Debates of Oct. 15th, 2004

Canada Shipping Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party with respect to Bill C-3. The bill makes a number of changes. It transfers some responsibility from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport.

When I first heard the content of the bill, my initial impression was that these matters already were within the purview of the Minister of Transport. On further investigation I had been led to believe that at one point these matters were part of the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. There were a number of decisions made over the years, and I believe that in 1995 some changes were made.

We heard the parliamentary secretary indicate that in 2001 there were a number of changes that gave responsibilities to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Now the bill changes them back to the Minister of Transport where it should have been in the first place.

We are acknowledging that a mistake was made in transferring these areas of responsibility and the bill corrects the mistakes that were made in the last few years by the Liberal government.

I wish all the mistakes that the government has made could be so easily corrected and with so few consequences. There probably would be unanimous support if we could have a bill that would nullify the sponsorship program for instance. Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we could have saved Canadians if that mistake could be corrected. However we are not able to do that at this point.

The bill allows the Canadian Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission. Anything that allows it to get on with that mission is certainly something I would support. Our discussion could be that a minor mistake was made in transferring this responsibility to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but the mistake has been corrected.

I bet there are many in the Canadian Coast Guard who would agree with me that a much more grievous mistake was the decision to cancel the replacement for the Sea King helicopters. That was a huge mistake. We can only surmise how much better off all of us would be today, including those who protect the country's coastlines and are involved in the security of the country if that mistake had not been perpetrated on our armed forces and the Canadian public.

In any case, we look forward to the bill moving on to committee. There are some good aspects in it. The briefing notes put out by the Department of Transport said that if we did this, the Canadian Coast Guard would be able to focus on its operational mission. We would certainly welcome that.

Certain parts of the Canadian coastline, which could be referred to as the south coast of Canada, are in my riding of Niagara Falls. We welcome any enhancement of Coast Guard activities for search and rescue and security. All of these things would be very welcome.

I am particularly pleased to see some improvement in the ability of the Coast Guard to get back to its operational mission because I believe that while we may consider this a minor mistake, there are other mistakes that have been made with respect to the Canadian Coast Guard.

I will relate to the House a discussion which took place in my former capacity as a regional councillor for the region of Niagara. As all levels of government must do, we were going through a budgetary process.

One of the interesting items in that budgetary process was the amount of money being spent by the Niagara regional police. Border security and surveillance were a considerable part of the budget of the Niagara regional police. As soon as I saw it I said that one does not have to be a constitutional expert to know that these matters of international importance and security and securing our border are the responsibility of the federal government. That is very clear.

It was a legitimate question for me to ask even though the Niagara regional police were not complaining about it. They do an excellent job in everything they do, but I had to ask the question. I said that there were federal government agencies that were supposed to do this. The bottom line was, and it did not come from the Niagara regional police because they were too diplomatic, the money was not being spent by the federal government. Despite security taxes and all the difficulties the world has seen over the last few years, the money is not being spent.

Therefore, when I see a bill like this one, I am happy that some consideration is being given to the Coast Guard to free it up to get on with its operational mission. We welcome that. However, I have to go back again and ask why the government has not done that. There is a long tradition of the Niagara regional police taking it upon themselves, picking up the slack and worrying about national security.

Earlier today there were a number of references to the important Privy Council decision that was initiated by five Canadian women that was such a landmark for Canadian women. As I was gathering my thoughts about speaking to this bill, I thought of a Canadian heroine from the Niagara area, Laura Secord.

Laura Secord was a resident of the village of Queenston. She was not a part of the military; she was a civilian. She was like many people in Niagara and so many Canadians. It came to her attention on an afternoon when the Americans had taken over her home that there would be an imminent attack on the British forces. She walked 18 miles from Queenston to Beaver Dams to warn the British that an attack was imminent. I thought, this is a part of our long tradition.

The Niagara regional police in having to worry about and spend money on international security and do the job of the federal government is just part of a long tradition that we have had in that area. It goes back to people like Laura Secord. It goes back to Butler's Rangers who were located in my riding.

Part of my riding now includes the town of Fort Erie. There is a great incident in Canadian history, just before Confederation. Several hundred misguided fools under the name of the Fenians crossed the border from Buffalo into Fort Erie. The first people to meet them were not British regular forces. There were not the Canadian militia. They were a group of farmers from the Niagara area who first met them at Ridgeway. That became the battle of Ridgeway. They stepped into the breach to make sure that our country was protected.

I cannot leave the subject without mentioning the great work of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment and all that it has done to secure our country.

When I look at what is going on with the Coast Guard, the federal government has made a great move here. It has helped the Canadian Coast Guard by taking away some responsibilities and admitting that a mistake was made in the last decade. The government needs to do something more for the Canadian Coast Guard. Give it the tools it needs. It should not be depending on the property taxpayers of the Niagara region for jobs in the area of security and search and rescue that are more properly under the purview of the federal government.

I am pleased to have made these few comments. I welcome this bill. I welcome the government's admission to its mistakes. We are very interested in consensus. It can bring in bills. We will probably be very busy this session if the government brings in bills to correct the mistakes that have been made in the last 10 years. The government can bring them forward and it will find that all parties will welcome correcting that which has been done in the past.

I certainly look forward to the bill going to the transport committee. I and other members of that committee can decide on the witnesses we would like to have. I look forward to the bill proceeding through parliament.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in return I welcome the hon. member back to the House and congratulate him on his new posting. I remember serving with him here as a novice under the government of Brian Mulroney. Under the leadership of Kim Campbell, he was appointed a privy councillor. I welcome him back. He has the spirit and the comradely that we all have.

I am sure every government has its own misfortunes and mistakes that one could criticize. The hon. member would certainly agree with me that no other government made more mistakes than the government of Brian Mulroney. The member was not a minister in that government but he was a member of it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember the fall 1993 election very well. The Liberal Party went to no end to tell the country how strongly it was against the United States free trade agreement, how tough it would be with NAFTA, how it would abolish the GST, and these were mistakes of the previous government. After a lifetime of watching Canadian politics, in the end I could not believe that the government would change it, nor did it.

These were the big three things the Liberals talked about for years and in the 1993 election. When they had power, with a majority, they did nothing in those areas. Why? Because, ultimately, they agreed with them. Despite all the bluster and all the noise they made in the election, they supported the big three things from that era.

The hon. member has said that all governments make mistakes. The Liberal government makes a mistake every year by trying to guess the revenues of the country. It has mis-guessed the surplus every year. Mistakes are made, but the government might want to get some new people to advise it. That might be a good move. Why do we not bring in a bill suggesting that whoever has been advising the government for the last seven years as to what its revenues are should be fired. I bet we would get a consensus on that one. Is there anybody in the House who would disagree with bringing in a bill to get new people to advise the Liberals? We would all be better off and Canada as a whole would be better off.

The member is right. Every government makes mistakes, some more so than others. That is why we are here in the 38th Parliament. As he and all members will find, we will work with them to correct those mistakes. We will be glad to do it.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, may I take advantage of this, my first speech in this House, to thank all the people in my riding of Alfred-Pellan for their confidence in me. I will do my best to defend their interests here and to ensure that the jurisdiction of Quebec is respected.

Today I would like to fulfill part of that commitment by taking part in the debate on the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is, in fact, nothing more than a step backward

In 1995, the responsibilities involved in this bill were transferred from the Department of Transport to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Since then, however, it has become evident that certain responsibilities overlapped and were creating confusion, so today that transfer is being partially reversed.

On December 12, 2003, when the present Prime Minister took office, policy and operational responsibilities were transferred by order in council from Fisheries and Oceans to Transport. The purpose of this bill is therefore to clarify the legislation and regularize that order.

However, the bill does not reflect the March 2004 report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans regarding the Canadian Coast Guard. This was a unanimous report, but the bill only proposes cosmetic changes that would merely split, once again, certain responsibilities between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The situation is as confused as ever and the real issues facing the Coast Guard are not addressed.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking for a long term solution to settle the underfunding problems of the Coast Guard and to clear the confusion regarding the division of responsibilities for boating safety and marine pollution prevention.

Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the principle of Bill C-3. In its report entitled “Safe, Secure, Sovereign: Reinventing the Canadian Coast Guard”, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stressed the Canadian Coast Guard's inability to meet the challenges that it is facing now and that it will face in the foreseeable future. The report says, and I quote:

The Committee has therefore come to the conclusion that the problems at the Coast Guard cannot be resolved by incremental adjustments to the organization. This amounts to a band-aid solution that only treats the symptoms without getting at the roots of the Coast Guard’s problems.

Committee members identified several problems. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has never succeeded in truly integrating the Coast Guard into its operations. The report contains the following:

It is clear that the two organizations have different mandates, corporate cultures and philosophies, and that the merger of the two has been a disaster for the Coast Guard.

In the presentations made by the department to the committee, during our review of the department's estimates, in May 2003, the initiatives relating to the Coast Guard represented the smallest part of the department's priorities. Yet, the Coast Guard's work force, assets and responsibilities are comparable to those of other organizations at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Indeed, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard account for 30% of DFO's budget.

The Coast Guard is also suffering from serious underfunding, since anticipated and authorized spending is always greater than actual spending. This shows that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has always deprived the Coast Guard of adequate funding. Therefore, the committee said that the Coast Guard should get adequate funding and have its own budget.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-10 be referred to committee before second reading.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thus, Mr. Speaker, the lines of accountability will be clearer and the Coast Guard's programs cannot be trumped by some other agency's priorities.

The committee also pointed out that the organization is understaffed, and I quote:

Its officers are overworked, stressed and demoralized. The Coast Guard requires the human and physical resources, ships, manpower, modern technology, and funding to do the job. The probability that the Coast Guard will get these resources within DFO, which has its own financial pressures and a different set of priorities, is, in our view, minuscule.

Finally, the Coast Guard does not play an important role in security. The Committee believes that, in addition to its traditional responsibilities, the Coast Guard should have its mandate expanded to include coastal security.The committee therefore concluded that the Canadian Coast Guard should be a stand-alone federal agency reporting directly to the minister responsible.

We think the recommendations in the unanimous report dated March 2004 should be implemented. The Bloc Quebecois wants therefore to see a renewed Coast Guard established as an independent civilian federal agency.

We also recommend that the Canadian Coast Guard be governed by a new Canadian Coast Guard Act, which would set out the roles and responsibilities of the Coast Guard. These would include: search and rescue; emergency environmental response; a lead role among the several federal departments involved in marine pollution prevention.

We believe that the Canadian Coast Guard be given full operational funding sufficient to carry out its existing roles as well as the expanded mandate and additional responsibilities recommended in the report of the standing committee.

We also call on the federal government to make an immediate commitment to provide the Canadian Coast Guard with an injection of capital funding to pay for fleet renewal, upgraded and modernized shore-based infrastructure and the implementation of new technology.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support Bill C-3. We believe that the only solution here is the establishment of an independent agency as recommended in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first speech, I would like to start by thanking the people of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for voting for me to represent them.

I would like the hon. member who just spoke to know that I completely agree with his speech, especially the points on the unanimous report on the Canadian Coast Guard by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Having indirectly been involved—at the time I was the legislative assistant to the member for Matapédia—Matane, who worked on this report—I know that the Canadian Coast Guard is badly off. It has almost no money or support for its duties and functions. A simple cosmetic change, as the hon. member was saying, will not prevent disaster from occurring.

It is a matter of safety at sea. It is also a matter of responding to possible distress calls at sea. Given the region that I represent, I know of many situations where it was apparent that funding for the Coast Guard was inadequate.

That is why I support the hon. member's comments. I invite him to continue in this vein, because I think it is necessary to fight strongly for proper funding for the Coast Guard to allow it to meet the challenge of improving its chances.

I thank the hon. member for his speech and I urge him to continue championing the Coast Guard.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his encouragement.

My intention was precisely to ensure that the government does not simply transfer public service positions administratively between departments. I believe that the government ought to take a more serious approach, especially since a report was tabled by a standing committee which looked at the whole issue and made recommendations. This is a report by a committee of the same government. It does not make sense to have before us today a bill that is simply transferring public servants from one department to the other, without offering any solution to the problem.

Because of the current international security problems we are facing, the Coast Guard is likely to play a more major role in the protection of the country. This is but one thing that should be included in the mandate of the new Canadian Coast Guard agency.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, one of the boundaries of the riding of Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is the magnificent St. Lawrence River. During the second term, we took part in an important press conference about the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. At that time, ice-breaking and dredging services were mentioned. As far as I can see in this bill, there is still very little improvement regarding the Coast Guard.

I would like to ask my colleague to remind the House what recommendations the Bloc Quebecois made in March 2004, when this important issue was discussed at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not there when the committee report was drafted. What I have done for the moment is to rely directly on the unanimous report, which provides an even greater argument for government action, since that report had the unanimous support of all committee members.

I am sure that the recommendations of the Bloc Quebecois are included in it. By our very presence we gave our unanimous support.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak briefly to Bill C-3. I want to indicate at the outset that the NDP is prepared to support the bill in principle. In our view it is the proper thing for us to be referring it to committee where it is extremely important that it be given careful consideration.

It is not a bill that contains a lot of new initiatives. It appears on the fold, by and large, to be a reorganizational effort of government, one that, on the face of it, seems to be quite supportable. We believe it is important for it to be carefully analysed at committee, and my colleague, the NDP transport critic, the hard-working member for Churchill, will no doubt be her usual detailed self in applying careful scrutiny to the bill at the committee level.

We are essentially dealing with an omnibus bill, one that effectively reverses most of the changes that were made to the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport in by the Liberals in 1994. I think we are all attempting to look forward and not waste a lot of time in the House by beating up on the government for its sins and omissions in the last 10 years.

I do not disagree for a moment with the comments made by other members that one of the true fiascos in the mandate of the government over the last decade was the mishandling of the coast guard. There clearly have been serious concerns created by the erosion of the capacity of the coast guard and by the problems created around where the coast guard's mandate kicks in and where Fisheries leaves off. As a result, there have been problems with overlap and with severe gaps. Generally, the role of the coast guard has not been possible to discharge even by the hard-working men and women who are employed to carry out the coast guard's responsibilities.

It is welcomed. We see the government facing up to some of the problems that have been created. However, it remains to be seen whether in the reorganization we will see the kind of effective enforcement around marine safety, environmental protection, pollution control and so on, which is extremely important. It will be very important to ensure that these functions are discharged in a competent and effective way.

I want to go directly to what is actually the smallest part of the bill. I want to do so for a couple of reasons. I refer specifically to the reference to Sable Island. I will quickly refer to the bill itself, a tiny element in the bill, subsection 136(2) which reads:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations

(a) respecting the administration and control of Sable Island;

(b) specifying classes of persons, or appointing persons, to ensure compliance with regulations made under paragraph (a) and specifying their powers and duties; and

(c) respecting maritime search and rescue.

I take the opportunity this afternoon to hone in on that aspect of the bill for a couple of reasons. One is that it is a little known fact, but I have the privilege of representing Sable Island as part of the Halifax constituency. It does not seem particularly logical on the face of it. When we look at the map, it is not exactly immediately adjacent to Halifax.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

How many constituents?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

The parliamentary secretary asks a very good question. How many constituents are there on Sable Island? That gets to the heart of the matter that I want to address in my brief comments.

At any one time there are rarely more than four persons resident on Sable Island. The human presence on Sable Island has been critically important. There has been a very important human presence on the island, literally for over a century. It is important in terms of quality. It is important in terms of the vast array of responsibilities that are discharged and projects that are managed by the tiny staff at the Sable Island operations. However, numerically we are talking about a very small number of people.

What that belies and does not adequately convey is the tremendous value that human presence on Sable Island has and the value of the wide range of scientific research projects and environmental research activity that goes on there. A synergy exists between and among the many different projects that are involved, which pulls together government departments, academicians, scientists, in some cases corporate partners, and the actual activity that goes on in the island itself.

This is an ecological gem and there is extremely important research taking place on everything from climate change to the transmission of pollutants, to very important ecological research around some rare species, plant and animal, birds and others. Of course it is best known for its horses, but there is a variety of rare species on this island. It is an ecological gem. It is an important scientific base of activity that is forward looking. However, it has essentially been orphaned by the government.

The question that arises in stipulating that Sable Island now will fall into the mandate of the transport department, respecting administration and control of Sable Island, is a very good thing, if it means the government will finally step forward and provide not just the kind of stable, ongoing funding for the operation for Sable Island--

[An hon. member]

We could call it “Stable Island”.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

We could call it stable island where it refers to the horses, although there are no stables for those wild horses. That is one of the reasons there are such wonderful photographs.

An appropriate management and governance structure is desperately needed to deal with this vast array of complex operations that each in their own right have tremendous value. However, if we single them out individually, they are not of great significance to any one government department.

We have had the situation where a little of what goes on Sable Island is the business of fisheries and oceans, a little is the purview of Environment Canada and some of it with respect to wildlife and parks. As a result, it is kind of everyone's business but nobody's business in terms of putting in place a government structure that works.

I do not want to dwell on this in the spirit of moving forward. I think we can say without fear of contradiction that the existing crisis with respect to a sustainable future for Sable Island is one of the most dramatic examples of the misguided decisions made at the hands of the finance minister, starting with that infamous budget in 1995. Everything possible was done to find an excuse to offload, to download, to privatize, to somehow, in the name of deficit elimination and debt reduction, shift off the public books the accounting for important functions in the Canadian government.

What happened on Sable Island, which is not the only example but one of the most dramatic examples, is that Sable Island was essentially removed from any real public accountability, with accompanying reduction in dollars and cents. The fact was that any clear departmental responsibility for the overall operation of that centre, so that it was accountable, effective, efficient and its work was known, understood and maintained on an ongoing basis, was sacrificed when the government created the Sable Island nature preservation society. I hope I have that right. I am actually a member of that society because I support its important work.

The decision to create a board in the form of that nature society, a board with no real powers and no representation on the board to link it in any effective way to the respective government departments responsible for various aspects of the functions going on at Sable Island, was absolutely misguided. I want to be fair about this, I do not mean it in a pejorative sense, but some hard-working, well-meaning volunteers have suffered the frustration of being handed over the responsibility to maintain, operate and oversee the Sable Island operation without actually having any effective tools with which to do that. I am not just talking dollars and cents.

The problem is not only that they have not been given anything like an adequate budget but they themselves say, and have said so publicly and at their annual meetings, some of which I have attended, that they have not been effectively linked in any government sense of actually managing the operation to the various government departments which have responsibilities there.

It has been an exercise in frustration. The appropriate role for that voluntary effort through a trust board would be on the public education and public awareness side of the operation. However, when it comes to the extremely important functions that go on there, it is desperately important that the government not only says that now the responsibility for the administration and control of Sable Island is effectively, if this act is implemented in this form, lodged with Transport Canada but that the governance structure created will have the appropriate representation and accountability that goes with the full range of important activity.

I do not want to dwell on the problems but the reason it is important for us to understand the problems is because what happens on that island is so important.

Recently at a public meeting called together by concerned citizens and stakeholders in the operations at Sable Island, over 250 people turned out with almost no publicity in my riding at St. Mary's University to come together and ask what was going to be done to ensure a healthy sustainable future for this environmental and scientific gem. It was rather casually indicated that the government really did not have a problem with there not being a human presence on Sable Island any more and that people could come and go as needed.

That is a financial disaster because it is incredibly inefficient to imagine trying to manage the comings and goings in a safe way. Environmentally it is a disaster because it is a very fragile ecosystem and one for which it is important to ensure that there is not just free range and free rein for people coming and going to trample across the island and jeopardize that future. In terms of economic efficiency, it makes absolutely no sense.

For value for dollar, the Sable Island operation is an incredible bargain for Canadians. My concern about the legislation is that we cannot just say that now it is Transport Canada's responsibility without ensuring that it is discharged through effective cooperation, collaboration and consultation with the many different areas of public policy in the government departments that are involved.

It was a thrill for me to actually tour the operation at Sable Island a while ago, as did my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. The visit cemented our view that this must be addressed as an urgent priority and I hope that will result from the decision to finally clearly indicate that it does rest with Transport.

I say with sadness that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been a terrible disappointment in his refusal to really address this issue. He is the political minister for Nova Scotia designated by the Liberal government but he has yet to visit the island or provide any response to the crisis that is looming there. I hope that what we will see in response to this change is a serious move at the highest government level to create an appropriate government structure.

Several excellent and comprehensive articles have been written on Sable Island that I would commend to people to read. There was a very good summation recently in the Toronto Star by reporter Kelly Toughill. There was also a very good article recently by Kevin Cox in the

Globe and Mail.

If people want to understand what an ecological gem and scientific treasury this is, it is really worth them acquainting themselves with what is going on there. I hope we can all pull together around ensuring that the job gets done for the future sustainability of that Canadian treasure, Sable Island.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will I am sure allow me a few moments to thank the people of my riding for the confidence shown in me on June 28. My family is in my thoughts today, my great-grandmother in particular, who kindled in me the flame that has guided me to this day.

Judging from the comments by the member for Halifax, does she not think that her criticisms might be answered by implementation of the recommendations in the March 2004 unanimous report? I am thinking in particular of the recommendation that a renewed Canadian Coast Guard be established as anindependent civilian federal agency. Then there is the recommendation that the Canadian Coast Guard be given full operationalfunding sufficient to carry out existing roles as well as theexpanded mandate and additional responsibilitiesrecommended in this report. And lastly, the recommendation that the federal government make an immediate commitmentthat the Canadian Coast Guard receive an injection of capitalfunding to pay for fleet renewal, upgraded and modernizedshore-based infrastructure and the implementation of newtechnology.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not fully understand the hon. member's question. I heard it in French and then I changed to the interpretation channel. I am not sure I fully understood it.

I think the question had to do with adequate ongoing funding for the Coast Guard. As I indicated in my own remarks, this has been a serious problem.

We know we have aging vessels at a time when our marine safety and the various functions carried out by the Coast Guard are incredibly important. Whether they have to do with fisheries, pollution control or safety considerations, they need to be adequately funded. I do not think there is anything here that would address that fact nor would we necessarily expect that to be the case.

However, in response to the question, I am sure the hon. member is aware that my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has been extremely vocal and vigilant on this topic. He was a very solid contributing member to the fisheries and oceans committee when it grappled with this and came back with a recommendation that the situation had to be changed, both with respect to the resources and to the Coast Guard being basically reinvented in terms of having the mandate that is required for it to carry it out.

If I have not addressed the question directly, I apologize for my inadequate French and the fact that I was trying to switch to the translation at the time.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on this for any length of time, but Sable Island still does not get transferred over to Transport Canada. It still remains with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

However, I acknowledge and have listened very carefully to the member's comments and I will take that up with both my minister as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I will work with the member to ensure that this gem, as she puts it, still remains a gem for our future generations to enjoy.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his clarification. I perhaps misunderstood, which is why it is important for us to listen to each other and raise these questions, but in the stipulation in the bill the governor in council will make regulations respecting the administration and control of Sable Island.

The reason I totally focused in on that is because I think the reason for the very crisis we have is that there are not sufficient regulations with respect to the administration and control. If I am understanding this correctly, the responsibility for the administration and control of Sable Island is more explicitly being spelled out within the context of transport.

I know I am not allowed to ask a question in response to his comments, but I hope the parliamentary secretary will take the opportunity to fully explain exactly where the responsibility will lie, because this is the problem, to finally deal with the administration of Sable Island through a governance structure that can actually get the job done.

As I said earlier, it has been effectively orphaned because everybody has a piece of the action, but nobody really takes the responsibility. There was a completely failed attempt by the Privy Council Office in the run up to the election. It was going to come up with a definitive proposal in June on how the governance of Sable Island would finally be effectively discharged.

It would be much appreciated if some light could be shed on what happened to that commitment and that investment of time and energy on the part of a lot of the partners and stakeholders to come up with an appropriate multi-partner structure. What happened? There do not seem to be any answers. It seems to have gone up in smoke and disappeared.

Perhaps some light could be shed in this debate on what the status of that initiative is and where it goes from here. Is it in fact an accurate understanding that Transport Canada will now address this subject once and for all?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with pleasure to the comments by the hon. member for Halifax, as she described the beauty of Sable Island and the importance of preserving its environment. I share her concerns.

Still, the departmental presentation of the bill correctly says that there will be no fundamental change made to the legislation, that the rules remain the same, and that the powers and duties of the minister remain the same as well.

Thus, I do not see how my hon. colleague can support this bill since it sorts out nothing in the end. It answers none of our concerns, from the protection of Sable Island to many other issues.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member because I think they underscore the concern.

The reason I have taken the opportunity today in this debate to spell out what I think are very serious problems, in fact a crisis with regard to the future of Sable Island, is that questions remain unanswered. By just putting in the bill responsibilities with respect to the future administration of Sable Island does not get us to where we need to go, which is to have an appropriate government structure.

I assume that part of the purpose of having this general debate before it then goes to committee is to raise the concerns that need to be addressed and to seek clarification on the extent to which those really serious problems will be addressed, how they will be addressed and, if this is not adequate legislation, to ensure that happens and then to push for the kinds of amendments or changes that are needed within the legislation or within some other purview to ensure that we do not literally fritter away and eventually destroy this wonderful ecological treasure and environmental setting.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

I am pleased to rise today to address the House about the importance of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, that has been tabled by my colleague, the Minister of Transport.

The bill reflects the government's initiative to reform the ways of promoting safety on the waterways and protection of the marine environment. In the past, responsibility for policy relating to marine safety and the protection of the marine environment has been divided between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport.

The government has now consolidated the rule making responsibility under a single department to furnish stakeholders with a single point of contact for policy issues related to marine safety. This will make the marine regulatory framework more responsive, coherent and consistent. It will also free the Canadian Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission, including search and rescue.

This machinery of government bill is nonetheless an important piece of legislation because of its benefits for the shipping industry and marine activities as well as marine transport.

I would like to provide some statistics. Canada is home to the largest inland waterway open to ocean shipping. Every year over 40 million passengers and 17 million vehicles travel by ship in Canada representing over 15% of worldwide ferry traffic. Marine is the dominant mode of overseas trade with annual shipments in excess of $100 billion. Over 75,000 small commercial vessels ply our waters. The Canadian marine transportation sector directly employs more than 25,000 people. The number of Canadians who take advantage of our waterways for recreational purposes is estimated at around 8 million and they do so in 2.5 million pleasure vessels.

This large scale economic and recreational activity is generally conducted in a way that is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly. Shipping uses less fuel per tonne of cargo than does any other mode of transportation. Hence the great importance in the marine sector of a transparent and predictable regulatory system that accomplishes public policy objectives efficiently while eliminating unintended impacts, to use the language of the Speech from the Throne. A regulatory system must be securely founded on clear laws.

To quote again from the Speech from the Throne, “Smart government also includes providing an up-to-date legislative framework for business”. Although technical in form the bill would improve the way government does business. Rule making would be better coordinated and more accessible to Canadians meaning better protection for seafarers, the public and the marine environment, as well as clear rules and processes to promote a competitive marine transportation sector.

I would like to reaffirm my support for Bill C-3 as tabled by my colleague today.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be splitting my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. Please allow me, as well, to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to support Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, that has been introduced by my colleague the Minister of Transport.

The bill clearly outlines the changing responsibilities mainly affecting the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as brought about by the Prime Minister's decision last December and reflected in the related orders in council.

It is a positive move, not only for the government but also for those who are governed in the marine world by a variety of legislation which can be confusing and difficult to find who is responsible and for what.

This change is encouraging as it would provide Transport Canada the responsibility for policy relating to pleasure craft, marine navigation services, pollution response and navigable waters protection. It would provide a single focal point for the majority of ship, vessel or pleasure craft safety matters as well as protection of the marine environment from vessel spills.

Many stakeholders will see this as a move in the right direction. I am aware how difficult it has been to identify, within the Canada Shipping Act, areas of responsibility covered by Transport Canada and those of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I too realize that the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 was drafted to clarify the division of responsibilities. It is an improvement but in fact, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 does not offer one-stop service in matters of security.

For example, in an accident involving a pleasure craft and a commercial vessel, there will certainly be representatives of Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the scene. Obviously, this could lead to confusion for those involved, and be seen as a duplication of services. We must correct this situation at all costs.

The bill will correct and clarify who will be responsible under those acts. It is reassuring to know that the same department will be responsible for the safety regimes for all vessels. This can only lead to further harmonization in the development and application of regulations and standards.

I also understand that the bill does not contain any changes in policy, and the changes reflecting the new and more appropriate responsibilities of the Minister of Transport will not create any new resource burden for the government. It just makes sense.

In conclusion, I would like to restate my support for this bill. It is appropriate and it clarifies responsibilities. It provides Canadians with one-stop service in terms of marine safety and does so without unwanted financial impact.

In plain words, it makes sense. The throne speech said we would streamline legislation and regulations to enable government to work better and smarter. Bill C-3 does just that.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want the new Liberal member for Ottawa—Orleans—I wonder if there has been an amalgamation in this sector, in any event, Ottawa and Orleans were amalgamated in the case of the name of my colleague's riding—to tell me whether he is taking into account the recommendations in the unanimous report tabled in March 2004.

Is he aware of this situation and does he approve of the recommendations?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the government is fully aware of this report. It is not the intention of current legislation to address this issue, but I think that the Prime Minister has announced that in the not so distant future this situation will be taken into consideration.