Debates of June 10th, 1996

Oceans Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. 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:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out something from the Chair about what has just been done. We have voted on Motion No. 1, one of the four making up Group No. 2. In Group No. 2, then, we still have Motions No. 2, 3 and 4, of course, and I would like to announce our intention to vote on these three in a different way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cannot be voted on until we have taken the vote on Motion No. 1.

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

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-26, in Clause 2.1, be amended in the French version by replacing line 16, on page 3, with the following:

"ne porte pas atteinte aux droits existants-ancestraux".

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 11, with the following:

"the Minister contain-".

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended in the French version a ) by replacing line 11, on page 16, with the following:

"ral, relativement aux activités ou mesures touchant les"; b ) by replacing lines 14 to 16, on page 16, with the following:

"ment avec d'autres ministres ou organismes fédéraux ou d'autres personnes de droit public ou de droit privé, et après avoir pris en considération le point de vue d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et des organisations autochtones, des collectivités côtières et des autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, constituer des organismes de consul-"; and c ) by replacing lines 22 to 26, on page 16, with the following:

"ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, établir des directives,".

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-26 be amended by deleting Clause 32.1.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended in the French version a ) by replacing lines 9 to 14, on page 17, with the following: a ) coopère avec d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales;''; and b ) by replacing lines 30 to 36, on page 17, with the following:

"par la présente partie, le ministre peut consulter d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendica-".

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended a ) in the French version, by replacing line 10, on page 18, with the following:

"autres, y compris les mammifères marins, et de"; b ) in the French version, by replacing lines 21 and 22, on page 18, with the following:

"ressources ou habitats marins, pour la réalisation du mandat du minis-"; c ) in the English version, by replacing line 25, on page 18, with the following:

"ment plans referred to in sections 31 and"; d ) by replacing lines 33 and 34, on page 18, with the following:

(a) designating marine protected areas; and"; e ) in the French version, by replacing line 34, on page 18, with the following: b ) prendre toute mesure compatible avec l'objet de la désignation, notamment:''; and f ) in the French version, by deleting lines 39 and 40, on page 18.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-26, in Clause 37, be amended in the French version by replacing line 15, on page 19, with the following:

"l'exercice d'un pouvoir prévu à l'alinéa 35(3) b )''.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39, be amended in the French version by replacing line 11, on page 20, with the following:

"toute personne agissant sous la direction ou l'autorité".

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.5, be amended by replacing line 41, on page 22, with the following:

"ture or disposition incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in".

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.6, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 36, on page 23, with the following: b ) the additional fine may exceed the maximum amount of any fine that may otherwise be imposed under this Act.''

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.7, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 23, with the following:

"Majesty in right of Canada."

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.9, be amended in the French version a ) by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page 24, with the following: a ) s'abstenir de tout acte ou activité risquant, selon le tribunal, d'entraîner la continuation de''; b ) by replacing line 22, on page 24, with the following: b ) prendre les mesures que le tribunal estime indi-''; c ) by replacing line 27, on page 24, with the following: c ) publier, de la façon indiquée par le tribunal, les''; d ) by replacing line 42, on page 24, with the following: g ) satisfaire aux autres exigences que le tribunal''; and e ) by replacing line 2, on page 25, with the following:

"du tribunal le montant que celui-ci estime indiqué."

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.10, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20, on page 25, with the following:

"sentence pursuant to the Criminal Code, the court may, in addition to any probation order made on suspending the passing of that sentence, make an order containing one or".

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-26, in Clause 39.11, be amended a ) in the English version by replacing line 31, on page 25, with the following:

"conviction in respect of an offence may be commenced at"; and b ) in the French version by replacing line 22, on page 25, with the following:

"deux ans à compter de la date où le ministre a eu".

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-26, in Clause 42, be amended a ) in the English version, by replacing line 4, on page 28, with the following:

"fishing zones of Canada and adjacent waters;"; and b ) in the French version, by replacing line 12, on page 28, with the following: j ) effectuer des études pour mettre à profit les''.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-26, in Clause 43, be amended in the French version a ) by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 28, with the following:

"peut à cet effet établir ou maintenir-notamment à bord de navires-des instituts de recherche, des labora-"; b ) by replacing line 36, on page 28, with the following:

"fonctionnement. Il peut, de plus,"; and c ) by replacing lines 41 and 42, on page 28, with the following:

"États, aux organismes internationaux et à toute autre personne."

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-26, in Clause 45, be amended in the French version a ) by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 29, with the following:

"ves, à l'intention notamment des hydrographes, relativement à la collecte des données"; and b ) by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 29, with the following:

"États, aux organismes internationaux et à toute autre personne."

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-26, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11, on page 31, with the following:

"within three years after the coming into force of this section, be reviewed by the Standing Committee".

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 22, on page 31, the following new Clause:

"52.1 The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act and, in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations a ) prescribing marine environmental quality requirements and standards; b ) respecting the powers and duties of persons designated by the Minister as enforcement officers; and c ) respecting the implementation of provisions of agreements made under this Act.''

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-26, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25, on page 31, with the following:

"53. If Bill C-25, introduced during the second session of the thirty-fifth Parliament and entitled An Act respecting regulations and other documents, including the review,".

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 17, with the following:

"Part, the Minister shall act in concert with the provinces and may consult with other".

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 17, with the following:

"Part, the Minister shall consult with the provinces and the standing committee and may consult with other".

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 18, with the following: a ) with the approval of the standing committee, establishing marine protected areas''.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 18, with the following:

"(a) establishing protected areas for fishery resources,".

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

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to resume speaking in favour of Bill C-26, An Act respecting the oceans of Canada.

All Canadians who have followed the progress of this bill to any extent at all will know that the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have worked very hard to ensure that Bill C-26 is given a thorough and detailed examination.

The committee called witnesses representing more than 30 groups and organizations from everywhere in Canada during its several weeks of hearings. Not only did the Committee call those witnesses, it listened attentively to what each of them had to say, it listened to what all Canadians have had to say constantly for some years now: our country needs legislation to ensure the proper management of our oceans by including in the legislation the concepts of sustainable development, an ecosystem approach and one based on the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources.

Canadians want legislation that will acknowledge the value and importance of traditional ecological knowledge with respect to ocean management. In fact, not a single witness nor anyone else has said: "We do not need a act respecting the oceans of Canada". Instead, what they have all said is the opposite: the law could do with some reinforcing. And that is exactly what has been done.

Equally important, the committee listened to the provinces and territories and proposed an amendment that guarantees collaboration with their governments as well as with affected aboriginal organizations, with coastal communities and with ocean stakeholders.

We should thank them for the work they have done. What hon. members have before them is an act that is both forward looking and solid in its principles. One of the goals when constructing this act was to ensure it was built on the most solid of foundations. From this foundation will come better decisions about ocean management.

It is for this reason that the government examined every clause, every line and every word of the bill as it has been reported to be sure that the foundation was solid, that it is an act that demonstrates to the citizens of this country that the government understands and respects what they want for the oceans surrounding Canada.

In this examination, the government discovered minor transcription errors, improvements that could be made in the quality and clarity of the wording and minor inconsistencies between the French and English versions of the text. Technical amendments can be found in Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91. Although these technical amendments may seem minor, the government recognized that without them, there could have been misinterpretation of the act.

The 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. The various technical improvements proposed by the government will add clarity to the act.

The basic criterion of an act of Parliament is certainty and flexibility. We believe the Canada Oceans Act balances these two principles of certainty and flexibility. We urge all members to vote for Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91.

Motions Nos. 47 and 48 by the Bloc Quebecois amend the same line in the text of the bill in two different ways. What does the Bloc Quebecois actually want? This section of the bill lays out the overall consultative theme of this bill and gives the minister the option of consulting with anyone or everyone on matters pertaining to part II of the bill.

Motion No. 47 proposes that the minister and the provinces together will consult with all the other players with respect to part II of this bill. Why would the provinces be consulting on something that is not within their jurisdiction?

May I suggest some better attention by the Bloc to the constitutional roles and missions, ordinary legislation versus constitutional amending procedures. It seems to me that the Bloc amendments propose to achieve by indirection constitutional changes that belong elsewhere. We are into a species of creeping constitutional amendments as to federal-provincial powers. That is not acceptable in ordinary legislation presented to this House.

The people of Canada have not asked that there be 10 leaders in the management of our oceans. They have asked that there be one. Therefore, Motion No. 47 must be rejected.

Motion No. 48 proposes that the minister must consult with all the provinces and standing committee in exercising his mandate in part II of this bill. This detracts from the flexibility of this section, which allows the minister to consult with the appropriate provinces or groups when an issue is relevant to them. It is not always necessary to consult with everyone when a matter may only have relevance to a particular province, territory or group.

Furthermore, this motion obliges the minister to consult with the standing committee in exercising his mandate in part II of this bill. This would involve the standing committee in the day by day decision making of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I remind the House again of what I said about creeping constitutional amendments. There seems to be a lack of respect for the constitutional separation of powers in this proposed amendment by the Bloc. It raises constitutional issues that are more appropriately dealt with in other arenas and in other processes not in the interstices of ordinary legislation devoted to oceans.

Besides the standing committee in its review of this bill already put in a section to allow the standing committee to review the implementation of this act in three years. For these reasons, Motion No. 48, as proposed, should be rejected.

Furthermore, the Bloc proposed through Motions Nos. 51 and 52 to make two separate changes to the same line of the same clause 35. These changes would require the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to seek the approval of the standing committee to exercise his mandate as it relates to the establishment of marine protected areas. It would also effectively restrict the establishment of these protected areas to fishery resources.

This is totally contrary to the testimony presented to the standing committee by Canadians from across the country. There are more living resources and habitats in the sea than only those that are fished and certainly there are many more worth protecting. Therefore, I ask all members to support the act by voting against Motions Nos. 47, 48, 51 and 52 and to support the passage of the Canada Oceans Act to the next stage of the legislative process.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary forgets or fails to see in this, when he says this is not the place to discuss the Constitution, is that I did not try to constitutionalize my proposals and I am not talking about constitutionalizing either.

What I say to them is that there are problems at the moment and that the federal government is not equipped to deal with the situation. I say they should look directly, look at the provinces which are prepared to play and they will avoid a pack of troubles. It is easy enough to understand. There is no need for constitutional meetings on the matter. However, sticking one's head in the sand is

worse. You cannot stick your head in the sand saying that you do not want to deal with the matter, that it involves the Constitution. When you have problems to face, you do not stick your head in the sand.

It does not take much for the government to say it will co-operate with the provinces, that it will talk to them directly. I can understand if it says it does not want to involve all 10 provinces. Alberta is perhaps less concerned about the oceans than perhaps either Quebec or Nova Scotia. It neither hurts nor takes anything away from the rest of Canada. That means that the meetings will go very quickly. Only the provinces concerned will be there. As for those that are not interested because of other problems or that prefer to let Ottawa handle it because they do not have the time, if it suits them, fine.

What I am saying is that it does not suit us and it is not reflected there. I did not ask for a constitutional rewrite. I only asked that the fact that we have to work with the provinces be taken into account. We have no choice in the matter.

There are other things we have to keep an eye on. With Motion No. 51, for example, we are asking for a consultation process, we want the matter to be sent back to the committee. Even though the parliamentary secretary tells us that the other place looked at it and said that it should go back to the committee every three years, it does not hurt to put it in here anyhow. I would rather know that it is the elected representatives in this House who are going to decide what to do with this bill. We are the ones who, within six months to a year, are going to face the people during the next election. I cannot tell my constituents in Gaspé that I could do nothing about it, that it had already been decided by the other place. It just will not work.

I am running out of time and words. There is a lot to say, but when the new chair of the fisheries committee rise-he is a very sensible man, at least he was last week-he too will recognize that people of good will can get along.

This is what our motion is all about. Look around, I am not talking about enshrining things in the Constitution. I believe that when you revamp a law, you should take advantage of it to make it more interesting. I already said at second reading that the principle could be good, that it was smart for the right hand to know what the left hand is doing.

I wondered why federal departments needed legislation to talk among to each other. However, it is there and we are trying to improve it. We are telling the Liberals it is there and we know there will be problems in relations with the provinces. We are mentioning that and they tell us we are trying to talk about the Constitution. I am not trying to talk about the Constitution, I am trying to solve some problems.

Motion No. 52 deals with marine protected areas-I have to go a little faster-but we would rather talk about protected areas for fishery resources. Why? I think that can be easily understood.

The primary objective of this bill is, of course, to manage oceans, but the second thing is-and I take this opportunity to point this out to the parliamentary secretary off guard in case he wants to comment later on-the Constitution provides that fisheries are under federal jurisdiction. I would be tempted to change this, but we will raise this some other time.

There are other management areas that are not outlined in the Constitution. There are grayer areas. To avoid problems, I would like that us to talk more specifically about fishery resources. If we want to get into the other domain, marine protected areas, there should be agreement with the provinces that make up Canada on what this expression refers to, what the government wants to hide in this expression, because it is unclear.

Is there a mixup or a misunderstanding, even if only in terms of the environment? There, I have said it. There are problems with the environment, even in the federal cabinet, at least there were in the previous one, which operated until February. I can mention it, as the two individuals concerned are no longer there.

When I questioned him at committee as to how Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada were getting along, former fisheries minister Brian Tobin's answer was: "Yvan, it is like yin and yang". At the time, Environment Canada was led by Ms. Copps, who will be seeking re-election on June 17.

If two departments cannot agree on definitions, if they cannot get along-and this is stictly at the federal level, in Ottawa-if two members of the team, two experienced politicians like Mr. Tobin and Ms. Copps, who worked together for a long time, cannot agree on the issue, what are we to conclude? The problem is not just at the personal level. Mr. Tobin's colourful language is well known. I accepted his answer in good faith, because it was reported in Hansard.

I am trying to give them a chance by saying: "Let us not refer to marine protected areas but to protected areas for fishery resources; it is much clearer". The other expression is unclear. How would the provinces react if the federal government adopted this terminology? Have officials, at the senior and deputy minister level, met to try to make this designation clear for everyone? I do not think so.

This bill was at the second reading stage when the former fisheries minister commented on the relationship between his

department and the Department of the Environment, led by Ms. Copps, saying it was like yin and yang.

I will speak again over the course of the evening, but you can already see that, on this group of motions alone, we could debate for hours on end. That is exactly what we did in committee. Unfortunately, I had to refrain from submitting some of my arguments, because any argument defeated at committee cannot be raised again in this House. As you can imagine, I have a lot to tell you still and a great deal of information to share with the public.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Gaspé. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I certainly appreciate his participation on that committee over the last couple of years as he brings a valuable perspective to the committee. I sense the depth of frustration on the part of the member for Gaspé and many people from his province of Quebec. I addressed that issue in my earlier remarks when we were talking about the first grouping of amendments.

It is past time the federal government got out of many areas that it currently has jurisdiction in, or that it asserts it has jurisdiction in, and allow the provinces and in some cases the municipal governments to make decisions more in keeping with the desires of the people who have to live with the results of those decisions.

We have a situation in British Columbia where the Government of Canada is making a major decision with respect to the fishery resource on the coast. It is a decision that only the people of British Columbia will have to live with. That decision is to include an aboriginal fishery component in land claims in British Columbia in modern treaties.

That is something that politicians from Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia will not have to live with but they are certainly very much involved in the decision making process. I sense the frustration of the member for Gaspé. As a citizen from British Columbia and knowing the depth of feeling on that issue in British Columbia, I understand the member's frustration.

However, in looking at the oceans act it is clear there are times when there is a proper role for the federal government to play that goes beyond municipal and provincial jurisdictions. In the case of oceans it is clearly the responsibility of the federal government, particularly when it comes to issues such as straddling stocks, migratory wildlife and fish stocks. It has a role to play.

I do not see how it is possible for the provincial governments to be making decisions with respect to those areas in the present circumstances. The federal government has a very serious obligation to consult with the provinces. It is federal decisions that often cause provincial governments a great deal of pain, particularly economic pain.

If members do not believe that, look at the groundfishery in Newfoundland and the collapse of that. It was managed right into the ground by the federal government. It created all kinds of impetus for investment into the groundfishery by providing grants and subsidies to fish packing plants and the construction of fishing boats and encouraged everybody and their dog to get out their fish those fish, and they did. Guess what? The fish are gone and guess who is paying the bill? In part it is the province. The province ends up with a great deal of the economic pain created as a result of federal mismanagement. The provinces have a right to be consulted.

I have some difficulty with the way these amendments are worded. We will be again moving amendments to Motions Nos. 48 and 90.

I move:

That Motion No. 48 be amended by deleting the following: "-the Provinces and-" and "-may consult with others-"

I move:

That Motion No. 90 be amended by substituting the word "requirements" with the word "guidelines".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bonin)]

The Chair will take the amendments under advisement.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you for doing what you can to stand in for one of your colleagues at a moment's notice. That is quite remarkable.

As far as the Oceans Act is concerned, some may wonder what the hon. member for Lévis is doing in this debate, since the riding of Lévis is far from the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean and even farther from the Pacific Ocean. However, according to the legal definition, an ocean is any body of salt water. For the information of my colleagues who appear surprised by this definition, the St. Lawrence carries salt water as far as my riding.

As I was saying earlier about greater federal interference, about the government's effort to extend its reach so it can regulate everyone's life, I see its borrowing the definition of ocean as a body of salt water as an attempt to extend its reach to my region under the Quebec bridge.

This bill also covers the management of the coast guard, which, as it happens, is very important in the St. Lawrence. As you may well understand, we are concerned about the designation of maritime areas. For this reason, I like the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Gaspé, which deals with fishery resources. What are fishery resources?

I spoke on this issue in my riding. Today, again, before I arrived here in Ottawa, someone told me: "I do not have a great deal of education, but it seems the government, the public servants or those who draft the legislation purposely try to confuse us with big words". Take, for example, the French expression "ressources halieutiques", as in halieutics, the art or practice of fishing. This is not the word the person was concerned about, but we must define it.

We, members of Parliament, have a duty to correctly inform the population. So, what does "ressources halieutiques" mean? This expression is more appropriate than marine protected areas, because it refers to the live resource, that is the fish and any other living species in the oceans, whether at the bottom or the surface. Things like this should be specified when drafting legislation.

We are talking here about a large number of species. I did not count them but, in the St. Lawrence River and in the gulf, people still catch eels and sturgeons. The resources are becoming increasingly rare, because they were not adequately protected in Canadian waters located within in the 200 mile limit, since the ocean contour is not always straight.

However, when the notion of ocean extends to the St. Lawrence River, we have a duty to make these specifications. This is why I fully support the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Gaspé, who knows a lot about fisheries and oceans. He was born and raised in a fishing community and, for three years now, he has been active in the committees of our caucus. He constantly keeps us informed, because we, urban dwellers, eat various species of fish now and then.

We are glad to get some once and a while, but we have to ensure it is processed correctly. Also, a lot of people are involved in this industry and some of them have received assistance from their provincial governments.

I had the opportunity to work many years with the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Jean Garon. I went along with him to the meetings he attended and I heard the fishermen tell him how important the provincial government's involvement in this industry is, since the federal government cannot deal by itself with processing plants.

The provinces can play a key role in many areas, if they so wish. The province of Quebec has tried to do so many, many times. It is still playing a major role, because this is an important resource. I remember when some of today's most popular resources, such as crab for example, were not developed here. Crab was only exported to Japan, to the delight of the Japanese people, but was not very well known here. Nowadays, thanks to all the ad campaigns and the special ways it is processed, Quebecers enjoy crab, too much perhaps, because there are times we run short.

I was talking earlier about another one of our resources, eels. This is a resource found in the St. Lawrence River, in what the bill considers a marine protected area in fact, a resource not well known to Canadians but a pure delight for Europeans, particularly Germans who really enjoy this fish, a resource that we could further develop.

These are all good reasons for the federal government to join with the provinces, even if it has jurisdiction over the fisheries pursuant to the Constitution, and create a partnership to further develop our resources and let the provinces become some of its partners in order to help the people who work in the fishing industry.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am ready to render a decision on the amendments put forward by the member for Skeena. First:

That Motion No. 48 be amended by deleting the following: "-the Provinces and-" and "-may consult with others-"

Second:

That Motion No. 90 be amended by substituting the word "requirements" with the word "guidelines".

Both amendments are in order.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 5. 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 be please say yea.