Debates of Oct. 18th, 2004

The House resumed from October 12 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment as amended.

Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following amendment:

That the amendment to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne be amended by replacing all of the words after the words “partisanship to address the public interest” with the words:

“That Your Excellency's advisors consider the advisability of the following:

1. An order of reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities instructing the committee to recommend measures that would ensure that all future uses of the employment insurance program would only be for the benefit of workers and not for any other purpose.

2. Opportunities to further reduce the tax burden on low and modest income families consistent with the government's overall commitment to balanced budgets and sound fiscal management.

3. An order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance instructing the committee to make recommendations relating to the provisions of independent fiscal forecasting advice for parliamentarians including the consideration of the recommendations of the external expert.

4. An order of reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs instructing the committee to recommend a process that engages citizens and parliamentarians in an examination of our electoral system with a review of all options.

5. With respect to an agreement on ballistic missile defence, the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior to a government decision; and

we ask Your Excellency's advisors to ensure that all measures brought forward to implement the Speech from the Throne, including those referred to above, fully respect the provinces' areas of jurisdiction and that the financial pressures some call the fiscal imbalance be alleviated.

Mr. Speaker, discussions were held between the Prime Minister, myself and the leader of the Bloc Québécois on this matter about eight days ago and, subsequent to that, extensive discussions have been held among the House leaders, and I think you would find unanimous agreement that this is a significant amendment. It covers major issues on which the public has concerns. By putting many of these things to committee, we would allow the opposition and the House in general to retain considerable input into the development of proposals.

I thank everyone involved, the House leaders and their staffs, and particularly my own House leader for his role in this, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, whom we all depend on greatly.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise on behalf of my party to indicate that we agree to amend the amendment to include a number of concerns which were raised during the election campaign, more specifically the use of the employment insurance fund only for workers' benefits; second, the opportunity for this House to discuss the whole issue of the defence shield; and finally, anything in connection with the fiscal imbalance and provincial areas of jurisdiction.

One lesson we must learn from the election, and that the negotiations we conducted, this weekend in particular, further reinforced, is that every party is prepared to help make things better, as long as the wishes expressed on June 28 are respected.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we want to acknowledge here the results of these discussions and we will be supporting the proposals brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

There have been extensive discussions and they have produced a very positive result. It sets a good tone for the work that the House can now embark upon.

Members will know that it has been a particular preoccupation of ours that electoral reform and proportional representation be considered by Canadians. We are off in a very positive direction to do that now. In fact, we will bring a motion to the standing committee in order to encourage public hearings on that matter.

On the question of national missile defence, we have called for a vote in the House. Now that it has been agreed to in the motion, we have made a significant step, all of us together, in terms of addressing the democratic deficit. We will bring a motion to the foreign affairs committee calling for public hearings on this matter to ensure that full information is indeed available.

On employment insurance, I want to salute the work of all parties to have the large surplus that has not gone toward the workers addressed by the House. This motion takes us in that direction. It will also allow us to discuss the adequacy of employment insurance to meet the needs of workers and people who have been thrown out of work.

This is all very positive and that is why we are going to be providing our support for the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what has been said by the leaders of the other parties. There have been extensive discussions over this past week. We have been able to come to an agreement on the amendment put forward by the official opposition with respect to the tax burden, reflecting what the government has already been doing in regard to opportunities, maintaining consistency, and how it looks at that in terms of balanced budgets and sound fiscal management.

The forecasting advice is really a continuation of the work that the finance minister has already indicated the external expert would be providing. On electoral reform, we have reflected in the throne speech the need to review and look at all the options that in fact do exist. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will in fact be doing that.

Finally, with respect to the vote on ballistic missile defence, this vote will take place in the House after debate. I am sure it will be advisory in nature and non-binding on the government. Nonetheless, the government always looks to Parliament for advice and certainly, in this instance it will be no different.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment to amendment, as amended, agreed to)

The House resumed from October 15 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Shipping Act

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill we have before us, Bill C-3.

The sole purpose of this bill is to transfer certain responsibilities from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, particularly responsibility for the Canadian Coast Guard, to the Department of Transport.

The bill does not propose any really major changes. As the government has said, there are no new costs involved in the transfer of responsibilities.

Hon. members need perhaps to be reminded that these responsibilities have been with Transport in the past. If I am not mistaken, these responsibilities, including that of the Canadian Coast Guard, were transferred to Fisheries and Oceans in the early 1990s. So this is a kind of backward step. It is a kind of return to the previous situation, after the realization that the transfer to Fisheries and Oceans was not really working.

In December 2003, the government transferred the responsibilities we are discussing today to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by order in council. These responsibilities needed, of course, to be in the legislation, which is why the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act will be amended.

This does not, unfortunately, really solve the problem of the Canadian Coast Guard. This body has numerous responsibilities. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans studied the role of the Canadian Coast Guard on two occasions, and in March 2004 tabled a unanimous report containing 18 recommendations on the Coast Guard, its role and its importance.

The government ought perhaps to have taken its cue from that report and introduced a bill making the Canadian Coast Guard an independent agency. That was the gist of the main recommendation. As an agency, it could fulfill responsibilities serving both the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in fact even all departments concerned. This was a very important recommendation that should have compelled the government to make the Coast Guard an independent agency as soon as possible.

The other problem affecting the Coast Guard in particular is underfunding. I think everyone from industry people, to the Coast Guard itself, to parliamentarians agrees. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, among others, found that the Canadian Coast Guard is completely underfunded. In the current state of its fleet and with its lack of adequate human resources, it could never meet expectations.

I would simply remind hon. members that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reported that the Canadian Coast Guard is rusting out and the fleet is clearly undercapitalized. That is the position of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The average age of Canadian Coast Guard vessels is 20.2 years and the median age is 19 years; for the larger vessels the average age is 24.8 years with a median age of 22 years. Almost 80% of the fleet has reached or passed its half-life, and nearly 50% of the vessels have five years or less of useful life left. The picture is bleaker when considering large vessels, for which the respective numbers are 95% and 39%.

As reported by the Auditor General, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimated in 1999 the replacement cost of all of the large vessels was at $2.2 billion. That seems like a lot of money, but if it had been invested at the time, in the early 1990s, to replace the fleet, the figure would have been a lot less, and all the vessels and equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard could gradually have been replaced.

Since September 2001, the Canadian Coast Guard has faced a nearly catastrophic situation, with new mandates. Emergency investments have had to be made and funding is still completely inadequate.

We are talking about a cost of $2.2 billion, but simply to replace the large vessels over 30 years old, it would cost $750 million. Obviously the main challenge will be to replace the Coast Guards ships and other equipment. As Commander John Adams, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, said, “—based on a renewal rate of only 4% for the asset base, the coast guardshould be investing between $140 and $150 million in capital funding into our infrastructure each year”. That is what should have been done in the past, of course. If there had been an annual investment of $140 to $150 million, or even $100 million, for 10 or 15 years, the problem would not exist today. We would now have a Canadian coast guard much better equipped to fulfil its mandates and meet the needs.

As the Coast Guard Commissioner said, “Our budget over the last ten years has been in the order of $30 million to $40 million”. This represents a shortfall of about $100 million per year for the Coast Guard, just for replacing certain equipment. Now we find ourselves in a situation that could be called practically impossible. The Canadian Coast Guard's fleet needs to be replaced or modernized, and large amounts of money must be invested to achieve the desired results, the results the public, the Coast Guard and the industry all want to see.

This is what has happened over the years. Since the infrastructure was not replaced, it is aging and deteriorating. Moreover, there has been another problem. The Coast Guard is clearly understaffed. Today, in my opinion, the Canadian Coast Guard is unable to respond to all calls for its services.

The bill before us transfers the responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. However, in the end, no money is allocated. Who will assume these responsibilities? Who will meet the needs expressed? It is very difficult to tell. The bill is not at all clear on this. Do we want to create another structure within the Department of Transport to meet the needs that are transferred to that department, or will we use, among others, the Canadian Coast Guard? If we rely on the Coast Guard, it goes without saying that we will have to invest more in its equipment and also in its personnel.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans noticed something else during its review of the Canadian Coast Guard. I am referring to the difficulty that Coast Guard personnel is currently experiencing in fulfilling its mandate. We are talking about people who cannot take training courses, because there is not enough personnel to replace them. This means that they cannot take development courses. That includes the whole management framework, since managers themselves are not replaced because there are not enough of them. The result is that the Coast Guard personnel is asked to do too much. After a while, these people get tired. So, the Canadian Coast Guard is subjected to totally unwarranted pressure.

Let us not forget that the Coast Guard must fulfill all kinds of duties, including research and rescue operations. This is very important for recreational boaters and fishermen, among others, particularly in my region, but also on the west coast. Indeed, fishermen must travel further at sea to find the resources, thus putting their lives at greater risk.

This is another reason why the Canadian Coast Guard is subjected to greater pressure now than in the past. It is not necessarily equipped to meet the needs or to be able to properly carry out its mandate with respect to search and rescue. We have seen some pretty tragic cases recently. The same is true of emergency environmental response.

At present, with the growing maritime traffic—which is not likely to diminish, given the import and export activities of both Quebec and Canada—pollution is indeed one of the biggest problems, because of the ships either sailing or docking in our waters.

Naturally, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reports that, currently, the source of the majority of discharges of substances such as oil at sea is unknown or, if known, impossible to be acted on to resolve the problem.

Also, the Canadian Coast Guard does have a role to play within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the protection of fisheries resources , in terms of search, among others. Here again, we can say that the Coast Guard is unable to meet the needs.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans therefore made 18 recommendations. As I indicated earlier, the main one is for a renewed Canadian Coast Guard to be established as anindependent civilian agency. That is the committee's wish, and I think that the government should have taken heed.

Another recommendation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was that the Canadian Coast Guard be under Transport Canada but, before, that it become a stand-alone agency, that is, an independent civilian agency. We can see that some responsibilities are being transferred to Transport Canada, and we know that the Canadian Coast Guard used to come under that department. Perhaps all this could have taken place before the government introduced the bill before us.

Why transfer some responsibilities to Transport Canada? Because that is the lead department for maritime security. And, following the events of September 11, this role was of course expanded. Transport Canada is working with all security agencies, and the Canadian Coast Guard should also be involved.

The Department of Transport is also responsible for shipping traffic in general, and a major part of the Coast Guard responsibilities involve shipping traffic safety. Right now, we get many complaints from people who live on the shores of the St. Lawrence River about shipping traffic, and especially about bank erosion. Ships travelling at high speed in the channel generate powerful waves, which damage part of the banks of the St. Lawrence River.

One important role of the government would be to regulate the traffic in order to limit the speed of large ships. The Coast Guard would manage this traffic, which, for currently does not seem to be controlled. We do know that the speed of ships in the St. Lawrence River channel is regulated only by implicit agreement between ship owners and the pilots. Shipping generates erosion and other problems.

There is another crucial element in connection with traffic on the St. Lawrence River and towards the Great Lakes, and it has been examined by the fisheries and oceans standing committee. I am talking about the invasion of our waterways by exotic species that are harmful to our resources. This problem will only get bigger. The Department of Transport and the Coast Guard have a role to play to prevent this kind of problem.

The Department of Transport and the Coast Guard could play a very important role, that of inspecting and cleaning vessels entering our waters so that no more invasive species will be brought in.

Another recommendation was that the Canadian Coast Guard be given full operational funding. I have underscored right from the start that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans found the Coast Guard to be seriously under funded. The March 2004 report recommended to the government that it be properly funded. We know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is one of the least well funded of departments. I would say it has had the smallest budget increase since 1993, along with the biggest cuts. Even though some have said that it is precisely because the Coast Guard is connected to Fisheries and Oceans that it is underfunded, I am only partially in agreement with that. Whether the Canadian Coast Guard is transferred to the Department of Transport in whole or in part, whether it is made into an agency or not, if it gets no more funding that when it reported to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the situation will not be corrected. It will remain unchanged.

The Government of Canada must gradually invest in the Canadian Coast Guard. This must be done regularly, annually, so as to renew all infrastructures. Compared with other coast guards around the world, the Canadian Coast Guard is among the poorest and least well organized. Looking at the United States, we can see that their coast guard reports to the armed forces; it is very well equipped and can fulfil the mandates assigned to it.

One of the recommendations of the March 2004 report entitled “Safe, Secure, Sovereign: Reinventing the Canadian Coast Guard” reads:

That the Canadian Coast Guard be given the explicit authority to act on behalf of other agencies—

That is what I was just saying. If we create an independent agency, it should have, and I quote

“the explicit authority to act on behalf of other agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada in situations where there is reasonable cause to believe that Canadian laws are being broken.”

At present, I think there has been some weakening of these mandates through a number of agencies and departments. That means we are now going through a similar process to what happened in the United States. That country created an agency and gave it selected powers taken from other departments. I think that is what should be done here. We should create an agency whose role will be to coordinate and fulfil mandates. It is a role that could be given to the Canadian Coast Guard, if the government is willing to establish it as an independent agency.

We do not completely support this bill. We agree with certain things, but disagree with others. We feel this bill, as it stands, will not improve anything about the way the government fulfils its mandates or the way the Coast Guard can fulfil its mandate in the future.

In conclusion, the important thing is to make investing in the Canadian Coast Guard a priority. It must become a real agency and it must have the means to fulfil its mandate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way with great interest. Certainly he raised some points that need to be discussed as well as debated, but I cannot help but note that Bill C-3 is a government neutral bill. It shifts responsibility from one department to another department.

Let me read some notes for my good friend. On December 12, 2003, the Government of Canada transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to Transport Canada “all Canadian Coast Guard policy responsibilities and certain operational responsibilities relating to pleasure craft safety, marine navigation services, pollution prevention and response, and navigable waters protection”.

I was interested to hear my good friend talk about Coast Guard equipment and the increasing pressure on the Coast Guard. I wonder if my colleague as well as all his Bloc colleagues are trying to hijack the idea of transferring responsibilities and being revenue neutral, let us say, by saying that we need more priorities and more equipment in the Coast Guard, that we need to invest in priorities. I am sure that is a discussion we can have at a different date and in a different place, including in here, but this is not the idea or the gist or the substance of the bill.

I understand that members from time to time do take the opportunity to increase a bit of substance, but certainly Bill C-3 is a mechanics bill passing from one department to another department and has absolutely nothing to do with equipment for the Coast Guard. However, that is a discussion we could have on another day.

I would ask my colleague across the way if he agrees that this is mechanics and mechanics only and that those members are just gesturing on the fact about equipment.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. This is what I said. The government is transferring responsibilities that already belonged to the Department of Transport in the past. In fact, this is simply reverting back. It must be well understood, with the bill, that what is being transferred to the Department of Transport was already under the Department of Transport in the past. It was transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is now transferred back to the Department of Transport.

The real problem is the bill. Of course, it is totally a mechanics bill. When this bill comes into force, who will oversee the transfer? Who will be responsible for its implementation? Of course, it will be the Department of Transport, but who will it be in the field? It is the Canadian Coast Guard. If it does not have the means, like now, to fulfill its mandates, even though a mechanical transfer would be made between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, we will not be ahead. It does not solve the real problem.

Indeed, the real problem is that the Canadian Coast Guard is an underfunded agency and that, to fulfill its mandates, it needs funding. It needs to renew its fleet. It needs to renew its equipment. During 10 to 15 years, the government did not fund it enough. This means that we are now finding ourselves in a very difficult situation. We will have to invest from $140 million to $150 million a year, which should have been done in the past. It means that, today, we would not have a $1 billion problem on our hands.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just mentioned that Bill C-3 is a government neutral bill. I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc thinks the parliamentary secretary has read the report recently tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which deals with the Coast Guard.

Over the last number of years since the Coast Guard was taken from Transport Canada and moved to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has seen a tremendous number of cutbacks, to the point where it can no longer operate. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a report stressing that the Coast Guard has to be beefed up. As for some of the frills which we see in Bill C-3 about moving to Transport Canada, I think it is just a deflective move by the government thereby allowing it to say, “Oh, we are making changes to the Coast Guard”.

I ask my colleague, are these the types of changes we should be making to the Coast Guard? Or should we deal with the substantive issue that the Coast Guard has to be beefed up to do the job that the Canadian Coast Guard is supposed to do?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As a matter of fact, the report I have here is the March 2004 report, but it is the second one tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and it is a unanimous report. One should not think the 18 recommendations came from opposition members only. This is an important unanimous report describing the sorry state the Coast Guard is in.

The 18 recommendations in this report should have been implemented already. They should have been included in the government's priorities. They should be implemented as soon as possible if we really want to have a Coast Guard capable of carrying out its mandate, including in matters of security. I am talking here about the security of fishers and other people using our waterways.

Right now, one cannot say the Canadian Coast Guard is capable of giving fishers and other people the assurance they are safe. That reminds me of something which happened last spring. The Coast Guard did not have any money to buy oil to run its ships, and they could not sail.

If the government does not change its ways, it might as well do away with the Canadian Coast Guard.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who is an expert in fisheries, what he thinks, as a parliamentarian, about the fact that the present Prime Minister, who prides himself on fighting against the democratic deficit, presents, as one of his first bills, Bill C-3, legislation that does not take into account unanimous recommendations made by a parliamentary committee. This committee toured across Canada, met dozens of experts and people who know this issue.

As a parliamentarian, what does he think about this insult to the House, to the members of Parliament, to him as a member of this committee, and also to all the Liberal members who signed a unanimous report?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his question. Indeed, the report is unanimous. This is an extremely serious study that took the committee an enormous amount of time. This study was finished just before the election and the report was tabled in March 2004.

Indeed, the government, the Prime Minister, does not show a real willingness to renew democracy. If he had shown such a willingness, I think that the first action to take about this bill would have been to look at the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Perhaps it would have been necessary to introduce a different bill providing for the creation of an agency, as the standing committee asked for, and to divide up the mandates afterwards.

Of course, I have no problem with dividing up the mandates afterwards between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or another other department, for example, the Department of Environment with regard to pollution. I have no problem with dividing up the mandates, but what is important is that we must have the means to fulfill the orders that will be given to us.

At the present time, the Canadian Coast Guard does not have the means to appropriately fulfill the orders that will be given to it.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to stand, but the bill is important, and important points have been made. The member referred to the report. As the chair of the fisheries and oceans committee at the time the unanimous report was tabled, I want to let the House know that I am certainly comfortable in my belief that the report was read cover to cover by the then minister of transport and also by the current parliamentary secretary.

Having said that, I wonder whether it was read cover to cover by the bureaucracy that advised the transition team prior to December, since we could not do the report until March. This appears to have been a decision made by the transition team advising the current Prime Minister; to take Canadian Coast Guard back to transport.

To end on a technical question, could the hon. member comment on the fact that the bill will be referred to the transport committee for study as opposed to the fisheries and oceans committee or a joint committee, given the fact there are numerous things in it that affect fisheries and oceans and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, particularly pollution prevention matters, and that the commissioner of the coast guard appears to have been abolished?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this could be a joint committee. However, I do not think that officials can be accused of not reading the report. The government must have a political will. I believe this political will belong to the elected people. If the elected people who sit on the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans voted unanimously in favour of the report, then I believe it is up to the elected people opposite, government members and the minister responsible, to make their decision and propose solutions.

This is the elected people's responsibility. We are talking about a report prepared by the elected people and tabled before Parliament. It is also an unanimous report. It is incumbent upon the government to make its decision and to go forward with the recommendations contained in this report.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Exploits, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

Before I start to speak to the bill, I am very honoured and pleased to be representing the constituents of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. They have bestowed upon me the greatest honour that I could ever receive, and that is to represent them in this honoured House as their member of Parliament. I would also like to thank the people closest to me who got me in this position.

I am pleased to rise to speak in support 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.

Marine transportation has a special significance for Canadians. Our waterways were the original routes for travel and commerce. That commerce has grown as the country has grown. The bill gives the House an opportunity to promote a more transparent and predictable regulatory system for marine transportation, and I join my colleagues in emphasizing the importance of shipping in the Canadian and global economies. For instance, waterborne transportation carries three-quarters of the world's international trade, and it is economical. On a single litre of fuel, for instance, one tonne of freight can travel 240 kilometres by ship.

Stakeholders in the marine community welcome the change as it makes it much easier to know which minister and which department is responsible for what. The division of policy and enforcement responsibilities between Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been difficult to understand and to implement in the past. That is why we react this way. Having one minister responsible for pleasure craft and another responsible for non-pleasure vessels, in particular, was a constant irritant for the stakeholders. It is their concerns that bring us to this point.

The bill supports improved service delivery in both policy and operational function. Specifically, all Canadian coast guard policy, responsibilities and operational responsibilities relating to pleasure craft safety, marine navigation services, pollution prevention and response and navigable waters protection are transferred now to Transport Canada. Those policy responsibilities include the development and management of legislation, regulations, standards and the guidelines.

The bill will help the Department of Transport to do its job of protecting safety and also protecting the environment, a sincere commitment the government has made in the past and we do it again here today. The bill responds directly to stakeholder concerns. Stakeholders have had their concerns about the complexity of having two departments of government sharing policy responsibility in just one single field. The government has listened to the stakeholders and the bill brought forward today reflects that.

The changes reflected in the bill will make it easier for stakeholders to make themselves heard in the future. Recreational boaters and industry alike will welcome the Minister of Transport's open consultation forums the Canadian marine advisory councils. Any Canadian who takes an interest in marine safety and the protection of the marine environment can take part in these meetings which take place twice a year across the country and are open to all members of the public. There, stakeholders from coast to coast to coast can meet in person with officials of the department and participate in the initiatives that affect them.

The content of the statutes affected by Bill C-3 remain otherwise unchanged. The rules remain the same. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on the environment or international relations. The implementation of the transfer of responsibility has no significant cost; it is being done inside of existing resources. Delivery of service to stakeholders and other Canadians goes on without interruption.

I am pleased to promote the government's stated objectives of “a transparent and predictable regulatory system that accomplishes public policy objectives efficiently, while eliminating unintended impacts” and “providing an up to date legislative framework for business concerns”. That is why, in this honoured hall, I support Bill C-3 for my colleague.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that this is in some ways a routine moving of a department and something that I believe will be an improvement for the industry. I live on a waterway area that has a port authority and many pleasure craft as well as very extensive shipping through the Detroit River and the Great Lakes, so this bill is very important for my constituency.

My concern is that we will be looking at the environmental aspect here concerning fines and regulations, but what we have seen is a history of saying one thing and then not carrying it out. I am hoping that this does not happen with this particular bill. I hope the committee actually engages in proper discourse on environmental fines.

What I specifically want to refer to is that last year after extensive debate in this House of Commons, the government finally capitulated to at least saying it was going to eliminate environmental fines as a tax deduction. As far as I am aware, right now environmental fines currently stand because the government has not carried out on that promise. If corporations are fined for environmental pollution, whether it be dumping oil, as ships have done, they can write off 50% of that fine.

My question for my hon. colleague is simply this. Does he believe that there would be broad public support for actually implementing those environmental fines and does he believe that can happen as well with pleasure craft? How is the government going to go about doing that?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Exploits, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I too share a great amount of interest given my riding, but certainly in this situation these are the ongoing concerns that we no doubt will address at present and in the future.

What is important about Bill C-3 is that it does answer many of the concerns of the stakeholders in this situation. For instance, the government is transferring from the fisheries department to the transport department policy responsibilities and certain operational responsibilities for pleasure craft.

With regard to the environmental aspect, a lot of it will be transferred. This is what was asked for by the stakeholders in this situation. What we have done is that the government has responded to the initiatives taken by the people. In turn, we are now following up on that, with the implementation being done back in December 2003.

I would also note that many of the aerial surveillance programs will also be transferred to the transport department. This is of course in response to what the Department of Transport has asked for and, more important, it is also what the stakeholders have asked for. They have made the request and we have responded in kind.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague across the way on his speech, but especially on his election.

What worries me a bit is that as a new member of Parliament, he has ideals, I suppose. However, in real life, things are different. Upon first coming to Parliament, one wants to change the world. And there are some who keep on wanting to change the world for longer than others. His Prime Minister often noted that there was a democratic deficit and that he was there to change that.

Today, we were presented with a bill which in no way reflects the content of a unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I am wondering how the new member feels about the fact that the Prime Minister, once again, is not going by his initial promise, which was that he would do something about the democratic deficit, but that rather, today, we have a bill which is at odds with a unanimous report signed by all members, not only those in the opposition, but those of his own party.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Exploits, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me say in response, no, I do not expect to change the world overnight, but certainly with a little bit at a time, as the bill accomplishes, I think we can make a difference, even as one member of Parliament can.

I am very proud of the dedication that the Prime Minister has committed to in the Speech from the Throne in regard to closing that democratic deficit and I am very proud to be sitting on this side of the House. I might add that I am very proud to be Canadian.

[An hon. member]

And wanting to keep Canada together, unlike some other folks.