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.