Debates of June 11th, 1996

Oceans Act

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

moved:

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 43, on page 25, the following new Clause:

"39.12 (1) In addition to the procedures set out in the Criminal Code for commencing a proceeding, proceedings in respect of any offence prescribed by the regulations may be commenced by an enforcement officer a ) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion; b ) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused's latest known address; and c ) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.

(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must a ) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission; b ) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence; c ) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid; d ) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused; and e ) include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.

(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.

(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket, a ) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and b ) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to

(i) Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or

(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

(5) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing a ) offences in respect of which this section applies and the manner in which the offences are to be described in tickets; and b ) the amount of the fine for a prescribed offence, but the amount may not exceed $2,000.''

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate again in debate on the oceans act. Specifically I will be addressing government Motion No. 65.

The fisheries and oceans fleet and that assigned to the coast guard became one during last year's turbot war when the red vessels of the coast guard and the grey vessels of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans performed admirably as a team to enforce Canada's commitment to protect straddling stocks and highly migratory fish from foreign predatory overfishing.

In its March 1995 report on the state of the world fisheries the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, highlighted problems of control and pointed toward solutions.

Renewed international attention is focusing on unauthorized fishing and the role of monitoring, control and surveillance. Fisheries conservation and management are being undermined by unauthorized fishing practices. Together with the lack of effective monitoring, control and surveillance systems, this is threatening the sustainability of fisheries.

Enforcement is an important issue when dealing with ocean management. Poaching, dumping and other illegal activities compromise the future of our oceans and of their resources. Over the years Canadians have been confronted with challenges not only to our jurisdiction but to resource conservation and protection measures we exercise within our maritime areas.

Many witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, including the Pacific Fishermen's Alliance, requested clarification on strengthening of the enforcement provisions of the oceans act with the explicit wording to describe the

role of the enforcement officers and the nature of and punishment for offences.

The enforcement provisions have been strengthened through the legislative process. The original bill text submitted to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans only provided a cross-reference to relevant enforcement and compliance provisions of the Canada Wildlife Act.

To improve the clarity of the bill and to make the act user friendly, the standing committee decided that sections 11 to 11.5 and 13 to 19 of the Canada Wildlife Act should be reproduced in the Canada Oceans Act. Unfortunately I hate to mention that although the king can do no wrong sometimes errors are made in the federal government. The last section was omitted when the sections were transcribed.

This section outlines the procedure to be followed in the event of contravention of the act, including the issuance of tickets, notice of forfeiture and payment of fines. This section, which should be clause 39(12), is critical to the application of penalties and fines outlined in the oceans act since it provides authority and guidance for ticketing procedures and authority for the governor in council to make regulations prescribing offences and fines with respect to ticketable offences.

Provision for ticketing provides an efficient and cost effective way of enforcing provisions of the Canada Oceans Act. It allows for speedy disposition of certain offences and avoids lengthy and costly court proceedings.

I therefore recommend that hon. members support MotionNo. 65. It is put forward by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to eliminate ambiguity, to resolve any potential misinterpretation of the enforcement clauses by adding clause 39(12) which was inadvertently omitted from the committee report and for which I offer the apologies of the federal government.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we concur with Motion No. 65. We believe the minister and the enforcement officers need the power under legislation to enforce the act and to ensure that Canada's marine areas are protected to the fullest extent.

The member for Gander-Grand Falls raised an interesting point in his earlier intervention which I will follow up on. It is very counterproductive to have regulations with respect to the requirement of Canadians to obey the law and not to violate the sections of the act we are dealing with.

What happens when Canadians are held to one standard and foreign nationals are held to a completely different standard? I concur with the member's observations with respect to the food fishing that is taking place right now in Atlantic Canada.

For Newfoundlanders it is an offence to go out and catch fish to feed their families. Three miles away in St. Pierre and Miquelon not only is it not an offence, but they are bringing in tourists to catch the same fish. It is ludicrous. If Newfoundlanders have the temerity to go more than three miles off coast and into the waters around St. Pierre and Miquelon, they can catch fish as well without facing the fear of being apprehended, arrested or charged by DFO officers.

We agree with the intent and that there has to be adequate enforcement regulations and legislation within the act. However we question where the government is going when there is one set of standards for people in Newfoundland, another set of standards for people in Gaspé, a different set of standards for people in Nova Scotia, and another one for tourists coming from Europe to fish and to visit St. Pierre and Miquelon.

It is very difficult for Canadians to feel good about the act and to feel that it will do what they would like to see it do when they see this ongoing double standard taking place.

Hopefully with pressure the minister will recognize the failure of the policy he is currently following and will back away from it. Certainly that is the intent we will be pursuing over the next days and weeks.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will address Motion No. 65. This motion is rather technical in nature and I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it deals with an issue which may have been overlooked at the time.

Be that as it may, I am not trying to hurt the feelings of the government, but if it cannot agree now on how to establish a partnership, and if the provinces cannot be included in the process from the outset, how could I support it when it says: "Here is how we will hand out the penalties and fines"? The government should know I will ask my party to vote against Motion No. 65.

I would like to go back to the comments that were just made by the member for Skeena and to those made earlier by the member for Gander-Grand Falls. When he talked about managing the resource, the member for Skeena seemed to say that various applications of the act, or different forms of penalties, would be used, depending on whether an offence is committed on the Gaspé coast, the coast of Newfoundland, or the coast of Nova Scotia.

We must first know what is going on locally. Is a fishery open? If not, why? Earlier, the member for Gander-Grand Falls made a brilliant speech on the migrating ability of the fish found along our coasts. He is right to mention the species that arrive first. There is a

reason for this. For example, squid start south and travel up the coastline, all the way to the gulf, before going back down south to die. Nice place to die, as the member said.

It is the migration of these species that attracts other species. I understand why the member wanted to stress the importance of this fact. This migration process is what attracts other species. The cod will chase these species. This is what is called the food chain. The big ones go after the small ones. In the case of the whale, it really eats much smaller species. It comes into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, around Anticosti Island, in the estuary, to eat shrimp. It is important to realize there is a migration process going on.

Some isolated phenomena also occur as part of that food chain. The member for Gander-Grand Falls is well aware of what I am alluding to. We are talking about two main species. I will talk about the cod in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. There are two main stocks, referred to as 4RS cod and 3Pn cod, that is the one along the north shore in Quebec and the one along the western coast of Newfoundland.

There is cod in the southern part of the gulf. There are mainly two stocks. When indicating that cod sport fishing was still practised over the past few years in the Gaspé Peninsula, the hon. member should mention that it was mainly the stock in that zone, in the southern part of the gulf, that was being caught.

Where he comes from, it is a different stock. What is happening with that stock, how it is faring? As we know, we sometimes see cod of a good size and nice density in a certain bay, but biologists warn us, saying that this is perhaps a reserve and that it should be preserved.

What I am interested in seeing the hon. member do is bring about the disclosure of information for the benefit of the local population. Are the biologists telling the truth? Fishermen and people living in local communities have as much difficulty as we do finding out who is telling the truth on this matter, because it is very difficult to follow.

It even happens at times that biologists do not agree among themselves and that everything they have told us so far-and the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls is right about that-did not turn out as they had predicted. Some things have been left to deteriorate.

This is all very important, and that is why I would like the support of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.

People like Mr. Wells, not Mr. Wells, but his predecessor, play a very important role. They created quite an uproar on the issue of foreign fishing. It all started with his predecessor. Mr. Wells also took some measures. Without all this fuss, would the Parliament of Canada have done everything it did to stop or slow down foreign overfishing? I do not think so. My experience in politics may be limited, but I do know that you have to hit the nail over and over again, once you have identified it, in order to drive it in.

The message has to be understood by the people. That explains why it took three premiers of Newfoundland to try, in their legislative assembly, here, in Ottawa, and through the national media, to make the people of Canada understand that there was a problem off Newfoundland. That problem had no impact at all in the prairie provinces. Someone had to drive it in.

The motions I put forward may need to be rewritten or redrafted, but it is important to realize that they stress the need for the provinces to be consulted first. After all, it was the provinces that formed Canada, so they must have a say for Canada to stand tall and proud. Do you not find it funny that these words were spoken by a sovereignist? The message I want to get through is that for Canada to stand tall and proud, it must really accept the partnership concept.

I do not come here with a sledgehammer ready to hit nor do I hide anything. No. Everyone can see that I am empty-handed. I speak clearly of a definite phenomenon.

As we know, there is a migration. Therefore, it is important that we all discuss it and that the province of Newfoundland get the means to act as soon as it gets a signal: Cod is less abundant today? What happened? Because it takes time for the message to get here, in Ottawa. Newfoundland needs to have the means to immediately call a meeting. The minister responsible for the integrated management partnership will have to be made aware of the situation. It will be there in black and white.

That way, Newfoundland will also be able to call Quebec. It will be able to say: "Let us stop quarrelling about other things, call the Quebec government and tell it we have to do this or that". The Quebec Minister of Fisheries will answer: "You are right. I am glad you told me. OK. We will go to Ottawa together. I want to hear what you have to say to the Canadian Minister of Fisheries". This is real partnership. This is working together.

As I said a while ago, I am aware of the migration process. When Quebec and British Columbia demanded that fisheries management be transferred to the provinces at the Victoria conference in November 1994-and this may be what the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls was afraid of-we never ever asked to manage the fish stocks separately. What we asked for was the right to manage the share of the province, i.e. the right to manage the licences relating to the 25 or 30 per cent of the resources that could be allocated to Quebec or New Brunswick, that could be caught in their own fisheries and that they could themselves share out among their communities, but always in accordance with the basic conservation strategy.

I realize that time flies, and I still have a lot of things to explain. I do not know if we can ask for the House's consent, but I would like to clarify this issue, with the agreement of the House. We could try to examine the kind of true partnership that is required.

Surely, the member for Gander-Grand Falls will stand up in a moment to tell us a bit more. But procedure at report stage does not allow us to look at the issue in greater depth.

In conclusion, you can ask the House if it gives its consent; meanwhile, I will sit down and wait for your ruling.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious problem in fisheries management and that is France. It was only a short time ago that France was given control over that great stretch of ocean that goes out about 150 miles in a straight line. It is a big corridor and France controls it. All the migration the hon. member is talking about, because of the control France has, would all be for naught. How could we manage a fishery when we have the entire doorway to the gulf cut off by France? It is an interesting question.

We do not have any control over those things. We should have control over them but we do not. The Canadian government should have done it the right way but it did not. When France was given that territory, the Government of Canada should have apologized to the people of Canada.

What we can control are the spawning grounds. As the hon. member says, there are a lot of mackerel spawning grounds. They are the best in the world. Control over the spawning grounds does not require provincial input or input from anybody else. All it requires is a bit of common sense. As the hon. member knows, the mackerel now in the second week of June are coming in from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to spawn. They usually start at the end of May.

Chasing them are the blue fin tuna. Who has the highest quota for blue fin tuna in eastern Canada?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

The Japanese.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

The hon. member for Skeena said the Japanese. Could that be correct?

What is the quota for Quebec? Thirty-five tonnes of blue fin. The Japanese have a bycatch of 180 tonnes in Canadian waters. A decent sized blue fin is worth $20,000 or $30,000. That is what is paid for one fish.

Historically we have belonged to the International Tuna Commission which involves three countries: the United States, Japan and Canada. Once a year there is a little get-together. They usually decide that Canada will get the lowest quota of the three. The fattest blue fin tuna are the ones chasing the mackerel into the hon. member's riding.

The Japanese have marvellous boats with helicopters on them. They are incredible vessels. The quotas are given according to the number of vessels. That might run into 10 to 14 vessels. By international agreement they have unlimited quotas for skipjack, albacore, yellow fin and all of the different tuna. We cannot catch them. It would be illegal for someone from Canada to catch them. The Japanese have a bycatch of 180 tonnes and a Canadian province only has a quota of 35 tonnes.

On top of that, the feeder boats come in behind them. They load up on yellow fin, albacore, skipjack, all these tuna, a bit of swordfish is permitted as well, 10 per cent bycatch for these others, and then a bycatch of a 180 tonnes of blue fin, then they go back to Japan. Surely we do not need provincial intervention to see the wisdom of cancelling those quotas.

Also chasing the mackerel is the porbeagle shark. Restaurants in Quebec City or Vancouver sell shark fin soup for $200 and $300 a bowl. Those shark fins come from the porbeagle shark off the coast of Newfoundland. As they head in they follow the continental shelf chasing those very mackerel which are going into the hon. member's riding to spawn. The fins are cut off. Five hundred tonnes for a vessel from Denmark, from the Faroe Islands. In fact the vessel's name is the Bakker .

Far more things can be done that do not require the help or even the suggestion of the provinces, that would maintain the federal government as the manager of the entire fishing resource, as many members have pointed out, as the hon. member for Skeena has just said, as part of the ocean's ecosystem. Members of Parliament should be promoting those things in the House every day.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Gander-Grand Falls and the member for Gaspé who are now having an extremely interesting debate that demonstrates their knowledge of fishery resources. This is a refreshing change from constitutional issues.

One thing concerns me when I read Motion No. 65. This is not in the original bill, it is an addition to it, an addition comprising some twenty paragraphs. In the three years I have been here, I have rarely seen such a technical and precise motion. I would like to draw the House's attention to it.

For example, when the motion says: a ) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion;

this is quite precise language on the subject of tickets and the manner in which they must be completed. The motion goes on: b ) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused's latest known address; and c ) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.

I believe this is obvious. I have rarely seen such wording in a bill.

Subclause (2) then reads:

(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must

(a) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission; b ) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence.

To me, that seems obvious. When an officer decides to complete a ticket it is because he believes that someone committed an offence. I do not see why that should be included in the bill. That reminds me of the time when someone in the municipal council where I was a councillor proposed a bylaw saying that it was forbidden to steal books from the library. We had to argue for five minutes to have him understand that it was not necessary because everybody already knew it was forbidden to steal.

The motion continues: c ) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid; d ) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused.

That too seems obvious to me.

I continue: e )include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.

Since when is an accused not required to appear before the court?

Then subclause (3) states:

(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.

Namely, the Queen. I do not think this will go as far as England, but it does not matter.

(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket, a ) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and b ) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to (i) Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or

and this is what concerns the member for Gaspé when he says that when it is time to collect fines, the provinces have a role to play

(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

Why would the federal government want to give so many details in a piece of legislation? It is really unusual in an act, as opposed to a regulation, to be so specific, unless the federal government wants to have fines collected by provincial civil servants.

This is the new role the federal government wants to hand over to provincial governments. The federal government is doing its planning from Ottawa and it is having trouble. I listen to the member for Gander-Grand Falls. People think that Ottawa can predict all the migrations the member described just now, and I saw him get the member for Gaspé going all over again. I was saying to myself they even know the exact time, the very week. He even says that today the bluefin tuna are going after mackerel. Obviously they have this level of knowledge because they are close to the resource.

This is the concrete proof that this resource should be administered as close as possible not just to the people, but to the fish, the bluefin tuna and the mackerel. I am amazed at such knowledge. In Ottawa, they want to plan things from their turf, and when it comes to writing up tickets, they tell us exactly how. I do not see in the bill a level of detail as astonishing as what we have just heard from the member for Gander-Grand Falls.

I say to myself that it makes no sense to look at the administration of fish resources like this, to talk about regulations, and I could go on. This is the point I am trying to make. I ask the question. I wonder if this is why the federal government wants to deal with the provinces and does not include them in policy planning and development consultations. However, it wants them to have the role of collecting fines. But where is the concern with saving fish and fish resources, when the sort of thing the members are telling us about goes on while the resource is disappearing? While the bluefin tuna is devouring the mackerel, we are sitting here worrying about the form used for fines.

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

According to the agreement, for Group No. 10, the question on Motion No. 65 is deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred.

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 yeas have it.

And more that five members having risen:

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

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 11, which includes Motions Nos. 67, 68 and 70.

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

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-26, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15, on page 26, with the following:

"rine resources and the provision of coast guard and hydrographic services to ensure the facilita-".

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended a ) by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page 26, with the following:

"41. (1) As the Minister responsible for coast guard services, the powers, duties and"; b ) in the French version, by replacing line 7, on page 27, with the following:

"l'intervention environnementale;"; and c ) in the French version, by replacing line 14, on page 27, with the following:

"à (iv) sont dispensés de la manière la plus économique et la plus judicieuse possible."

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 12, on page 27, with the following:

"(2) In accordance to the stipulations contained in subsection 47(2), clause 48.1 and subsection 49(2), services under subparagraphs 41(1)( a )(i)to (iv) shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries.''

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure again to re-enter this marathon debate at Motions Nos. 67, 68 and 70, of which Nos. 67 and 69 are government motions.

The amendments proposed in this group of motions pertain to clauses 40 and 41 of part III of the bill. That, as we all know, describes the powers, duties and functions of the minister. These powers, duties and functions are over and above those already ascribed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by other legislation.

The standing committee has done an admirable job in strengthening this bill, as have all hon. members. When clause 41 was modified by the committee to present the coast guard and hydrographic services as two of the many responsibilities of the minister of fisheries, a corresponding change was not made to clause 40, which also refers to these services.

Government Motions Nos. 67 and 68 propose minor technical amendments to clauses 40 and 41 to ensure uniformity of terminology throughout the bill's text and to clarify the language. This is very important.

I know all members will join with me in supporting Motions Nos. 67 and 68, which maintain the quality and strength in this long awaited legislation.

However, Motion No. 70, proposed by the Reform Party, is not a minor amendment. In our view it would result in a significant additional administrative burden and would add substantially to the cost of doing business.

Motion No. 70 seeks to expand on the clause of the bill that commits to delivering coast guard services in a cost effective manner. The Reform Party motion proposes to restrict the application of this clause by referring to a number of additional amendments whereby the level and scope of coast guard services and the method of delivery should be defined in ongoing consultation with all beneficiaries.

Surely that is going a little too far. At a time when are concerned with reducing government spending, increasing the effectiveness of our interactions with Canadians, this amendment seems offensive and meaningless. What could possibly be meant by all beneficiaries of coast guard services? Surely that is cloud concept.

The concept of ongoing consultations on how and why a minister might deliver his mandate is at best onerous. At worst it is a tremendous strain on the treasury. We all know how hard the finance minister is working to reduce the deficit.

Bill C-26 is committed to the consultative approach and the minister will consult. The government must be allowed to get on with the business of governing to do its job as outlined in the legislation.

Motion No. 70 in our view only serves to add another layer of administration and bureaucracy to the cost of delivery of coast guard services.

I should reiterate that this section of the bill lays out the minister's powers, duties and functions within the bill. These are clear. It is also clear that in order for business to be conducted in a reasonably efficient manner we must let those to whom we have assigned responsibility exercise that responsibility.

It is time we let the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans get on with the job of managing the oceans and we should give him the means to do so. Motion No. 70 in our view tries to limit the minister's ability to exercise his mandate and we suggest it should be rejected.

Motions Nos. 67 and 68, in contrast, are minor technical amendments which will improve the clarity and consistency of the bill. We recommend their acceptance by all hon. members.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, in Motion No. 70 we want to ensure that services provided by the minister shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and scope of such services as well as the manner of their delivery shall be defined in full ongoing consultation with all beneficiaries.

After listening to the parliamentary secretary's intervention I fail to see how anybody could find this offensive. I think it is offensive to those people who will be required to pay fees for services to be required to do so without consultation. When the coast guard last year announced it was to impose a fee for service that is exactly what happened. We heard a hue and cry from one end of the country to the other as a result.

The coast guard initially maintained it was in consultation with shippers and ports across Canada. I know there are members present today who were sitting on the standing committee, the member for Gaspé and the parliamentary secretary, who heard testimony from witnesses from Halifax, from the port of Montreal, from the port of St. John's, from the port of Vancouver. They told the standing committee they had not been properly consulted.

Let us put this into perspective. We are not talking about a small amount of money. In the current year the coast guard, effective June 1 of this year, is intending to collect $20 million from shippers across Canada and from ports. It intends to escalate that to $40 million in 1997, $40 million in 1998 and $60 million in 1999.

We have with this legislation a window of opportunity. We have the opportunity to ensure the minister and the department cannot unilaterally impose fees for services without consultation and without being able to justify that the services they are providing are actually required by the people who will pay for them, that they are being delivered in a cost effective and that they are being delivered in consultation with those people who will have to pay the bill.

Let me lay out the scenario as it took place in 1995-96. Largely due to the fact that the Treasury Board has told the coast guard its budget is to be reduced, it will have to get by with less money or will have to raise more money on its own, the coast guard decided it would raise an additional $20 million in 1996.

It came up with a plan that would have seen a national rate imposed right across the country. It did not relate the imposition of this user fee to any services it was actually providing. Until very recently we have not been able to get much information out of the coast guard as to how much the services it is providing actually cost because the coast guard has not been able to identify them. It has not been able to identify until very recently what services are actually required.

One good thing that has come out of the round of consultations, which is largely the result of the work of the standing committee its members who have insisted there be a great deal more fairness injected into the equation, is that we now have ports on the west coast which have agreed finally that the coast guard is starting to go in the right direction in terms of how it will impose these fees.

Therefore we view this legislation as a window of opportunity to ensure there is accountability, to ensure the minister and the department cannot impose fees without consultation and without being able to justify they are delivering the services the end users are getting in a cost effective manner.

The only thing I find offensive is the suggestion the minister ought to have this power without any accountability whatsoever.

The House resumed from June 4, 1996, consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Copyright Act

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

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act.

Call in the members.

(Motion agreed to on the following division):

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

I declare the motion carried. This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)

The House resumed, from June 10, consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts, be read for the second time and referred to a committee.