Debates of June 11th, 1996

Oceans Act

[The Speaker]

The hon. member's 10 minutes will begin at this point.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will need to utilize my whole time.

My party will be supporting Motions Nos. 36 through 46 and Motion No. 73 because they seek to give the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans more power to review legislation. They also require the government to report to the standing committee on the effectiveness of the legislation.

The motions also seek to increase the government's obligation to consult with the provinces. Essentially that is a good thing.

We cannot support several motions in this grouping, namely Motion Nos. 50, 53 and 56, simply because their intent is to try to interject provincial jurisdiction where we see a clear federal responsibility.

I mentioned this in my remarks yesterday when we were talking about these motions. The federal government has jurisdiction and sovereignty over Canada's marine waters. I fail to see, and it is difficult for anybody to see, how those marine waters can be divided into provincial jurisdictions.

I come from British Columbia. One of the main reasons I chose to run for office and become involved in federal politics was my feeling that the federal government had become too powerful, that it had interceded and injected itself into many areas where it had no legitimate place.

I can understand the frustrations of many people, including people from Quebec. I understand the motivation of my colleague, the member for Gaspé, who has been working with us on the standing committee and who has moved these motions, as to why he would like to see the federal government back away from many areas where it is currently involved.

When it comes to Canada's marine waters, the federal government has jurisdiction and responsibility. Many aspects of our marine waters are international and interprovincial in nature. There can be only one lead player in this. It must be the federal government.

In summary, Reform members will be supporting the motions in this grouping that seek to increase the obligation of the federal government to consult with the provinces and that seek to require the federal government to report to the standing committee on a regular basis and make the standing committee more relevant.

We cannot support those motions that attempt to increase provincial jurisdiction.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are 11 motions under Group No. 8 now before us, all presented by the Bloc Quebecois, and more specifically by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé. Ten concern the part dealing with ocean management strategy and one, the part dealing with the minister's powers. You will see from the motions presented by the member for Gaspé that we are dealing with two very distinct subjects that we would like to see corrected in this bill.

The first is that we find-and we have said so repeatedly in this debate-that the Liberal government has left the provinces out of consultations. Among other things, the provinces are compared to a municipal government, Indian reserves, and other persons and bodies. In the ten amendments to the part dealing with the ocean management strategy, it is extremely important that the government of each province participate.

The final amendment, the eleventh in Group No. 8, focuses specifically on the minister's powers, which we would like to limit as much as possible in order to have considerably more transparence.

So that everyone understands, including hon. members who may not have read or did not bother reading the bill, I add that the act respecting the oceans of Canada is very important and affects many ridings. There are those who might initially think the bill does not affect some ridings, such as my riding of Berthier-Montcalm, at all. But to take the example of my riding, given that the St. Lawrence River flows right through it, there will be an effect on tariffs for pleasure boats and so on. It is therefore a bill that concerns everyone associated in any way with the St. Lawrence and its ports.

Starting with Motion No. 36, we find that its intention is to amend clause 32 to read as follows:

"32. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister

(a) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters assigned by law to the Minister;"

The intent of this amendment is to correct a shortcoming, an aberration in the bill. We wish to involve the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I am sure that you recall that one of the Liberal Party's commitments in the famous red book was to improve the perception of MPs, to raise the prestige of what MPs do. How better to do this than to involve the MPs who have accepted parliamentary duties, such as sitting on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans?

The amendment proposed by the member for Gaspé helps the government attain its objectives and meet its campaign promises, which it has had difficulty doing. The hon. member for Gaspé wishes to assist the government in raising the profile of the work of the MPs by empowering the MPs sitting on this committee to approve extremely important elements of the integrated ocean management strategy.

Who can be better placed than the MPs on that standing committee, who receive witnesses and have the opportunity to question specialists, to present positive elements in a bill like this?

That is fine. The minister is advised by officials and bureaucrats in skyscrapers. Sometimes I wonder if they have ever seen such a bill and whether they can tell a panfish from a catfish. These people are advising the minister on a bill as important as this one.

The members who have heard witnesses, done research, studied the ins and outs of such a bill could move the debate along and provide protection to those needing it, that is, those affected by the Oceans Act.

Another extremely important amendment, and I am sure that with all the transparency the Liberal government wants for its administration it will vote in favour of this motion, which is Motion No. 37, introduced by the member for Gaspé. It amends sub-clause ( b ) of clause 32 to read as follows: b ) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and co-ordinate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies-''

This is exactly the intent of Motion No. 37.

Motions Nos. 40 and 41 will change sub-clause ( d ) of clause 32, which appears in part II entitled ``Oceans Management Strategy'', one of the most important sections of this bill. With the proposed amendments, paragraph ( d ) would read as follows:

"may, with the approval of the standing committee in concert with the provincial governments and in consultation with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, establish, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria respecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters."

That is true partnership. That is what I call really consulting, listening, participating and inviting colleagues and partners to participate. The federal government, the provincial governments affected as well as federal departments-because more than one department may be affected-and interested persons and bodies are all called upon to participate in a partnership to ensure the best possible regulations are developed.

This is the sole purpose of Motions Nos. 40 and 41. MotionNo. 44, which amends clause 33, seeks to do the same by including the provincial governments in the decision making process, since the issues often come under their jurisdiction and directly affect them.

The purpose of Motion No. 45 is exactly the same. This motion, which affects paragraph ( d ), will certainly be passed, given that it only makes sense and improves the bill. I am convinced that the minister, who is listening carefully to my comments, will ask his government to support this motion.

I will end on that note, since I do not have time to discuss all the motions. However, I wish to point out that, if Motion No. 45 is passed, the provision will read as follows: "( d ) may make grants and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a resolution confirming the recommendations of the standing committee approving the making of grants and contributions''.

As members can see, this motion seeks to ensure the participation of the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and also the members of this House, who were given a mandate by their constituents to represent them and make sure that the legislation passed by this House is as good as can possibly be.

So, the ultimate goal is very simple: it is to promote transparency, to ensure greater provincial government participation, and to take away from the minister some of the powers he is giving himself with this act, something that could eventually be very dangerous.

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

Madam Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to address the Canada Oceans Act and in particular Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56 and 73.

The act, as members know, is the product of a number of deliberations and consultations, including the standing committee on the subject, which has a special competence and a special expertise in matters having to do with the oceans.

I would stress again that the work of the House on this act and the work of the standing committee should not be turned into a fishing expedition to elaborate casual ideas on structural institutional changes in government or on the separation of powers or federal-provincial relations. Neither the oceans act itself nor

frankly the work of the standing committee is competent to bear that sort of discussion. There are other committees and other arenas. While I admire the enthusiasm with which some of the members opposite have addressed themselves to these issues and the interstices of discussions of the oceans act, it is simply the wrong place and the wrong time.

The motions in this group would serve to fetter the minister's ability to exercise his mandate to act decisively on matters within his general mandate and responsibility for the oceans.

Some of the motions propose to change accepted parliamentary procedure by requiring the approval of the standing committee to conduct ministerial business. That would be an unprecedented step in terms of parliamentary practice. Frankly, while we are prepared as a government to discuss general plans for the improvement of Parliament, it should be done within a committee charged with that purpose. There are several to which I could suggest members of the opposition address themselves.

The leadership role of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is laid out in part II, the oceans management strategy, which describes his role and responsibilities.

Motion No. 36 by the Bloc proposes that the minister receive unanimous approval of a standing committee before developing or implementing policies and programs within his mandate. This is an unprecedented attempt to fetter the minister completely in the exercise of his mandate. It is contrary to accepted parliamentary practice. We would have to change the system. We are prepared to discuss that, but surely not as a footnote to the discussion of the oceans act itself. This is a constitutional issue that deserves another arena and a more specialized expertise on the part of its members. Motion No. 36 should be rejected therefore.

Motion No. 37 proposes the minister receive approval from the standing committee before he undertakes the role as co-ordinator within the federal government of policies and programs respecting coastal marine waters. Once again it flies in the face of accepted parliamentary practice. It is an idea that is interesting in itself but there are appropriate organs of Parliament that can consider this on the basis of the expert competence of the members of those committees. Motion No. 37 in this context should be rejected.

Motions Nos. 40 and 41 by the Bloc propose two different amendments to the same line in the bill. We are not really sure what the Bloc wants on this.

Motion No. 40 proposes once again that the minister receive approval from the standing committee to exercise his mandate, this time for the establishment of marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria. This would unduly restrict the minister in exercising his mandate and is contrary to parliamentary practice.

Motion No. 41 proposes the minister obtain agreement from the provinces in establishing marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria. This is something that is within federal purview. While the provinces must and will be part of the collaborative effort, the constitutional responsibility for this is with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It cannot be delegated or transferred in the interstices of the oceans act. It is the wrong arena. Motion No. 41 must be rejected.

Part II of the act also provides a number of other mechanisms for the minister to use in order to perform his duties and functions.

Motion No. 44 by the Bloc asks that one add mention of the provincial governments in the provision for entering into agreements. It is redundant as the clause already provides for the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces. Motion No. 44 should be rejected as redundant.

Motion No. 45 again attempts to fetter the minister's abilities, this time his ability to make grants and contributions. The Bloc proposes the minister, before making a grant or contribution, have the House adopt a resolution concerning a recommendation by the standing committee.

There are already rules developed by Treasury Board governing the making of grants and contributions. It is a huge additional purpose, quite unnecessary, a change in parliamentary practice, and the wrong arena and wrong forum in which to attempt it. We do not make constitutional changes of this sort by indirection without substantial discussion. For these reasons Motion No. 45 should be rejected.

On Motion No. 46, it is the same theme. The minister must have the unanimous approval of the standing committee for making recoverable expenditures on behalf of any ministry, board or agency of the government. This unduly fetters the minister and is contrary to accepted parliamentary practice. I recommend rejection.

During its review, the standing committee greatly strengthened the provisions relating to marine protected areas. To many Canadians these are some of the most important clauses of the Canada Oceans Act. Motions Nos. 50, 53 and 56 relate to clauses dealing with the regulations making powers of the minister with respect to marine protected areas. In a situation where a marine resource or habitat is at risk, the government would be able to take action immediately.

The Bloc in Motions Nos. 50, 53 and 56 seeks to amend clauses 35 and 36 concerning marine protected areas and would require the governor in council to obtain approval from affected provinces and from a standing committee before issuing regulations. This would also apply to emergency marine protected areas. These motions

would negate the whole purpose of this section of the act which is to provide for the implementation of emergency marine protected areas relatively quickly when circumstances warrant it. They would put the marine resources in jeopardy. The Bloc would rather veto the minister's ability to fulfil his mandate and create a very cumbersome administrative process. Why?

Further, in Motion No. 73 the Bloc feels it necessary once again to specify that the minister may work with the provinces. We believe in co-operating with the provinces. We do co-operate with the provinces. It is totally unnecessary however to specify provinces in this section and in fact it is redundant to do so. MotionNo. 73 provides no value added to this bill. It does nothing to clarify the text. It along with Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53 and 56 should be rejected.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was here last night for the first part of the debate, as was the member for Vancouver Quadra, who had several comments on each group of motions presented by my colleague, the member for Gaspé.

I note today that he is no wiser for having slept on it, for he is still singing the same tune.

First, when they talk about co-operation with the provinces, consulting the provinces, the member, whose constitutional expertise is recognized by everyone, takes a very legal approach, while the proposals by the member for Gaspé boil down to this: Why always speak of the Constitution, which was written in 1867, when things have changed, many areas have changed, the fishery has changed? There is something of interest here, which is co-operation by the greatest possible number of partners. Co-operation and consultation.

Approval is not always necessary. It is up to the minister, as recognized by international law, and we accept that. But the member for Gaspé is trying to suggest to the legislators that the minister be placed under a slightly greater obligation to consult, to be more open to those partners wishing to co-operate. Since last night, the member for Gaspé has been holding out his hand in co-operation.

Yesterday, he spoke primarily about the provinces; today, he is adding another aspect. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and people reacted to his speeches. People said: "Yes, in fact, the member for Gaspé co-operated very closely with other members of the fisheries and oceans committee". This is recognized by everybody.

But when we get to the House and consider the motions, the reaction is always the same: "No, no, we cannot do that. We cannot consult the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans because it would take powers away from the minister, it is not supposed to happen that way, it is not consistent with parliamentary practices, it is not part of the parliamentary tradition, it is not provided for under current parliamentary rules".

When I hear this, I cannot help but remain stunned and surprised. The Chair and its officers ruled that the motions moved by the member for Gaspé were in order, which means they can be debated. But the member for Vancouver Quadra has a different interpretation, saying: "No, we should not debate these things in here, this is not the right place".

I am not as experienced as the member for Vancouver Quadra, but I would like him to tell me where the right place would be, if this is not it. We are here in the federal Parliament, in the House of Commons, to pass pieces of legislation. Where are we supposed to debate them?

The member for Chambly said: "Are we always supposed to debate constitutional issues in the Chateau Laurier, at night?", thus reminding us of the night of the long knives. Is this the place? If it is not the Chateau Laurier, it might be another hotel, just tell us which one. He never tells us where we can discuss this. Moreover, he tells us that it is not in the standing committee. It is not in the House, it is not in committee, it is not with the provinces. But where on earth can people help the minister carry on his responsibilities, and form partnerships with him?

There has been consultation on the Coast Guard, but we will get back to this later. The minister consults people, but we know full well he only does as he pleases. He can do it, he is the boss.

What we are asking him to do is to mention in the bill that a spirit of consultation and co-operation is needed, but he refuses to do so. I am surprised that such motions do not get more support from the other side of the House.

Then the member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke with his usual eloquence and sincere optimism. And what happened right after his speech? We were told a blunt no, as always, on legal grounds. It is not allowed, it cannot be done here, this is not the proper forum. But we are never told where, when or how.

Those with a long experience in this House should help newcomers and say: "If it cannot be done here, it must be done in this other place". And when I say other place, I am not talking about the "other place", as the Senate is called, because it would seem that is not the place where things are done either. It is not where you find the most dynamic and innovative ideas.

From what I understand, that place is more of an extinguisher, a delaying force. Most of the time, it exercises a power to suspend things. Young and dynamic members, such as the member for Gaspé, make very interesting proposals, but what do they do? They

reply that this is not the right place and these are not the right motions.

In conclusion let me say, as the member for Berthier-Montcalm said earlier, that we will have to think about the meaning of the words written in the Liberal program where they mentioned reforming-maybe not the type of reform the Reform Party wants-the parliamentary system of Canada in order to increase the contribution of members of the federal Parliament, who were duly elected to represent their constituents.

We present motions, considered as admissible by the Chair, but we are told this is not in the Constitution and this is not place to do it. Let me finish with the following thought.

I tried to share the optimism of my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, but the reaction of the member for Vancouver Quadra brings us back to reality; this federalism is stuck in glue. Stand-pattism is threatening us all, in that area as in others.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

As agreed, Motions Nos. 36, 44, 45, 50, 53 and 73 are deemed to have been put and recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.

The first question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.