Debates of June 10th, 1996

Oceans Act

[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 Motion No. 5 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91.

We will now go on to Group No. 4, which includes Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

proposed:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-26, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 4, with the following:

"limits of any area, whether or not it is part of the territory of a province, other than the territorial sea".

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 7, with the following:

"sources, where they are not contained within the territory of a province, are vested in Her Majesty in right of".

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 7, with the following:

"Canada or, where the seabed and the subsoil are adjacent to the seabed and the subsoil of the territorial sea that is contiguous to the territory of the province, to Her Majesty in right of a province."

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 7, with the following:

"Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province, depending on whether the seabed and subsoil are included in the territory of the province."

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 8, with the following:

"vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province, depending on whether the continental shelf is included in the territory of the province."

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 8, with the following:

"vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada or, where the continental shelf is adjacent to the seabed and the subsoil of the territorial sea that is contiguous to the territory of the province, to Her Majesty in right of a province."

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-26, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 15, with the following:

"apply, either directly or indirectly, in respect of lakes, rivers and their estuaries."

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

Mr. Speaker, I exhort members to reject Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gaspé. The purpose of these motions is to undermine the Oceans Act, which, as written, is in strict accordance with the codes and customs of international law.

Canada is a nation which has a long maritime history, one which has ranged from quiet diplomacy in the development of international agreements focused on the development of a comprehensive framework for the regulation of all ocean spaces to that of proactive action to protect straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

The legislation being discussed constitutes a major element of the overall strategy to intensify the Canadian government's efforts toward the conservation, protection and sustainable development of our oceans and their resources.

The first objective of Bill C-26 is to recognize in domestic law Canada's rights and responsibilities as a coastal state as regards maritime zones and to delimit the area over which Canada will exercise its conservation and protection initiatives.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which came into force on November 14, 1994 provides for the delimitation and establishment of maritime zones under national jurisdiction and identifies the rights of coastal states and of other states within these maritime zones.

The oceans act implements those provisions of the United Nations convention as regards the maritime zones. This is not the legislation by which Canada will ratify the United Nations convention. Members will recall that in the February speech from the throne the government indicated its intention to table enabling legislation allowing Canada to ratify the convention. This legislation will be presented to Parliament at a later date.

The clauses which the Bloc Quebecois wishes to amend recognize and delineate Canada's maritime zones seaward of the internal waters of Canada as codified under the United Nations convention, otherwise known as UNCLOS.

The amendments suggested by the Bloc in this group of motions would change all of this, and I refer again to what I said about the need for respect for juridical roles and missions. The Bloc amendments would intentionally have Canada contravene this international convention which we as a nation worked very hard to see established.

Motion No. 7 as proposed is unnecessary and misleading. It refers to clause 5 which describes how baselines are drawn in accordance with UNCLOS. The motion indicates, if I may say so, a confusion between the determination of internal domestic boundaries with the determination of the international boundaries.

The concept of baselines is not used in international law or in Bill C-26 to determine the internal boundaries of a nation. Rather the baselines serve as reference lines from which the nation defines its national maritime boundaries according to international law. These amendments, as proposed, therefore, are misleading. They do nothing to improve the bill, rather they detract from its clarity and accuracy.

Bloc Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 apply to Canada's exclusive economic zone and seek to imply that this area and its seabed could be contained in the territory of a province. The exclusive economic zone is delineated to its inner margin by the outer edge of the territorial sea and stretches out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline or the coastline. By definition under international law, the exclusive economic zone is well beyond provincial waters yet the Bloc amendments would have us alter this important legislation to suggest otherwise.

Bloc Motions Nos. 15 and 16 regarding the continental shelf make the same erroneous implications, namely that the continental shelf could be within the boundary of a province. The continental shelf is well beyond provincial boundaries. To amend this bill as proposed by the Bloc would make Canada's new ocean statute contravene international law. This is neither proper nor legally correct.

Motion No. 31 proposed by the Bloc seeks to alter clause 28 which defines the area of application of the oceans management strategy and makes it clear that oceans are defined to include estuary and coastal offshore waters. This clause, as it is, states that part II of the act, the part entitled "The Oceans Management Strategy" does not apply to lakes and rivers. This makes sense. An ocean management strategy does apply to lakes and rivers.

The Bloc motion attempts to exclude application of a strategy to estuaries. This does not make sense as the interface between the fresh and saltwater estuaries form a significant component of ocean ecosystems, as well as the social economic well-being of Canadians. To include these areas in the ocean management strategy would effectively ignore the principles of ecosystems management set out in this act.

I therefore urge the members of this House to reject the motions presented by the Bloc pertaining to the maritime zones of Canada and to the oceans management strategy. To accept them would contravene international law. It would also limit the effectiveness of our efforts to conserve and protect the ocean ecosystems.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what needs to be understood and what those opposite are having a hard time understanding is that, although they tell us they want to include such definitions in order to comply with international law, one of the very first sentences of the bill provides that its aim is to permit Canada to affirm its sovereignty over its waters. What I want to say is that we can also affirm our sovereignty; we are sovereign in what we want to do and say.

We can therefore, in keeping with the new convention on the law of the sea, still act imaginatively. We can design this bill according to the desires and needs of those involved and of the people who make up Canada. I repeat: the provinces form Canada.

The problem I am trying to reflect in this bill is the greyness of the powers, the jurisdictions and the definition of the maritime territories in this bill. Right off in committee, I stated that I had some concern about the government moving so quickly with this sort of bill and I felt some questions were unresolved.

I keep coming back to the fact that the minister of fisheries at the time, Mr. Tobin, had promised me the bill was not written to mislead any province. It was to serve as a strategy toward a sort of partnership. When you want to be somebody's partner you take the time to listen to what they have to say and to respond to their insecurities. The fact is that we will have to live with this bill we are considering for a long time. More particularly, we will have to work with the wording it contains.

If, as a Quebec representative on this today, I start off with concerns, how can anyone believe there was good faith on the other side? If, before signing the contract, I tell them I am having difficulty with this or that clause, which needs clarification, and they tell me it is not necessary, if it is unimportant in their eyes, why not include it?

All, or nearly all, of the motions I submitted-I am not interested in reading them all again for people's benefit, as there is not enough time to do so-are for the purpose of clarifying that this bill will not encroach upon existing rights, existing though not perhaps claimed by the provinces. Why, then, is there such a rush to do away with that, and to speak of the provinces as little as possible? As we progress, every time we speak of a definition of territory, I add "provided nothing abrogates or derogates from the rights, past or present, of the provinces".

I try to make it as clear as possible that we need total clarity on this. Why is it that they keep taking us back to square one every time, by saying "No"? It reminds one of the principle of least effort. They refuse to budge on certain points, and not minor points either. Perhaps I am running out of words this evening. If we hold this to be important, if there are concerns, what have they done to alleviate those concerns? Nothing.

They say it is not important, that there is nothing to be feared. If there is indeed nothing to be feared, let it be put in, let the regulations be changed, let it be added. That would make things a lot clearer afterward. Why do I also insist in Motion No. 31 that this clause does not "apply, either directly or indirectly, in respect of lakes, rivers and their estuaries"? Because there are many of them in our regions. Because we would like to have a say and because Quebec's relations with the various stakeholders, including municipalities and the environment ministry, are already

complicated enough. So why should the federal government come barging in with this bill? Why?

I have been told there is no reason to worry. That is no reason for me to stop worrying and start telling myself that there is no risk, that I should not get involved in this. We are clearly saying that this bill should not apply to lakes, rivers and their estuaries. I am told it would be frivolous to exclude estuaries. I do not disagree that the first glass of water from the Saguenay River will flow past the Gaspé region before reaching Nova Scotia and then Newfoundland.

I do not disagree it is a chain reaction. We are not saying we do not want to co-operate with them. Every time we talk about relations strategies, we indicate to them that, if they want things to work, the partner, that is to say, the province or provinces concerned, must be involved from the start. As soon as the minister gets an idea, he shares it right away with his provincial counterpart. Likewise, when a federal official gets an idea, he should be able to contact his counterpart right away to see if there is a problem.

In such cases, both levels would share the problems, but for this to happen, it must be clear and well understood that part of the territory in question is ours and that this is the reason why we will have joint responsibility and why management responsibilities will be shared. I am realize that the Liberals are just trying to hog the whole thing, basically telling us: "Mover over, everything is under control". Not so fast, there are problems.

To our friend opposite, the parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister, who said in his preamble that the intent was to modernize international law, I reply that the United States also read the Convention of the Law of the Sea. Having read it, the U.S. still saw fit to specify that, while they have sovereign rights over their oceans, coastal states-that is to say U.S. coastal states-have a responsibility. I think it is up to three miles off the coast.

How is the maritime territory shared with the provinces and the provinces' responsibility recognized?

I do not wish to start a dispute but I want to call the attention of the hon. members opposite to the fact that the modern thing to do may be to give management over to the provinces, as the U.S. have been doing with member states for quite a while now. This way, U.S. states deal with the big boss in Washington. If every power is taken away right from the start, what is there left to talk about?

I say it again. In December, the government passed a motion saying that Quebec was a distinct society and undertook to enshrine it in the Constitution and to have it reflected in all other Canadian legislation. Here is a chance to acknowledge Quebec's desire to deal with its own problems and participate in the management process with them, but they do not want us to.

Do not be surprised if you see me rise again and again this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I have a lot to say on this subject and I will keep talking until I get through to them. The night could be long; they are quite hard-headed.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself once again having to defer to the member for Gaspé. He has done a super job on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He makes a valuable contribution to the committee.

After looking at the amendments that are proposed in this grouping which are all his amendments, I have a great deal of difficulty. It is clear that as the federal government, the central government does have jurisdiction in Canada's waters. The sovereignty of Canada rests with the federal government. The provinces are way stations of that sovereignty but in the end that sovereignty rests with the federal government.

In issues such as the law of the sea convention and other marine issues which tend to be international in nature, it is proper that the federal government have the jurisdiction and the ability to legislate and to act in Canada's interests in these areas.

The Reform Party acknowledges the reasoning behind the amendments. People in western Canada and Atlantic Canada feel very much the same way in that the federal government is too intrusive, too big and too powerful, it takes too much of our tax dollars and is involved in far too many areas it should not be. However, this is one area where the federal government has a proper and legitimate role. Unfortunately therefore we will not be able to support these amendments.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-26, the Oceans Act. I must admit however that I am a little disappointed. As you know, I studied law at Laval University where, in the very first classes on constitutional law, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was quoted daily.

What a small world, given that, 20 years later, I am now sitting across from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra whom I always admired and still admire for his rigour and the principles he followed throughout his life. There is no doubt about that. I have seen Supreme Court decisions quoting the hon. member. I recall that Bora Laskin and Brian Dickson, two outstanding Supreme court judges, highly respected the professor who now represents the riding of Vancouver Quadra.

I meet him today, some 20 years later, and cannot help being surprised to hear him advocate the exact opposite of what he used

to espouse when he was a university professor. Politics is demanding for all members, including the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I would have been very impressed if, once again, he had been an exception, but such is not the case, unfortunately. Even the strongest structures have limits, and I think it is the case with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. This said, I do respect him immensely and I hope he will not be offended.

However, when the hon. member for Gaspé presented what I would call a neo-constitutional approach to the bill, to the legislative agenda before us, I recognized that, as the Reform member said and as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is saying, navigation, fisheries and oceans are under federal jurisdiction. In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation cared about navigation, about protecting fishery and marine resources, about safety, international transport and marine transport. It is probably true that they decided to give the federal government responsibility over this aspect of Canadian geography.

However, the provinces never-and the member for Vancouver Quadra can say so if he does not agree-considered renouncing their historical presence on that portion of the oceans and seas that was adjacent to or, as in Quebec's case, inside their territory.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is aware of that. For example, Walker's flotilla ran aground at Pointe-aux-Anglais, on Quebec's north shore. This is part of our historical heritage and we, Quebecers, respect it. Every year, thousands of divers come to explore these relics at Pointe-aux-Anglais.

When they decided to give the federal government responsibility over navigation, safety, etc., the Fathers of Confederation did not have in mind shipwrecks at the bottom of the ocean. The view expressed by the hon. member for Gaspé is that, yes, federal jurisdiction can be maintained. However, in our modern era it might be appropriate to follow the American example and to resort to joint action in this area. Indeed, there could be shared jurisdiction over the seabed and marine subsoil or, at least, some consultations.

From now on, with Bill C-26, the federal government will act unilaterally. Everything will be ploughed under, weeds and grain alike. That is what the hon. member for Gaspé is saying. We might as well scrap everything, put aside the infamous constitutional quarrel of 1991-92, civil law in Quebec, navigation and fisheries coming under the federal government. In light of the distinct society resolution that was passed just before the holidays, we should review the most ambiguous areas, where the general interpretation of the Constitution gives rise to some speculation.

Since the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is more knowledgeable than I am in this field, he will recognize that in some cases past decisions led to quite ridiculous situations. For example, when it was determined, in 1906, that Montreal trolleys were to be considered a work for the general benefit of Canada, I think the decision was wrong. That is not what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind when they established that works for the general benefit of Canada were to come under federal jurisdiction.

When dealing, for example, with the content of television programming, they started by talking about the vehicle, the broadcasting method, towers, wires. All that was linked to telegraphy to finally conclude one day that television, radio, whatever, was an area of federal jurisdiction.

One thing lead to another, but it was always in favour of the federal government, which made Maurice Duplessis coin his famous line to the effect that "the Supreme Court of Canada is like the tower of Pisa: it always leans toward the same side".

The time may have come for parliamentarians, cabinet ministers and the powers that be to try to restore some balance by giving the provinces, if not an absolute decision making power, at least a say in the development of joint policies. In other words, the government should respect and recognize the existence of the provinces, and vice versa.

But politicians here refuse to do so. This is what is upsetting, and not only for Quebecers, because I imagine British Columbians also wonder about all this. This is not a linguistic or historical issue. We are talking about the management of resources, in this case the oceans, the seas, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic. We are talking about partnership.

This is a perfect occasion for the government to show that it really means what is says when it makes nice promises and speeches. The government tells us we will get along and discuss things together. Well, now is the time to do so. It may already too late this fall. If what we hear from all sides is true, the government will have missed its last chance to meet the wish of its provincial partners. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra should try to influence his government and make it use common sense once and for all. I know you do have a lot of common sense.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to take part in this debate but so much talk of good horse sense by my colleagues finally caught my attention and influenced me.

This is totally contradictory. A few months ago, there was a referendum in Quebec and a few days before that referendum, we saw the Prime Minister stand up, as another Prime minister had done before the 1980 referendum, and promise with his hand on his heart that yes, the Canadian federation would be changed to take the interests and demands of the people of Quebec into account,

but, poof!-as the Prime Minister would say-today all that has vanished.

In this debate, government members are telling us that they cannot do otherwise than what they are about to do because the Constitution and the British North America Act must be respected. How nicely put. How is it that respecting the Constitution has suddenly become such an absolute and inescapable criterion? What have the successive Conservative and Liberal governments done since 1867? We had time to observe them.

What have they all done since then? With their spending powers, they have intruded on areas of provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. And, as my colleague from Gaspé put it, they have encroached on these provincial jurisdictions. At the time, the Constitution was not that important. What was important was the spending power.

But when the members from the Bloc Quebecois make claims in the name of good horse sense and talk about the Quebec's will to take its rightful place and exert some influence on lawmaking in this country, the only important thing is the Constitution.

Not too long ago, some time after the referendum debate, there was a speech from the throne. What did it say? It said that the federal government would no longer interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I agree that this is an area under federal jurisdiction, but we could have thought that, following the speech from the throne, there would be a willingness to change the federal system.

It is obvious, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières mentioned earlier, that this willingness does not exist. There is no willingness to make changes. It seems that, in this country, federalist members, federalist politicians are unable to learn from the past, even from the recent past. We are constantly sending them messages, but to no avail. Here is another opportunity that the government is preparing to miss.

It would be a chance for the Liberals to prove that they can adjust, that they can transform the Canadian federation, as the prime minister likes to say. However, they are unable to do so because they have a different vision of this country. They have a vision where the government that has the most powers has to be in Ottawa and where the other governments, the provincial governments, have partial jurisdiction over matters of little importance.

The same thing happens each time we have a significant bill before us: the rhetoric is there, but the government does not deliver the goods.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, and particularly to Motion No. 7. This bill does not mention participation by the provinces. We know that the oceans are a vast natural resource over which the Government of Quebec would do well to have a say.

In the past, we saw a fairly obvious inequity concerning fishing rights, for example. We also saw a fairly obvious inequity when the federal government decided unilaterally to develop petroleum resources through the great Hibernia project. Without the consent of Quebec, it was decided to develop the petroleum near Newfoundland, by saying that this would help Newfoundland, that this was a project to develop the eastern regions.

We in Quebec were flatly opposed, because we knew in advance that Hibernia would be a project with almost no benefits for Quebec. Quebec would certainly have refused to subsidize the big Hibernia project. We know full well that Hibernia will cost Quebecers the pretty sum of two or three billion dollars, while the benefits will certainly not exceed a few hundred million. And Quebec was not consulted about this project.

Once again, I would like to say that I support the motion by my colleague, the member for Gaspé, who is asking that the provinces be given a right of review, that they at least be informed of what is ahead. At the present time, we have no information. The federal government, as usual, is charging in and deciding unilaterally to get involved in large projects without consulting the provinces. Quebec is often penalized by these federal projects. There is no warning.

I remember very clearly, I was here in the House when they decided to launch the Hibernia project. I was an independent at that time, we were a small group of eight independents. We learned on the Friday morning that the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the NDP, a large contingent at that time, had decided unilaterally to introduce the bill on a Friday morning on the sly, to avoid discussion.

Now, myself and my colleague for Richelieu learned about it on the Friday morning and came to the House to contest it, knowing full well that it was contrary to Quebec's interests. We were the only party-not even a party-but as you know, when there are major regional projects involved that are favoured by the federal government, things are too easy. The big three national parties always join forces and the thing is slipped through quietly. And who gets it in the neck? The provinces.

Here I am not speaking just for Quebec. I think that British Columbia, with its extensive coastline, ought also to have been entitled to be consulted and informed, at least before the federal government acts in the key areas affecting the oceans. As I have already said, the oceans are a repository of great wealth, and the provinces absolutely must be consulted to ensure that they may take part in various ways to ensure that we agree, or in a few cases

at least refuse, to become involved in projects when we know they will never be to our advantage.

When we as Quebecers talk of fairness, we are not asking for charity, just fairness. We are not looking for handouts, we want to participate and to benefit, like good citizens, to have our fair share. It is not right for Quebec, one of the most industrialized provinces in Canada, to have the highest rate of unemployment and welfare, at the moment. That should not be.

It is happening today because something was not working in the federal system. We are not talking about handouts, just fairness. We are talking about being part of the major projects so that we may benefit from them, no more than any other province, but at least as much as the other provinces.

The ultimate proof lies always in the results. They are the indicator of success or failure. If we in Quebec have more welfare and unemployment than the other provinces, except the small maritime provinces, it is because we have lost out in a way, and not in terms of handouts. We are not expecting handouts or charity. We simply want to be part of the major projects that are to our advantage and benefit properly from them and not to be part of those to our disadvantage, as much as possible. This is why I rise to inform Quebecers that the federal government is yet again trying to pull the wool over our eyes by excluding Quebec from the debate on regulating the oceans.

Once again, I repeat, this is not nothing. The oceans contain extraordinary riches, and Quebec must absolutely have a say in the decisions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 7. 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 Motion No. 7 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.