Debates of June 11th, 1996

Petitions

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Erie.

The petitioners pray that Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation which would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which requests that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 44 will be answered today.

Question No. 44-

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Concerning the hovercrafts owned by the Canadian Coast Guard: ( a ) how many are owned; ( b ) where are they based; ( c ) what are their respective descriptions and purposes for which they are used; ( d ) are there plans to acquire new hovercrafts and, if so, for what purposes and according to what schedule; ( e ) what is the estimated value of the present hovercrafts; and ( f ) what is the estimated cost of the planned acquisitions, if any?

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

a) The Canadian Coast Guard has three hovercraft.

b) Two are based at Sea Island near Vancouver and one in Montreal.

c) The Sea Island hovercraft are the SRN6 type which are 48.4 feet long by 25.4 feet wide. Their maximum weight is 24,000 pounds including a cargo capacity of 11,000 pounds. They are used primarily for search and rescue, with one craft being on 30-minute standby, 24 hours per day. The Montreal-based hovercraft is an AP1-88/200 type. It is 80.4 feet long and 35.5 feet wide. Its maximum weight is 105,000 pounds, including a cargo capacity of 30,000 pounds. It is used to maintain navigational aids and break ice in the St. Lawrence River and numerous tributaries, as well as search and rescue.

d) The Canadian Coast Guard has two new hovercraft on order which will be delivered in 1998. One will be assigned to the Laurentian region to replace two obsolete vessels and will be used for maintaining navigational aids, ice breaking and search and

rescue. One will be assigned to Pacific region to replace the two existing craft and will be used primarily as a search and rescue craft, as well as for other tasks.

e) The two hovercraft at Sea Island are over 25 years old; therefore, it is not possible to assign a value to them. The Montreal-based hovercraft is valued at approximately $6 million.

f) The new hovercraft will cost approximately $13 million each.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-13, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions.

Witness Protection Program Act

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

moved:

That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-13, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, be now read the second time and concurred in.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the original wording of clause 9(1) of Bill C-13 provided that the commissioner may terminate the protection given to a protectee if, in the opinion of the commissioner, there had been a misrepresentation or a failure on the part of the protectee to disclose information relevant to the admission process or there has been a breach of the protectee's obligations under the protection of the agreement.

The members of the Senate committee had concerns about the word opinion. They felt the word opinion provided the commissioner with too much discretion in the making of the determination on protective services. Instead the committee voted to require the commissioner to have evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the protectee.

The government can support this amendment. The commissioner must base this decision on the facts of the case which would be open to judicial review in any event. In fact under clause 10 of the bill the commissioner must provide his reasons for ending protective services in writing to enable the protectee to understand the basis for this decision.

It was never intended for this serious decision to be made in an arbitrary manner by the government. Using the word evidence instead of the word opinion underlies this objective and therefore is acceptable by our government.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for essentially the same reasons, I believe the Senate has passed a very useful amendment, substituting the word "evidence" for the word "opinion", a vague term leaving the commissioner unlimited discretion.

When the commissioner terminates protective services under the Witness Protection Program Act, he must base his opinion on material facts that can ultimately be reviewed by the courts. In a country that believes in the rule of law, this is a notable improvement that deserves support.

I would particularly like to thank my friend, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, for all the attention and consideration he gave this issue.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and passed.)

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Oceans Act

[The Speaker]

The debate will centre around Group No. 8 which will include Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56 and 73. As per agreement in the House yesterday, these will have been deemed moved and seconded. We will now proceed to debate.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-98, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 16, with the following: a ) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, shall develop and implement policies''.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 16, with the following: b ) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and coordinate with other ministers,''.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 16, with the following: d ) may, with the approval of the standing committee and in consultation with other minis-''.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 36, on page 16, with the following: d ) may, 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''.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 17, with the following: b ) may enter into agreements with the provincial governments, with any''.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 17, with the following:

"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; and".

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 17, with the following: e ) may, with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, make recoverable expenditures on''.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 18, with the following:

"regulations, with the approval of the provinces affected and of the standing committee,".

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 18, with the following:

"recommendation of the Minister and after obtaining the approval of the provinces affected, may make".

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 19, the following:

"(4) At the request of the standing committee or of a province that is affected by an order made under this section, the Governor in Council shall revoke the order."

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-26, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 28, with the following:

"(i) conduct or cooperate with the provinces and with persons".

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to go ahead immediately; the afternoon may be a bit longer.

I want to be sure I have understood you correctly. The motions are deemed to have been approved, but does that mean that there will be a vote on each one?

Before beginning my 10-minute speech, I would like to be sure I have understood. Last night, it was agreed with members across the way that it was not necessary to call a vote on each one since it was agreed a recorded division would be called on these motions. According to what was agreed, the vote on the first motion will be applied to the others and we will have to live with it.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleague, the agreement reached yesterday will apply today. We have the unanimous consent of the House, and that is how we will proceed. Does that answer your question?

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for those who followed yesterday's proceedings, motions in Group No. 8 have more or less the same purpose as those in Groups Nos. 6 and 7, in that the goal of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is to draw the government's attention to the fact that the integrated ocean management strategy it wants to put in place must be implemented in co-operation with its partners.

This time around, the partners are the provinces that make up Canada. Each of these motions is aimed at reminding legislators that the provinces must be involved.

I even added another notion in these amendments, mainly in Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 40. These three motions revolve around the same idea: allowing the minister or the government to be a little more open. I would like them to get the co-operation of and a form of approval from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Of course, most members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans are from the government party. The opposition is not likely to hijack this bill or to throw a wrench into the process. This would allow the government to become more open, as it tries to establish a partnership through the integrated ocean management strategy.

Most members of the standing committee belong to the government party, but the official opposition and the third party are also

represented. We even have independent and Conservative members; we are very open. The committee is doing its work in the least partisan way possible.

I think that allowing members of this House to first become familiar with the issues in committee would help the government become more open. Second, I always come back to building bridges with the partners, the provinces. This would produce some consistency and everyone would be less surprised.

The main problem in management of things like that is to always ensure that our partners are informed at the same time we are.

If we manage to maintain this trust and this communication, my experience as an administrator tells me that 90 per cent of the problems will be solved before they actually surface.

There are also many other motions. For example, Motions Nos. 44 and 45, which deal with part II of the act. We proposed many motions, but these primarily seek to explain the letter and the spirit of the act.

However, since we are discussing several issues, I wish to point out, for the benefit of the members here and the people watching us at home, that Motions Nos. 44 and 45 relate to the minister's powers. The act provides that the minister may enter into agreements and it lists the groups with which the minister can reach such agreements, to implement the management strategy.

When I read this provision, I realized that the main partners, namely the provinces, are not included in the list. So, like a good team player, I am telling the government that it would be a good idea to include, through Motion No. 44, the possibility of entering into agreements with the provinces, since they are the main partners in the process.

As for Motion No. 45, it provides, as regards the minister's powers, that the minister may make grants to organizations and groups, based on the terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board. Again, since this is something which must be done with the greatest possible spirit of co-operation and with the greatest possible transparency, I am adding to the transparency of the process by specifying that it must be done following the committee's recommendations.

This motion gives the government the opportunity to raise awareness among the hon. members of the various parties represented in this House. But once again, it would not stand in the way of the government, since it still has a majority within the standing committee.

As for Motions Nos. 50 and 53, I am coming back to them in the same spirit as earlier. I am asking that the minister seek approval, and the approval of the provinces affected in particular.

When a decision is made to implement an integrated management strategy in a given area or to act in concert, the key stakeholders, that is to say the provinces, should have a say in the matter. These motions reflect this notion. I have tried-and we have worked at it within the standing committee last year-to sell the notion of partnership. I tried to explain the spirit in which this kind of bill ought to be drafted.

I must confess, however, that I apparently did not succeed in getting the idea across. Yet, the former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, made it clear to me in committee-and we could go back to the proceedings if necessary-that he wanted this bill to be implemented in co-operation, in partnership with the provinces. That is why I feel perfectly free to raise all this again today. Every time I hear that the minister may or shall act in co-operation and how he should go about it, I make sure to repeat to this House that the provinces must be identified as key stakeholders.

To wrap up and conclude, the main goal is to enable the federal government to show the transparency necessary to ensure the integrated management strategies that will have to be put in place will work well.

I will call your attention, if I may, to Motion No. 56. If the department, the minister and the governor in council look at it closely, they will see how far they can take this spirit of partnership.

There are three paragraphs in this clause of the bill and I would like to add a fourth one. Following consultations with the provinces, or a province, the federal government could revoke an order it issued when factors affecting the environment or the community have not been taken into account, since the provinces are closer to the issues than is the federal government. While we are here in Ottawa, provincial governments are closer to the communities.

Again, the recent crab fishery dispute in New Brunswick and in Quebec is a good example. It is the Quebec and New Brunswick fisheries ministers who took immediate action with plant workers.

I will let the fisheries minister answer in due time but, as you can see, it is necessary to include the provinces when talking about integrated ocean management. The provinces concerned are located right along the coasts; they are aware of the issues and they can react accordingly. In some cases, they can warn the federal fisheries minister, thus saving Canadian and Quebec taxpayers money. In other words, let us call on those who are concerned and involved to make sure the strategy is truly effective.

I am now going to sit down, but I will certainly rise again when we discuss the next group of motions.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order before we get into debate.

Because these motions are grouped together-and in this group there are nine or ten-I am not clear on how we are going to deal with them when we vote. Are we going to vote on each one separately or are we going to vote on the group? There are some motions here that we would like to support and some that we cannot support.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me on how these will be dealt with?

[The Speaker]

The voting pattern was agreed on yesterday and it is in front of you now. Is it clear or do you need further clarification?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me now. I appreciate your assistance.