Mike Scott

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in speaking to these motions, we in the Reform Party can support the Bloc in its move to have the federal government responsible for safety, including navigation, as outlined by my colleague from Gaspé. We are also in support of the Liberal amendment.

We cannot support Motions Nos. 71 and 92, as they seek to increase the jurisdiction of the provinces in areas where we do not think it is appropriate.

The idea of limiting the minister's powers to marine protected areas, to fisheries alone, is not a move in the right direction. Canada's marine protected areas are about much more than fish. We have very eclectic marine wildlife in all parts of the country. The marine protected areas must be there to ensure not only the protection of fisheries but the protection of other aquatic and marine life found in Canada's marine waters.

We will be supporting the first motion but we cannot support the last two motions in this grouping.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will need to utilize my whole time.

My party will be supporting Motions Nos. 36 through 46 and Motion No. 73 because they seek to give the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans more power to review legislation. They also require the government to report to the standing committee on the effectiveness of the legislation.

The motions also seek to increase the government's obligation to consult with the provinces. Essentially that is a good thing.

We cannot support several motions in this grouping, namely Motion Nos. 50, 53 and 56, simply because their intent is to try to interject provincial jurisdiction where we see a clear federal responsibility.

I mentioned this in my remarks yesterday when we were talking about these motions. The federal government has jurisdiction and sovereignty over Canada's marine waters. I fail to see, and it is difficult for anybody to see, how those marine waters can be divided into provincial jurisdictions.

I come from British Columbia. One of the main reasons I chose to run for office and become involved in federal politics was my feeling that the federal government had become too powerful, that it had interceded and injected itself into many areas where it had no legitimate place.

I can understand the frustrations of many people, including people from Quebec. I understand the motivation of my colleague, the member for Gaspé, who has been working with us on the standing committee and who has moved these motions, as to why he would like to see the federal government back away from many areas where it is currently involved.

When it comes to Canada's marine waters, the federal government has jurisdiction and responsibility. Many aspects of our marine waters are international and interprovincial in nature. There can be only one lead player in this. It must be the federal government.

In summary, Reform members will be supporting the motions in this grouping that seek to increase the obligation of the federal government to consult with the provinces and that seek to require the federal government to report to the standing committee on a regular basis and make the standing committee more relevant.

We cannot support those motions that attempt to increase provincial jurisdiction.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me now. I appreciate your assistance.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order before we get into debate.

Because these motions are grouped together-and in this group there are nine or ten-I am not clear on how we are going to deal with them when we vote. Are we going to vote on each one separately or are we going to vote on the group? There are some motions here that we would like to support and some that we cannot support.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me on how these will be dealt with?

[Newfoundland Fisheries, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, just when we thought the fisheries minister could not create any more chaos in Canada's fisheries we learn the worst is yet to come.

Advancing its policy of discrimination in the Atlantic food fishery, the government feels stabbing Newfoundland in the back is not enough. Rubbing salt in the wound might make things a little more festive. Not only is every Atlantic province permitted to fish for food except Newfoundland, Tourism Canada is now paying for advertising to attract tourists to those other provinces.

The latest insult is the permitting of an unlimited food fishery for the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon where French locals and tourists can fish their little hearts out as close as three miles from Newfoundland's Burin Peninsula.

Once again the province with the greatest cultural and economic dependency on the cod fishery is the province kicked the hardest.

A few years ago a Newfoundland organization called Cod Peace adopted the slogan "In Cod We Trust". Perhaps the House should adopt a similar motion: "For Fred We Show Disgust".

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement with my colleague from the Bloc.

This series of amendments has the effect of requiring the government to do nothing more than advise Canadians through the gazetting process of changes that it proposes to make. When the parliamentary secretary opposed these motions, he was of the opinion that this would create a lot of bureaucratic red tape and would serve no useful purpose. It would only cost money.

I would suggest to him and to the government it is exactly that kind of attitude of executive federalism which has failed this country miserably, so that we have the problems that we have right now. I do not see what is wrong with the government putting Canadians on notice, through the gazetting process, of changes it intends to make in regulations or in legislation.

Reform believes that any amendments to regulations should be done in an open manner and, as such, should be published in the Canada Gazette as would the implementation of any other regulation. Forcing the governor in council to print all amendments to regulations as well as the original regulations will serve to ensure all regulations are made in an open manner. It would also allow the public 60 days to make a representation to the minister on a particular regulation or amended regulation that may affect them. Consultations are imperative and not to be viewed as negative but must instead help to ensure that regulations are fair and take into account the interests of the affected stakeholders.

Reform has a saying and we are learning how to say it in French: the problem with Canada is Ottawa; le problème du Canada, c'est Ottawa.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the motions in this grouping speak to the governor in council having an obligation to listen to the concerns of witnesses who appeared before the

standing committee and to take them into consideration when making decisions.

For the most part we can support these motions. They do not speak to the issue of jurisdiction, but they do require the federal government to move with some sensitivity and with some obligation to consult.

There is certainly nothing wrong and as a matter of fact there is a lot right with the federal government having a requirement to consult with the stakeholders, the provinces and others when making changes to legislation and when making changes to the rules and regulations which govern Canada's marine areas. For that reason the Reform Party supports these motions and thanks the hon. member for Gaspé for submitting them.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again we hear from the member of the Bloc the deep concern that people have for the intrusion of the federal government into areas where it does not belong.

In looking through the motions and the groupings it is clear that Motions Nos. 33 and 35 have to do with housekeeping.

Bloc Motions Nos. 8, 14 and 17 have to do with the safeguarding of the legal rights of provinces. At this time Reform is favourably disposed to these motions. We have not heard anything that would lead us to believe there is anything in these amendments that could create concern for the federal government.

Motions Nos. 32 and 34 give the provinces a higher priority in the consultative process which we think is progressive.

However, Motions Nos. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 unfortunately deal with jurisdiction. The federal government properly has the right and the responsibility as the sovereign government of the land to exercise jurisdiction over Canada's marine waters. There are too many issues concerning Canada's marine waters such as international agreements on migratory wildlife and fish that do not recognize provincial borders and do not recognize international borders. It is only the federal government that can properly oversee the management of Canada's marine areas.

Reform will be supporting Motions Nos. 33 and 35. We are favourably disposed toward Motions Nos. 8, 14, 17, 32 and 34, and we will be voting against Motions Nos. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself once again having to defer to the member for Gaspé. He has done a super job on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He makes a valuable contribution to the committee.

After looking at the amendments that are proposed in this grouping which are all his amendments, I have a great deal of difficulty. It is clear that as the federal government, the central government does have jurisdiction in Canada's waters. The sovereignty of Canada rests with the federal government. The provinces are way stations of that sovereignty but in the end that sovereignty rests with the federal government.

In issues such as the law of the sea convention and other marine issues which tend to be international in nature, it is proper that the federal government have the jurisdiction and the ability to legislate and to act in Canada's interests in these areas.

The Reform Party acknowledges the reasoning behind the amendments. People in western Canada and Atlantic Canada feel very much the same way in that the federal government is too intrusive, too big and too powerful, it takes too much of our tax dollars and is involved in far too many areas it should not be. However, this is one area where the federal government has a proper and legitimate role. Unfortunately therefore we will not be able to support these amendments.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Gaspé. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I certainly appreciate his participation on that committee over the last couple of years as he brings a valuable perspective to the committee. I sense the depth of frustration on the part of the member for Gaspé and many people from his province of Quebec. I addressed that issue in my earlier remarks when we were talking about the first grouping of amendments.

It is past time the federal government got out of many areas that it currently has jurisdiction in, or that it asserts it has jurisdiction in, and allow the provinces and in some cases the municipal governments to make decisions more in keeping with the desires of the people who have to live with the results of those decisions.

We have a situation in British Columbia where the Government of Canada is making a major decision with respect to the fishery resource on the coast. It is a decision that only the people of British Columbia will have to live with. That decision is to include an aboriginal fishery component in land claims in British Columbia in modern treaties.

That is something that politicians from Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia will not have to live with but they are certainly very much involved in the decision making process. I sense the frustration of the member for Gaspé. As a citizen from British Columbia and knowing the depth of feeling on that issue in British Columbia, I understand the member's frustration.

However, in looking at the oceans act it is clear there are times when there is a proper role for the federal government to play that goes beyond municipal and provincial jurisdictions. In the case of oceans it is clearly the responsibility of the federal government, particularly when it comes to issues such as straddling stocks, migratory wildlife and fish stocks. It has a role to play.

I do not see how it is possible for the provincial governments to be making decisions with respect to those areas in the present circumstances. The federal government has a very serious obligation to consult with the provinces. It is federal decisions that often cause provincial governments a great deal of pain, particularly economic pain.

If members do not believe that, look at the groundfishery in Newfoundland and the collapse of that. It was managed right into the ground by the federal government. It created all kinds of impetus for investment into the groundfishery by providing grants and subsidies to fish packing plants and the construction of fishing boats and encouraged everybody and their dog to get out their fish those fish, and they did. Guess what? The fish are gone and guess who is paying the bill? In part it is the province. The province ends up with a great deal of the economic pain created as a result of federal mismanagement. The provinces have a right to be consulted.

I have some difficulty with the way these amendments are worded. We will be again moving amendments to Motions Nos. 48 and 90.

I move:

That Motion No. 48 be amended by deleting the following: "-the Provinces and-" and "-may consult with others-"

I move:

That Motion No. 90 be amended by substituting the word "requirements" with the word "guidelines".