Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume discussion of the oceans act. I am addressing in particular Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.
I have been impressed with the sincerity and quality of the arguments made by the hon. member for Gaspé. If I have made comments during the course of this very long debate on the choice of arenas for the solution to particular problems, it is because our constitutional system, any good constitutional system, rests on respect for constitutional roles and missions of different organs, including in this case parliamentary committees.
Some of the proposals the hon. member makes in the interstices of discussion of the oceans act go to relations between the different institutions of government. The submission of the minister to decisions of the governor in council following on decisions by standing committees is an interesting proposal. It has memories of the United States congressional committees and their attitude to the presidency, although the nearer model would be la convention, that interesting example of government by assembly one had in the early 1790s. There is nothing to say against this proposal as a pure proposal. I would simply say that neither the fourth nor the fifth French republics have followed it. It is not our system. It may well be that in the discussion of fundamental constitutional change we should get into that. But this is not the proper arena for it.
I would suggest to the hon. member that he might ask his party to consider putting him up for the committee on procedure and House affairs, which is a de facto constitutional committee and addresses structural problems of this sort. Having been invited as an expert
witness before this committee recently, I can testify to the very high intellectual quality of all the hon. members from all parties who were represented there.
Some of the other suggestions on federal-provincial relations are interesting and topical. A first ministers conference is coming up. One of the provincial premiers has already raised marine issues as a topic for discussion. These are issues that could be discussed there with some value for us all.
Getting back to the specific issues before us and addressing the points concerned, I note the responsibility of Canada to conserve and protect the vast marine ecosystems off our three coasts for present and future generations. We recognize the increasing stresses on our ocean environments, particularly our coastal areas.
The standing committee of which the member for Gaspé was a valuable and hard working member heard from Canadians from all coasts.
In Bill C-26, marine protected areas are described as areas of the sea designated for the conservation, protection of endangered or threatened marine species and their unique habitats, commercial, non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals and their habitats and any other marine resource or habitat that is necessary to fulfil the mandate.
To many Canadians this is one of the most important clauses of the Canada oceans act. It will be a milestone in Canada's oceans history.
In addition to this clause, Bill C-26 contains regulation making powers with respect to the marine protected areas described above. It prescribes measures for creating these areas in emergency situations.
In a situation where a marine resource or habitat is at risk or likely to be at risk, we will take action immediately. This is part of the precautionary approach described in the preamble to the act, erring on the side of caution.
Government Motion No. 55 seeks to correct the transcription error in this section to allow for the protection of marine resources or habitats that are or likely to be at risk rather than as it is currently written, which does not provide for protection of marine resources or habitats that are at risk. This motion also makes the French and English texts of the bill consistent in this section.
On the other hand, in our view, the Bloc in Motion No. 54 seeks to limit the establishment of emergency marine protected areas to the protection of fisheries resources only. This in our view flies in the face of the ecosystem approach. There is more in Canada's oceans than just those species we consume and many of those species and ecosystems require protection too. Therefore, in our view, Motion No. 54 should be rejected.
The Bloc attempts to impose similar limitations in MotionNo. 92, where it is proposed to amend Environment Canada's Canada Wildlife Act to apply only to fisheries resources.
We find this unacceptable for the obvious reason that the Canada Wildlife Act is legislation to protect the wildlife of this nation, not just fisheries resources. Therefore, we recommend rejection of Motion No. 92.
On a similar theme, Motion No. 71 by the Bloc proposes to restrict the minister's mandate for research to fisheries resources only. The bill commits to an ecosystem approach to managing our oceans. Ocean ecosystems consist of all the fisheries resources. To restrict the minister's mandate for research to only fisheries condemns us to ignorance of natural processes at work in our oceans.
This is not the intent of the legislation. In fact, Motion No. 71 is totally contrary to the ecosystem approach proposed in the legislation and supported by Canadians. We recommend rejection of the motion.
On another matter, Motion No. 69 by the Bloc proposes to expand the powers of the minister to include the regulation of construction, inspection, equipment and operation of all boats. This clause currently only refers to pleasure craft.
While I am sure the minister is flattered by the Bloc's confidence, the responsibility for regulation of construction, inspection, equipment and operation of commercial vessels remains within the mandate of another minister, the Minister of Transport. As such, Motion No. 69 should be defeated and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should remain responsible only for pleasure craft.
In summary, I recommend that an effort be continued to protect the marine resources of Canada's three oceans for generations to come. Members of this House should reject the Bloc MotionsNos. 54, 71 and 92 and support the government technical amendments in Motion No. 55.
Furthermore, I urge that Motion No. 69 be rejected. It proposes to expand the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as I already said, for marine safety, to commercial ships which is clearly the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.