Ted McWhinney

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to return to the question of the Magna Carta, of which our distinguished colleague opposite has spoken several times.

One of the problems is that people quote documents but do not read them in the original. This is not the hon. member's fault alone. It is sometimes affects judges too. One of the problems of the Magna Carta is that there is no single version of it and no single language. The original Latin has been translated into Norman French and from Norman French into English. However, when the Magna Carta is read it does not really support the principle he is referring to. I would suggest he go back to the direct sources. It is the only source of wisdom.

Let us come back to this issue as far as aboriginal fishing rights are concerned. This is to misunderstand the nature of this measure. As I said at the outset, the oceans act and the fisheries act in combination take Canada into the 21st century because they establish, in addition to the act of codification, rationalization and modernization, the juridical base in Canadian municipal internal law with the international law rights that Canadian diplomats and Canadian foreign ministers over the years have led. That is the triumph of these bills.

The hon. member should not worry about the petit point needle work at the expense of seeing the large design and the large step into the 21st century that this project of the law represents.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I must thank the member for his very interesting and well-researched question. We are now talking about a new phase in the development of our domestic constitutional law, since formal amendments to the Constitution are so difficult.

I just spoke about the aspect of new pluralism of our system of government, that is, the system of partnership involves very close co-operation between different levels of government, between the federal government and the citizens in the present case, but it could also be between the federal government and provincial governments.

During my speech, I said a few times that the constitutional responsibility lies with the federal minister. However, the spirit of co-operation would indicate that the essential element is very close co-operation between the two levels and this is exactly what we are implementing in the negotiations with the British Columbia government.

We will examine specific cases when we get to the detailed study of the bill but, for now, I agree with the minister on this point. We accept this movement, this new pluralism, and we are trying to do our best within this partnership with the industry and the fishermen.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for neglecting to advise you.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62, the new fisheries law, will substantially modernize and rationalize the legal basis for fisheries conservation and habitat management in Canada. It is the first major rewrite of the fisheries act since the last century, since the original law of 1868 in fact, and it will provide the basis for a sustainable fishery for the 21st century.

This rewrite is long overdue. Fishery as an industry and as a profession for the fisher people is changing. Markets are changing. Technology is changing. The science of fishery is changing. The law, in turn, must respond to these dramatic changes in our society if it is not to become an unnecessary clog in our economic growth and our community well-being.

A few weeks ago the House passed the Canada Oceans Act. This bill is complementary to the Canada Oceans Act which stakes out Canada's clear legal jurisdiction over its ocean areas.

With the revised fisheries act we are putting in place the legislative machinery and processes needed to ensure that the fishery resources of our oceans' heritage will be used responsibly. We are moving to ensure that those resources are conserved, not only for the present but also for future generations. We are moving to ensure that people who work in the fishery can earn a decent livelihood.

This legislation is in keeping with the best principles of law reform. Its revisions are easy to read. It consolidates provisions for which consolidation is long overdue. It makes possible a reduction of up to 50 per cent in existing regulations.

Let us now examine the new fisheries bill in overview. Bill C-62 will allow for a direct voice for industry in fisheries management through partnering agreements.

It will allow for a fairer system of administrative sanctions that would replace many of the criminal proceedings now used for infractions.

It will allow for an order power to set fishery close times and catch size and weight limits, all these for use by federal, provincial and territorial managers.

It will allow for the integration of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act with the Fisheries Act. This will create a single legislative framework for all fishing in coastal and adjacent waters.

It will also allow for a significant and long overdue streamlining of regulations, with a reduction in volume by as much as 50 per cent.

The emphasis in the new fisheries bill is on self-regulation and self-reliance. It sets a climate for long term stability in the industry. For too long Canada's fishery has been plagued by what we may call a gold rush mentality. Self-regulation, self-reliance and long term stability will help eliminate this capricious and ultimately self-destroying attitude. The revised fisheries act will go a long way to ensuring that the fishery of the future will be environmentally sustainable and economically viable.

There are several other important legislative changes proposed in Bill C-62 as we seek to adjust to the needs of a rapidly evolving industry.

The legislative base of fisheries and oceans will be streamlined by repealing statutes which have outlived their usefulness and by integrating provisions from those into the fisheries act. The Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act, the Fisheries Development Act and the North Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act are being repealed. The few industry support and development powers from the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act and the Fisheries Develop-

ment Act that may still be needed are being incorporated into the fisheries act.

Archaic provisions in the fisheries and oceans legislation are being eliminated. Much of that legislation has existed in one form or another since the time of Queen Victoria. It is no longer required. The great queen is long since gone and archaic provisions continued too reverentially from the historical epoch now passed should be replaced where they are no longer serving a useful purpose. For example, many fishing seasons have passed since we have needed the rules governing cutting wood and drying fish on vacant public lots.

Bill C-62 also provides a legal framework for delegating certain habitat management responsibilities to the provinces. To ensure a consistent national standard for habitat protection, provinces will be expected to comply with certain standards of habitat management as set out in negotiated agreements. However, there should be no misunderstanding about this. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans continues to retain full legal responsibility for the conservation and protection of the resource.

The delegation to provinces of certain freshwater habitat responsibilities is a major change from the version of the bill that was tabled in 1995 and it responds to the government's commitment in the 1996 speech from the throne.

The bill will not in itself transfer habitat responsibilities to provincial governments. It allows the federal government to negotiate on the delegation of responsibilities with interested provincial governments. All parties concerned would be consulted during these negotiations. The bill will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to delegate responsibility to provinces, to authorize certain types of projects and to exercise day to day management powers on provincial lands.

To recapitulate, this delegation of responsibility would eliminate an existing overlap between federal and provincial processes and also correspond with changes taking place in other areas of governmental activity. The federal government will maintain its full constitutional legal authority for prescribed projects.

Provinces would have a variety of powers, including the ability to require the installation of fish guards, fishways and other apparatus designed to protect fish, to require the removal of obstructions to fish passage, to provide authorization of certain projects of local concern. Regulations will set out a list of projects that are to remain within the realm of the federal government. Consultations with stakeholders will also take place to determine those classes of projects requiring permits. The mandatory permit provisions will replace subsection 35(2) authorizations as a trigger for the federal environmental assessment process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

At the present time, the provisions of the fisheries act dealing with physical alteration of fish habitat and pollution prevention are scattered throughout the act. The amendments will group these provisions together for ease of use. Once again we will be making the machinery simpler to operate.

I should also point out what is not changing in the act. First is pollution prevention. An important management tool currently found in section 36 is the prohibition against unauthorized deposits of deleterious substances. It is not being changed. Along with this, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may request that ongoing monitoring take place to ensure that where deposits are authorized, they are carried out in accordance with the authorizations. These provisions, administered by the Department of the Environment, will not be changed in any substantive way.

Second is plans and specifications. The ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to require plans and specifications for physical alteration or deposits of deleterious substances will be retained. Provincial ministers will have the ability to require plans and specifications where there has been delegation. The ability of the minister of fisheries to halt projects with governor in council approval will remain.

Third is flows. Also remaining will be the ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or a provincial minister where there has been a delegation, to require flows of water over and through obstructions, such as dams, to provide for the free movement of fish up and down stream, and for the mitigation of effects on fish habitat.

Finally, a word on penalties. Since the penalties for habitat offences were updated and substantially increased, there is no necessity to amend them at this time.

Let us now turn to partnering agreements. New powers in the bill allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to share responsibility, decision making and management costs with groups within the fishery through long term partnering agreements. Shared responsibility creates obligations for both parties, the stakeholder and the minister. We emphasize once again that the minister maintains ultimate legal responsibility for the conservation and protection of the resource.

Here are some of the specific matters on which fisheries and oceans and any representative organization would be able to enter into a management contract: harvest limits and other conservation and management measures; the number of licences; fees payable for licence issuance and administration; obligations and responsibilities of each party; funding arrangements with respect to management of the fishery; conservation and management programs for the fishery.

To reiterate, under partnering agreements the responsibility and legal authority for conservation protection of the resource remains with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is both co-operative federalism, federal-provincial as law in action but it is also the new pluralism: government and stakeholders in community decision making. The minister will also continue to establish intersection and interregion allocations.

In future, fisheries and oceans should be better able to concentrate on its core responsibilities relating to setting policy for fishers and conservation protection of the resource.

In this bill we are recognizing that the industry is capable of managing many machinery aspects of the fishery. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is committed to developing integrated management plans. Stakeholders will be encouraged to assess whether the partnering arrangements meet their specific needs.

On the new licence and appeal system I stress only that in the new system, the new tribunals are independent, at arm's length from the government. It is a new approach to sanctions.

The Oceans Act established our international law power under international law in the areas we have pioneered over the oceans and elsewhere. The fisheries act, apart from its tremendous work of codification, rationalization and modernization, provides the legal machinery and processes for vindication and enforcement of those international law rights in Canadian internal municipal law.

[Law Of The Sea, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the United Nations tribunal on the Law of the Sea, with its seat in Hamburg, completes the conflict resolution machinery under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 which has now finally entered into force.

From the United Nation conferences on the Law of Sea of 1958-1960, on to the most recent 1970 to 1982 marathon, Canadian diplomats have led in successfully arguing the case for third party dispute settlement, especially judicial settlement. It is to be hoped that when Canada finally ratifies the 1982 convention we may be able to secure the election of a Canadian judge to the new court.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 23rd, 1996]

(a) The following species are considered generally "low to average in abundance", slope rockfish (Pacific ocean perch, redstripe rockfish, yellowmouth rockfish, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish), inshore rockfish (red snapper and other inshore species).

A number of stocks of slope and shelf rockfish are fished, which individually may be from below average to average in abundance. More detail can be obtained in the annual report of the Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee Groundfish Subcommittee.

Although slope rockfish have generally been considered "below average" for some time, there are indications (at least in areas north of Vancouver Island where the major fisheries occur) that abundance of these species could be "average" rather than "below average". Additional data and analysis will be required to define stock status more precisely.

There are indications that some flatfish stocks (English sole, rock sole, Dover sole) are declining in abundance due to poor stock replenishment during the past decade, particularly in areas to the north of Vancouver Island. Additional data and analysis will be required to more clearly define whether these are "below average".

(b) The following species/stocks are considered "very low in abundance": Pacific cod (all stocks), lingcod in the Strait of Georgia (offshore lingcod are considered at "average" abundance), Petrale sole.

(c) The information above comes from the latest assessment of Pacific groundfish stock status, conducted under the auspices of PSARC in July 1996.

Many kinds of scientific data are used in assessing the status of Pacific groundfish stocks: catch and fishing effort data (from sales slips, fishing logs, dockside monitoring, observer programs), data from surveys conducted on Department of Fisheries and Oceans vessels or in co-operation with industry (using trawls, traps, and acoustic methods), biological sampling data (length, weight, age, maturity), and data on ocean conditions (temperature, salinity, ocean climate trends, currents). The particular mix of data used depends on the specific species and stock. Details on the data and analyses used in assessing stock status are included in the annual reports of the PSARC groundfish subcommittee and in working papers on specific stocks.

[Pledge Of Allegiance, October 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his diligence in raising this important issue. The regulatory amendment dealing with cost recovery of fish inspection services is part of the federal government's overall program to reduce costs through increased efficiencies within all federal departments. In this regard, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done its utmost to achieve overall government objectives.

Within the DFO inspection program, costs to the taxpayers of Canada are being reduced from $33 million in 1990-91 to a projected $19 million in 1997-98. This projected figure includes $4.8 million that we are looking to raise through cost recovery. DFO is responsible for introducing a well recognized quality management program, which has produced greater efficiencies in providing the fish inspection services. Although efficiencies have been realized and costs reduced, it has not been sufficient to address the cost reduction figures to which the department is committed. Consequently, of the $14 million reduction in costs to taxpayers, $4.8 million will come from cost recovery.

There is a regulatory process established by the Government of Canada dealing with implementation of cost recovery systems. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has adhered to this process. In addition, during the summer of 1995, the department held a series of consultation session with industry. In March 1996, it provided industry with a communiqué informing that industry of theregulatory amendments and in April 1996, it pre-published the amendments in Part I of the Canada Gazette to allow for public comment.

The process of consulting and developing the inspection cost recovery system has been ongoing for more than a year. The department has given consideration to all parties concerned and to all aspects of cost recovery. In fact, as a result of industry comments and in acknowledgement of the interests and concerns so eloquently and persuasively expressed by the hon. member, the minister did make adjustments to the cost recovery system for fish inspection. In addition to this, the department has committed itself to a review of the cost recovery system for fish inspection services after one year of implementation.

The department is committed to recovering a portion of costs incurred and providing fish inspection services. But it is also aware of the concerns of the industry. Industry consultations are part of the review process and have already been initiated.

[The Late Fritz Ziegler, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the late Fritz Ziegler of Vancouver, who died while in his early nineties, was one of the last of the west coast romantics who helped lay the foundations for B.C.'s current economic prosperity. He was also tireless in promoting co-operation between the province's many different ethnic communities and in heading fundraising drives for community health and charitable organizations.

Honorary Consul for Monaco and Grand Prior for the Americas of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, his imaginative and his practical construction skills are symbolically combined in the Gothic castle, King Ludwig of Bavaria style, that he built in the forests above Langley, B.C., and that one understands will eventually be devoted to public educational purposes.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I would like to pose some questions that might accelerate our proceeding to the conclusion of the debate.

Would he recognize that it is a matter of high urgency to establish a jurisdictional base in Canadian law against predatory foreign interests in our contiguous zone and our exclusive economic zone, and that these interests are so far only protected under international law and pending ratification of the law of the sea convention, customary international law and bilateral treaties? Would he concede this urgency?

In so far as there may exist in his view difficulties in co-operation between the provincial government-in this case I believe he was speaking of Quebec-and the federal government, would he be prepared to study the recent memorandum of understanding between the Government of British Columbia and the federal government? It is directed to a cognate problem under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean's coastal communities where co-operative federalism is being achieved without the necessity of a constitutional amendment, which we recognize under chapter five of the 1982 act is almost impossible to achieve.

[Cyprus, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 427 Canadian citizens, many of them of Greek or Greek Cypriot origins, from the greater Vancouver region.

They ask support from this Parliament for the application of United Nations Security Council resolutions which provide for the demilitarization of the island of Cyprus and its restoration to full territorial integrity.