The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 1 to 4.

Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90, 91.

Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31.

Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17 to 21, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35.

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

Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30.

Group No. 8, Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56, 73.

Group No. 9, Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.

Group No. 10, Motion No. 65.

Group No. 11, Motions Nos. 67, 68, 70.

Group No. 12, Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80, 82 and 88.

Group No. 13, Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83 to 87.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent that all motions at report stage of Bill C-26 be deemed to have been moved, seconded and read to the House by the Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We will go now to debate on Group No. 2.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 31, on page 1, with the following:

"WHEREAS Canada recognizes that the three oceans, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic, are the common heritage of all Canadians;

WHEREAS Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in oceans and marine resource management;

WHEREAS Parliament wishes to affirm in Canadian domestic law Canada's sovereign rights, jurisdiction and responsibilities in the exclusive economic zone of Canada;

WHEREAS Canada promotes the understanding of oceans, ocean processes, marine resources and marine ecosystems to foster the sustainable development of the oceans and their resources;

WHEREAS Canada holds that conservation, based on an ecosystem approach, is of fundamental importance to maintaining biological diversity and productivity in the marine environment;

WHEREAS Canada promotes the wide application of the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment;

WHEREAS Canada recognizes that the oceans and their resources offer significant opportunities for economic diversification and the generation of wealth for the benefit of all Canadians, and in particular for coastal communities;

WHEREAS Canada promotes the integrated management of oceans and marine resources;

AND WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, is encouraging the development and".

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 1, the following:

"WHEREAS the provinces of Canada also exercise legislative jurisdiction with respect to oceans and their resources;".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 1, with the following:

"sources in concert with the provinces, taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government;".

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 1, with the following:

"and Oceans, in collaboration with provincial governments, with interested".

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today in support of the changes the government wishes to make to the preamble of the Oceans Act. It is no coincidence if Canada's motto is "a mari usque ad mare", from sea to sea. There is no country in this world more influenced by the sea than Canada.

Canada is, by definition, a maritime country. We are surrounded by three oceans, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. Most of our southern boundary is made up of a true inland sea, the Great Lakes. Throughout the years, the exuberance of seafaring life along the coasts has helped to define Canadian culture and identity, due in part to the coastal communities of the First Nations, the European whalers and fishermen unafraid to sail the high seas to come and harvest our marine resources, and the first settlers who came from the old world to start a new life along the coast of this new found world that came to be known as Newfoundland.

The large marine ecosystems along our coasts are varied, productive and precious. We have the responsibility at the national as well as the international levels to protect our marine heritage both for ourselves and for the future generations.

In its motion to amend Bill C-26, the Oceans Act, the government proposes to add four new statements in the preamble, which have been discussed and approved by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In trying to amend the preamble, the government wants to ensure that the wishes of the many witnesses the standing committee heard are taken into consideration in this legislation. The government is going about this in several ways.

The first statement is a recognition of the distinct qualities of the three oceans of Canada and a recognition that these oceans are the common heritage of all Canadians. This sentiment was expressed eloquently by a number of witnesses representing fishing organizations as well as by the aboriginal authorities who were also witnesses at the standing committee.

The second statement the government proposes to add as statement No. 5 to the preamble holds that conservation based on an ecosystem is of fundamental importance to maintaining biological diversity and productivity in the marine environment. This principle is the basis of a new oceans management strategy to be developed following enactment of the legislation. Amending the preamble in this manner responds to the many representations of witnesses before the standing committee and is consistent with the government's approach to conservation.

The third statement the government proposed to add would fall as the sixth statement of the current preamble. This amendment would emphasize that Canada promotes the application of the proportionary approach to conservation management and exploitation of marine resources to protect those marine resources and to preserve the marine environment. That is to say, as a nation we would rather err on the side of caution than wait until harsh consequences of dithering idly confront us before taking action to preserve our cherished and fragile marine resources.

Canada strongly advocated the inclusion of the proportionary approach in the convention on straddling stocks and highly migratory species. It is only natural to include this principle in our domestic legislation.

The final amendment to the preamble proposed by the government addresses comments made by ocean industries and regards the opportunities offered by our oceans. It would be the seventh statement of the preamble. It reflects that Canada recognizes the oceans and their resources offer significant opportunities for economic diversification and the generation of wealth to the benefit of all Canadians, in particular coastal communities.

All these amendments draw into the body of the preamble concepts that Canadians expressed from the legislation. It is co-operative legislation that will make it possible for Canadians to work together to preserve our ocean resources.

The motions brought forward by the opposition suggest further amendments, specifically to provide provincial jurisdiction over the management of oceans and marine resources. With respect, this

is an attempt to alter the authority granted the provinces under the Constitution. There is no need constitutionally to reiterate the federal government's commitment to a collaborative approach to oceans management. This is already contained in the preamble which highlights the role of the provinces and other stakeholders.

The particular statement of the preamble to which I am referring states that in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the minister by the act, the minister shall co-operate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations. The provinces are specifically mentioned again in clause 33(2), a clause dealing with consultation.

Does this sound like an exclusionary act? Does this sound like an act that wants to take away the rights and privileges of provinces? Of course it does not. It is not an act that attempts to do this. The government would not be here promoting Bill C-26 if it were such an act.

The act does not attempt to make any changes to the present constitutional framework or to the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces. How could it by way of ordinary legislation? It does not encroach in any way on provincial rights. Nor does it add to them.

The bill before the House today calls on all Canadians, including the provinces, to come together to develop a strategy that combines a harnessing of the oceans' economic potential with respect for the oceans' environmental needs. The national environmental agenda can no longer be separated from the national economic agenda or the social foreign policy agendas.

The preamble to Bill C-26 is visionary, thorough and inclusive. It is the convergence of visions of all Canadians from all across the nation for responsible ocean management. Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have worked hard to make those visions a reality in the legislation. They worked hard to ensure that Bill C-26 is inclusionary and that it fosters co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.

Provincial involvement in the management of our oceans is a given with the collaborative approach espoused by the bill. For that reason I hope all members will support the Canada Oceans Act and all it represents for ocean management, and Motion No. 1 proposed by the government to amend the preamble. At the same time I recommend members vote down the official opposition's proposed amendments, Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as unnecessary, given the

statements already contained within the preamble and those proposed by the government.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke in this House tried to minimize the importance of our amendments and, before reacting to his remarks, I would like to react to the amendment brought forward by the government. I will remind the House that it is a motion to amend an act intituled An Act respecting the oceans of Canada.

There are, of course, three oceans. Quebec is particularly concerned with the Atlantic and its gulf. We can see that the bill is a new way for the federal government to try to and go even further in its attack on resources at all levels.

As a former member of the human resources development committee, I was surprised when I saw this legislation, when I saw that, even in the area of natural resources, the federal government had the same thing in mind, that is to ignore the provinces, particularly Quebec. Obviously Quebec's interests are our first priority, and we can see in this bill that the provinces are treated like municipalities or any community.

For the federal government, the national strategy is inspired by Captain Canada, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the one who admonished Spain and all that. It looks like the federal government has all the responsibilities. The government develops this plan and thinks that the opposition will sit idly and watch as this attack is going on on all fronts.

So, what does the Liberal Party's Motion No. 1 contain? Wishful thinking. A lot of it. This is what I would call a hypocritical move to make them look good. It is true that the notion of provincial governments has been included, but it is buried in amongst aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies.

If the federal government truly wishes to respect provincial governments, let it show it by passing the motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, which really involve the provinces. Without some concrete action by the federal government, this motion remains a smoke screen.

What do we hope to accomplish with Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4? We want it clearly included in the bill that the provinces of Canada must be able to exercise their jurisdiction with respect to oceans and their resources. Limiting the federal government's power by including and respecting the power of the provinces is the whole focus of the official opposition's efforts concerning the amendments to this bill.

Even if the motions are short, I think they should be read. They are being skimmed over as if it made no difference. Motion No. 2 proposes the following:

"WHEREAS the provinces of Canada also exercise legislative jurisdiction with respect to oceans and their resources,".

Motion No. 3 proposes:

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 1, with the following:

"sources in concert with the provinces, taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government;".

Motion No. 4 proposes that Bill C-26, in the Preamble-we know how important the preamble is in the Constitution, and it is the same in acts-be amended as follows:

"and Oceans, in collaboration with provincial governments, with interested".

bodies.

We are presenting these motions because we know history often repeats itself. Quebecers feel that they have often been tricked by the federal government in the past. I am trying to think of an equivalent ocean image. I have one. Coming from the riding of Lévis, where MIL Davie is located, I would say that we have often watched others sail on by.

This time we will be vigilant, and we are saying that, through its amendments, the federal government is still trying to reinforce its role and steamroller ahead with centralization. All the people from the Gaspé, from the Baie des Chaleurs, from the Gulf and from the North Shore are asking the official opposition to defend them. That is what we intend to do in this House and in committee.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motions before the House the Reform Party would like to be on record as saying that we agree with the parliamentary secretary on Motion No. 1. We will be supporting it because it fits with what we believe Canadians want. It certainly fits with what the Reform Party has been talking about, which is an ecosystem conservation based approach to our oceans, coastal waters and estuaries.

In speaking to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the Bloc amendments, we offer the following. It is very clear a great deal of hostility is generated in the regions of Canada toward Ottawa over either the real or perceived overlap of jurisdiction or imposing of jurisdiction where Ottawa is interjecting itself in areas where it ought not to be.

I certainly understand the feelings of the members in the Bloc and other members in the House, along with people right across the country, when it comes to the question of jurisdiction.

Upon examining the oceans act and upon contemplating what is attempted to be achieved in the act, it is clear many of the concerns members of the Bloc or members in other regions of Canada might have with respect to Ottawa's jurisdiction cannot be overcome by transferring that jurisdiction to provinces.

For example, many marine resources are transitory: fish, wildlife, seals, birds and so on. They do not respect international boundaries as they do not respect provincial boundaries. They continue in their life cycles without regard to human action or human activity.

It is therefore very important that we have a national approach to husbanding and looking out for Canada's marine resources. Not only that, there are many international aspects and implications for Canada's marine resources and the oceans act does address them in a responsible manner for the most part. However, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to engage in a much broader consultation with the provinces in many areas. That is why on Motion No. 3 we will be moving a subamendment. We have given notice to both the Liberal Party and the Bloc that we will be moving a subamendment. I move:

That Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following: "taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will take the subamendment under advisement and I will return to the House without too much delay.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were speaking to motions in Group No. 2, on which the hon. member has already spoken, whereas there are still some speakers left on this side of the House who would like to discuss Group No. 2. I therefore respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the hon. member for Richelieu, who would like to speak on Group No. 2.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I remember full well that the parliamentary secretary started off the debate on the first group of motions, Group No. 2. I have just given the floor to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade; it is not the same one. It is now Mr. Macdonald, the member for Dartmouth.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see this bill return to the House at report stage.

In a previous life in a past Parliament I had the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank all members of that committee, including the current chair, the hon. member for Egmont, for the diligent work which was done by them in looking at this bill.

I also commend the hon. member for Skeena who was on the committee. He showed that he has a deep interest and a very deep understanding of the requirement of governments to look periodically at the way they do things with a measure toward doing them a little better, with a little more consistency and a little more efficiency.

With respect to the comments which were made a moment ago by our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would have to say unfortunately that I cannot be as magnanimous. Some of the amendments which I see in this first batch are not reflective of the support the bill received from a wide variety of sources as we deliberated it in committee. The Bloc Quebecois seemed more interested not in improving the bill but in making statements about Quebec sovereignty and jurisdiction. That is unfortunate but as every committee member has the right to do, their time is their own. It is their own nickel and they can do with it as they see fit.

I cannot help but note that the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois in no way reflected the testimony we heard. Some of the amendments that were put forward by the Reform Party, some of which I did not agree with, had some basis in fact. Individuals we heard had different points of view on various aspects of the bill and the member from the Reform Party would find some support there.

This bill is very long overdue. The individuals we heard from in the environmental sector, the individuals who are most impacted by this bill said that this bill was too long in coming. They applauded that the bill had been put forward. Many had different points of view about various aspects of the bill and suggestions as to how those various aspects could be improved upon. However, they all agreed that an oceans act was long overdue.

With a country like Canada and its maritime coastal zones from sea to sea to sea which is one of the longest continuous coastlines in the entire world, most said it was high time there was some order put into the very statutes and programs the federal government administers which have an impact on the marine resource. This bill seeks to consolidate under one minister, one department and one act much of that activity and much has been done. Over 14 different programs or departmental areas are under one jurisdiction now, that is, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing from various bureaucrats and various ministries as to why some of the jurisdictional issues should best be left with environment or with natural resources. I argued then as I will today that the oceans act is a good first step but that we must continue to look at some of the areas that might be

better placed directly under the jurisdiction of the minister of fisheries.

I think of some pieces of legislation that are currently with the Minister of the Environment dealing with deep ocean dumping and also with the Arctic Ocean that should be further studied by a committee of this place, perhaps a subcommittee or a joint committee of the fisheries and oceans committee and the environment and sustainable development committee. There has been some discussion and I hope this is not seen as the end of this work but is seen to be the very important beginning of a longer examination.

There were some great witnesses. We heard from many witnesses. We heard from Canadian Arctic Resource Council which was instrumental in guiding us through this bill. When people asked what kind of consultation had been done before the bill came before the Parliament of Canada, all one had to do was look at the CARC brief. CARC had worked for quite a long time and had become the spokesperson for dozens and dozens of interested organizations and groups. When it came down to the short strokes, CARC was instrumental in assisting me as chairman and assisting the committee in coming up with some of the words and some of the amendments that further clarified this bill and made it a better piece of legislation.

I want to thank the people at the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the many fishermen we heard from, and many others who had an interest and came forward. In every case they came forward with the express interest not of scuttling the bill, not of putting it off, but of genuinely trying to improve it.

This bill works on a precautionary principle. It works on the principle of sustainable development. It clearly indicates that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the primary responsibility in various areas dealing with sustainable development, the marine resource.

It instils in the minister the responsibility to take a co-ordinated approach with his cabinet colleagues and departments to ensure that those principles are the primary principles under which all government programs and legislation is reviewed with respect to Canada's oceans. That is very important.

One of the most important things that has happened and which the bill speaks to is it also ensures there is a new terminology on the Canadian political landscape, which is marine protected areas. For many years environmentalists such as those in CARC and the World Wildlife Fund, fishermen and the Nunavut have indicated very clearly that there is a need for the establishment of marine protected areas in Canadian legislation. These are areas with such unique ecosystems that they must be protected under Canadian law. Someone has to take charge and make sure there is a single individual with the responsibility to protect those areas of our oceans with unique ecosystems. That has been established in this bill. It is probably one reason this bill has received so much public attention and support.

I want to close by indicating how pleased I am that the government with the support of the main parties in the House have agreed to bring this bill back. One concern I had when we ended the last session was that the very good work done by committees would have been for naught.

In this case the committee can stand proud and show that all members, no matter what their political stripe, can have a very positive impact on legislation that goes through this place. There is no question there were some problems. I mentioned that the Bloc Quebecois continued to put amendments forward and they will defend those amendments in the House.

Those amendments were not supported by any testimony we heard. Rather they were a part of their political ideology and philosophy that at every turn in the road they will try to attack anything that even looks like a humiliation of the province of Quebec or that somehow every piece of federal legislation is trying to take something away from provincial jurisdiction. I can say with a clear mind and a clear conscience there is nothing in the bill which takes away from any provincial jurisdiction, including Quebec.

It is unfortunate that the only real problem we had when examining this bill was when we heard from the fishermen and plant workers from Nova Scotia. The problem we had was that an irresponsible member of the provincial legislature, a New Democrat, Mr. Chisolm, who has since gone on to be the leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia, almost incited the fishermen and the fish plant workers into a riot by saying that the bill was going to impose fees, privatize the fishery, and all of these ugly things that people on this side of the House do not support.

What he did was very reckless. My understanding is that Mr. Chisolm, who I guess aspires to be the premier of the province of Nova Scotia some day, did not even bother to read the bill before he set out on his task of going around the province delivering misinformation at every turn of the road. I am sure that Mr. Chisolm has lost some of his personal charisma because the men and women from the fishery who chose to appear before the committee did have a concern and listened to what we had to say. I hope today they are supporting the report of the committee that the bill goes forward expeditiously and finally we will have the Canada Oceans Act proclaimed as law.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished to hear the former chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans exhibit such ignorance on this matter. He

speaks of the unanimity of the witnesses heard, supposedly in favour of this bill, whereas a number of them, the majority, I would even say, saw a need for change, for very concrete amendments. According to the correspondence and the many phone calls received by the Bloc Quebecois, they would like to see the official opposition reel in this bill to make amendments to it, particularly along the lines of Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the group of motions we are discussing today.

If this hon. member is serious, if this government is serious, let them stop talking about respecting jurisdictions, let them adopt the motions we have presented, which address exactly that. Our hon. colleague from the Reform Party was saying more or less the same thing just now. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the amendment you are having your officers look at right now is along the lines of what I have referred to. I know they are being guided by your wisdom, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that, despite arguments by the Government of Quebec, reasonable claims and not matters of privilege, the province's fair share has always been manipulated if not engineered by the government, and worse in the case of a Liberal federal government, because that says it all.

It means engineering and on a grand scale. It means prolific, but unkept, federal election promises-the GST, Canadian heritage, for example, the fact that copyright would be a matter for the Department of Canadian Heritage rather than the Department of Industry-all this appears in the election promises in the red book but it is all swept aside.

After the election, they return to the good old days of Liberal engineering, trickery, the old boys network-as protected by the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, who hosted 20 people at a $2,000 a person cocktail party, thus raising $40,000 for the party. Seven of these people had been given government discretionary contracts directly by his department.

This is the government, with its good old Liberal habits. They look after their friends; they appoint lawyers to head commissions. Out comes the money, and friends are well cared for. When it comes to revealing names in committee on financial protection or transfers of $2 billion, that sort of thing must remain secret, in order to protect party coffers. This is, in essence, the Liberal government. And they ask us to trust them, to believe in them, to trust that things are being done right, that jurisdictions will be respected. When did the federal government ever respect provincial jurisdictions?

Mines are not under its jurisdiction, but it has its nose stuck in them. Same thing for tourism. How many departments has the government stuck its big foot in that, constitutionally, should be run by the provinces? In sticking its big foot in, the government has simply aggravated problems and created division. Is this a government we want to trust?

As the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, has just said, we want what is expressed very clearly in amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. And yet here again we are dreaming. I remind the parliamentary secretary, who spoke to us earlier, that such dreams are often decisions that were not made at the right time.

We have long wanted to put everything together under a single department and to improve all aspects of management from coast to coast, as the first speaker was saying. We do not, however, want this to be done at our expense, and this division into three parts is exactly what outraged all the opponents who appeared before the committee, as Quebec once again will end up paying the highest price. Once again, this reform will be carried out at our expense.

Even though it is nothing new, even though we are used to being had, in this case, you will hear us on every motion, you will hear us in committee; we will win this fight because the whole population will be strongly opposed. You will have to answer for your actions in the next election campaign, which may come earlier than you think. I do not advise them to go ahead and try.

It would be really bad timing with the kind of bills we have been dealing with lately, especially this one, which will have a very significant economic impact on Quebec. It will turn the situation completely around and may push maritime transport toward the United States, especially Philadelphia, which developed a very aggressive policy to attract clients, or move more deeply into the east as far as Quebec's major ports are concerned.

We would like to improve this bill. We do not want to vote against it, but we would like the government to pay close attention to our suggestions and to take concrete action, that is to say, we would like the Liberals to sign some papers because they never keep their word.

The worst thing that could happen is to give responsibility for such a vague bill to this Prime Minister, who personifies all the Liberal shenanigans since he has been in that party for more than 25 years, as well as their many broken promises and their characteristic administrative mediocrity when in power, and who would reject the logical and proper amendments we are proposing. It would be a little like putting Dracula in charge of the Red Cross blood bank. That is about what would happen if we trusted the government with this. I can hear people in the audience laughing, but the example I just gave you is much more serious than you think.

Like all its predecessors, the Liberal government embodies the failure to honour not only its own commitments but also, when given the opportunity in a bill, the intentions of those who voted in favour, of the committees who heard witnesses, and of the witnesses who came to demand changes or to propose amendments

that would help all the people directly affected by the proposed restructuring.

In closing, I say to the Liberals that, if they are really acting in good faith, if they really want this bill to be passed quickly and properly, as my colleague was saying earlier, they should look at these issues in a more comprehensive and respectful way and find other arguments than those used by the previous speaker to reject the changes wanted by the people, the users and the Bloc Quebecois as well as by several members of the Reform Party who spoke to this bill. The government has an opportunity to show how open it is to valuable suggestions, and I hope that amendments 2, 3 and 4 will be supported by most of the members in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am ready to give a ruling on the amendment moved by the member for Skeena that Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following: "taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government". That amendment is in order.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House this evening to speak on this bill. I must confess that I am fresh off the plane. Modern transportation enables us to travel rather quickly from one end of the country to the other.

The important thing to remember about this bill is that 13 groups of motions relate to it. The bill has three parts. The first group of motions deal with the first part of the bill, whose main intent is to incorporate the new law of the sea vocabulary, under the new United Nations convention Canada has not yet signed.

There may be worthwhile elements in there. I caught bits and pieces of the remarks made by the committee's former chairman, and I should perhaps put a couple of things right. We may agree on the need to upgrade certain aspects, but when we have to ask that the provinces' jurisdiction be respected, why is it that it takes them so long to understand?

My reading of the situation is that what is proposed to us in this bill and in the amendments put forward by the Liberals is just diluting the amendments we had discussed at committee, drowning the fish so to speak.

I have nothing against coastal or aboriginal communities or any other persons and bodies concerned with ocean management. Not at all. My point is that this umbrella legislation will have tentacular ramifications. We will see later that the purpose of Part II is to develop a management strategy involving all the various departments.

I would like to have the assurance that the provinces and territories that make up Canada will be heard at the first level of consultation. Why try to dilute this principle?

At this point, I would like to make a short digression. I was not going to raise the issue today, but I was led to do so. We are not trying to talk only about sovereignty and to play politics but, last December, in this House, the other side passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. That day, the government wanted to tell us we were different, but when it comes to legislation, it refuses to state clearly that Quebec is a player in the process.

The other provinces may not be interested, or they may not see things the way we do regarding this legislation and how to manage fisheries and waters adjacent to their coasts. This is fine, but why try to take away from us the right to manage these waters and fisheries, the right to take part in this process? I have been wondering about this for two and a half years.

I will always protect and actively promote the interests of Quebecers. I tried to do so through my work on the committee on Bill C-26, but in vain. I do not have it with me, but I even received a letter from our former colleague from the other side, Brian Tobin, concerning this bill, in which he said: "Mr. Bernier, your suggestion regarding a real partnership will be implemented". This was not done.

If Mr. Tobin was sincere-and I believe he was when he made these comments-, and assuming he were still a member of this government, I think he would take into account our proposed amendments. He would be true to his word and he would support these amendments, which only seek to ensure relations between the federal and provincial governments are clearly defined, because this is not currently the case. The provinces are included, but so are other interest groups and it should not be the case. It should not be the case.

Let me give you one last example. About two weeks ago, two or three provinces were involved in the crab fishery dispute. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is here right now, did nothing. He did not meet with the workers concerned.

Who made an effort to settle the issue? It is the provinces. Quebec met with its workers, and so did New Brunswick. Given such facts, why is it that the federal government does not want to give priority, in an act, to relations with the provinces?

New Brunswick was reluctantly dragged into the crab fishery conflict. From the outset, its fisheries minister said the issue came under federal jurisdiction. It turned out to be a mistake, since people in his riding threw stones at his house when he told them to go back fishing because the minister did not want to budge. The

main thing is that the province was forced to get involved in the conflict, even though the issue came under federal jurisdiction.

New Brunswick had to come up with solutions for its own residents. That is the conclusion drawn by the New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries, who does not agree at all with the sovereignty option I support. According to this minister, the members of the provincial legislative assemblies are closer to the people, they are more aware of the problems; they are also the ones who took the beating this time.

I do not think it will be the last time. More and more often, the people are going to appeal to their MLAs. True, here, in Ottawa, we are a bit out of touch with reality. We are blinded, not sufficiently aware of what is going on in the ridings.

I have always thought that for every local problem there was a local solution. People came up with solutions. There are negotiations under way, but I will not elaborate on this issue for now. All this to show that, in spite of themselves, the provinces must take an active part in management, along with the government which drafted this piece of legislation.

Since we are still part of the federal system, something I have to acknowledge, can we get some recognition? Anyway, we-that is to say the provinces-will have a key role to play. They must report to Ottawa the whys and wherefores of the wishes of their residents. They have to negotiate with Ottawa. They have to ensure that Ottawa has understood. They sometimes have to put their vision against the vision of the other provinces, to ensure that the great legislator in Ottawa will be enlightened when the time comes.

This bill hints at the development of a management strategy. They talk about an integrated oceans management system, with all that it implies, but what we need to do at the outset is to define our position with the provinces, and that is not being done. This is more than just rhetoric, more than a war of words, it is a true statement of the real need to operate this way.

Those who claim to be uninterested in this type of partnership will see their relationship with the federal government unchanged. The first thing we have to realize is that some of the players are different, they have different problems and different needs. I will limit my comments to this group of motions.

I will listen to the debate tonight. I will be here tomorrow if it is still under consideration. As long as the government does not get the message, we will repeat it over and over again.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take a few minutes to speak to this bill, which in my view reveals the federal government's true intentions with regard to the evolution of Canadian federalism.

It seems an obvious response to all those who dream of a decentralized Canada that could, for some federalists, be a response to the legitimate aspirations toward sovereignty of the people of Quebec.

According to one school of thought, Canada could be more decentralized. Since the provincial governments are closer to their constituents, they should have more powers to provide for the welfare of the people.

Here is a bill where the federal government barely recognizes the existence of the provincial governments, putting them on an equal footing with aboriginal communities, coastal communities and other stakeholders, even though this legislation affects directly Canadians from each of the 10 provinces. When one adds that to what it wants to do with the securities commission, the coast guard, etc., one gets a pretty good idea of the government's intentions.

This can also be seen in another aspect of the activity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where the government wants to impose a tax on all water equipment. If you have a cottage and if you have the misfortune of owning a pedalboat, a canoe, a rowboat or a sailboard, your pleasure will be diminished from now on because you will have to pay a $5 to $35 tax to the federal government for this equipment. And all that without any direct involvement of or consultation with the provincial governments. The federal government intends to establish partnerships with all kinds of regional organizations so it can collect these new revenues. And the excuse-the minister has mentioned it several times already-is public safety, because there have been some drownings. Well, of course, when you are around water, there may be drownings every year.

It is hard to disagree, all the more so because public safety is the only argument the government has really used to justify slapping another tax on the humble citizen in his pursuit of recreation, not being sure it could count on those whose boats truly qualify as pleasure craft, with all the costs that these entail, when you are talking about boats 20, 30, 40 or 50 feet long that must have a captain on board, and knowing that this falls in the private domain. Personally, I would be curious to know how these people actually are taxed, how they do their bit for the national treasury, when we know that the reason the operation concerning pleasure boats is so extensive is to ensure that the tax man gets his bite.

To get back to my premise, I would just like to say that the very fact that the federal government is going ahead in this way is a complete contradiction, and should sound a warning among English Canadians, who are wondering what to do about the rising tide of sovereignists. Despite what some people might think, I do not

think that right now in Ottawa, in the Langevin Block, there is the will to decentralize the Canadian federation. There is an increasingly obvious desire to see that the real decisions are taken here in Ottawa.

That may be fine for Canadians, because it seems that English Canadians' primary sense of loyalty is to the federal government, in a proportion, compared to Quebec, of 20-80 according to our information. Twenty per cent of English Canadians say that their first loyalty is to their provincial government, and 80 per cent say that it is to the federal government. In Quebec, the percentages are reversed: 20 per cent to the federal government, and 80 per cent to the Government of Quebec.

So, that is all very fine and well, a form of decentralization which is only a dream at the moment, because there is no actual sign of it. But in the case of Quebec, if they ever manage to decentralize the Canadian federation, it will be contrary to the profound aspirations of the people of Quebec, who are turning, and this is becoming increasingly clear, unanimously, legitimately and ever more decisively, in the direction of sovereignty, that is to say partnership, the fairest, the most legitimate, the most harmonious and undoubtedly the most cost effective direction for Canada and Quebec in an economic partnership that respects both political entities.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?