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.