Ted McWhinney

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate may I make the preparatory comment that one has been fascinated by the debate tonight. I point out to those trained in the great Cartesian tradition that balance and form are an integral part of its mode of reasoning. Therefore what we are suggesting here was in that full spirit.

This is an oceans act and it is not the proper forum to tack on American congressional style, other matters that are better dealt with elsewhere.

There is nothing in this debate that indicates the government regards the comments made opposite as irrelevant or not of importance and worth consideration. Surely they belong in another forum and we would welcome the members of the official opposition to co-operative federalism through federal-provincial discussions of the sort referred to by the hon. member for Chambly and bring these matters there.

In terms of the oceans act, it has its own integrity and it should be left with that. The references to clause 9(5) of the oceans act are misplaced. That is a simple interpretive provision. As a matter of law in the Latin sense it is inserted ex abundante cautela. It takes away no rights, it creates no rights. It is a simple provision of interpretation. It leaves the situation as it was before.

Getting back to the specific amendments now proposed by the Bloc, we would have to recognize that the government has applied multi-disciplinary approaches here. It looks to an integration of economic, environmental and social considerations and it seeks to involve all affected stakeholders.

Stewardship of the ocean and coastal resources is responsibilities we must all share, federal, territorial, provincial, municipal and aboriginal governments, in partnership with the larger community, the extended family, business, unions, non-government organizations and academics.

The government is prepared for the leadership role in oceans management and embraces the reality of co-operative stewardship and partnership.

Although the government is committed to collaboration with the provinces, as evidenced by its preambular statements in the Canada oceans act, the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments such as Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 which would require further consultation with the provinces and would obligate the review of decisions made by the governor in council by the standing committee.

This is a fundamental change in the structure of government that may well be worth considering in another forum. Everything is open to discussion in those terms, but it is the wrong approach to try and tack it on to the oceans act, which has its own integrity and its own purposes.

The Bloc amendments apply to other ministers and to the governor in council. To require the governor in council to consult with the provinces and with the standing committee before issuing a regulation recommended by another minister is in legal terms a preposterous proposal.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be making recommendations to the governor in council on the delineation of maritime zones. It is a question of international relations, not one of federal-provincial relations, as suggested by Bloc Motion No. 24.

The Minister of Justice will be making recommendations respecting the application of federal and provincial laws to the maritime zones of Canada.

Regulations respecting the application of federal and provincial laws to the maritime zones under the provisions of part I of the Canada Oceans Act are the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. It is not the role of the provinces or of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to alter the responsibilities of either of these two ministers, or to interfere with the recommendations they make to the governor in council.

Further, Motion No. 39 proposes to require that the minister consult with the provinces and receive approval from the standing committee before establishing advisory or management bodies and appointing members to those bodies. The minister is already required to take the views of the provinces into account, so this motion in legal terms is redundant.

Again the Bloc is proposing that the minister's abilities to exercise his mandate be fettered, this time by proposing that the valuable time of the standing committee be taken away, time that is better spent representing the views and interests of Canadians.

In short, we have found the debate interesting and fruitful in terms of ideas. We do regard the amendments in essence as ones in which the Speaker could have exercised his discretion the other way, but we have made no proposal to that effect. I would suggest the thrust of these matters is not germane to the oceans act under consideration and would be better taken up in another forum at another time. And be assured this government is prepared to consider every proposal in those other fora.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Canada oceans act and the number of amendments that have been proposed to the act.

I have to recur to the point I made earlier but with perhaps more precision. I have said it is not the appropriate role or mission for the House to assay constitutional amendments whether by the director or by the processes now being developed in intergovernmental relations and between federal and provincial ministers. This is an act which is devoted to Canada's oceans, and its integrity should be respected in that sense with proper criteria relevance applied to it.

The clauses the Bloc Quebecois wishes to amend in this act relate to Canada's rights and jurisdictions over its territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf as codified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

These amendments are based on the misconception that this act could impact on existing provincial rights and boundaries. It is certainly not competent for ordinary legislation of this House to change the constitutional division of powers. There are other arenas and other processes in which that could be carried out if that were the will of the country.

I will not take up House time by enumerating our rights and responsibilities in each of Canada's maritime zones as declared by Bill C-26. However let me point out there are elements of the act, including the declaration and recognition of our rights in all of the maritime zones mentioned, which are in full agreement with international codes and practice.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to amend the oceans act in such a way as to suggest that provinces could have rights and jurisdiction in the maritime zones of Canada. Under international law however these are clearly assigned to the coastal state, that is, Canada. There is nothing to prevent efforts being made to promote constitutional change by direct amendment or otherwise but that is for another arena, another time and another place. It certainly would be a distortion of this act to try to incorporate suggested changes of that nature into it.

Bloc Motions Nos. 8 and 9 suggest that the provinces have rights seaward of the base lines. The concept of base lines is not used in international law or in Bill C-26 to determine the internal boundaries of a nation; rather the base lines serve as reference lines from which the nation defines its national maritime boundaries according to international law.

Under international law, rights in waters seaward of the base lines are vested in the coastal state. Canada as a nation holds title of sovereignty over the waters within its base lines and within its territorial sea. These waters are part and parcel of the territory of Canada. Furthermore, contrary to what is implied by Bloc Motions Nos. 8 and 9, Canada holds property rights below waters that are not within provincial boundaries.

Bloc Motion No. 14 applies to Canada's exclusive economic zone. It seeks to imply that there are or could be sovereign provincial rights in the exclusive economic zone. However under international law the exclusive economic zone is vested in Canada. For these purposes it is located well beyond provincial waters. International law as codified by the United Nations convention assigns to the coastal state Canada rights and responsibilities within the exclusive economic zone and these rights are vested in the state, in Canada, and not in the provinces.

Bloc Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 regarding the continental shelf in legal terms make the same erroneous implications, namely, that the continental shelf could be within the boundary of a province and that rights in this area could be exercised by a province. Once again I would refer hon. members opposite to article 77 of the United Nations convention. It clearly states that the coastal state Canada has sovereign rights for exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, its non-living resources on its seabed and subsoil and of its living sedentary species. Under the international law and the convention these rights are vested not in the provinces but in the coastal state.

I therefore urge members of the House to reject Bloc Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 19 pertaining to the maritime zones of Canada. To endorse them would be to destroy Canada's international credibility, to contravene international law and to destroy the work of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Bloc Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 refer to clause 23 of the oceans act which deals with the issuance of certificates of geographic location by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. These certificates are court documents issued by or under the authority of the minister which contain a statement that a geographic location specified in the certificate is located in a specific area.

In the case of the certificates issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the certificate would assert that a specific geographic location is within a specified maritime zone, that is the internal waters, territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf. In the case of the certificate issued by

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the certificate would assert that the location prescribed is within an area of a maritime zone where a specified provincial law may have been extended. Once again these certificates focus on the geographic position of the site in question. They make no statement about the authority exercised there.

Strong legislation is made on a solid foundation. Basic tools such as these certificates are required to enable the courts of the land to efficiently conduct their business.

It is clear that the nature of the certificates provided under clause 23 of the oceans act has not been understood by some hon. members. Through amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23, the Bloc suggests that the federal government might, through the certificates issued by either the Minister of Foreign Affairs or those issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, impinge on provincial rights or legislative jurisdiction. The certificates provided for in this act do not deal with legislative jurisdiction. They deal with geographic locations, degrees of latitude and longitude. Constitutionally, they could not go beyond that.

It has been mentioned before, but I will mention it again. Provincial boundaries and provincial claims are constitutional matters which cannot and will not be unilaterally amended by legislation and administrative action such as the issuance of these certificates.

I therefore ask all members of the House to reject these motions presented by the Bloc which, if accepted, would make Canada's new oceans statute contravene international law.

On another issue, Bloc Motion No. 32 of this grouping, there is a proposal to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provinces take the leadership role in developing the oceans management strategy, while Motion No. 34 proposed to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provinces take the leadership role in developing integrated management plans. Canadians have asked that there be one leader, not ten. Such a proposal would leave us where we are today with a maze of legislation and responsibilities but with no one person responsible for getting all the players to work together.

It is not as though the provinces will be ignored in this process. The minister is committed to collaboration with the provinces, territories, aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and many other stakeholders. This commitment permeates the whole bill. The minister's leadership role must be preserved. For that reason alone, Motions Nos. 32 and 34 must be rejected.

To further strengthen the language of the act, I propose in Motions Nos. 33 and 35 that the French text of clause 29 be amended to be consistent with the English text in order to clarify and remove redundancies and make the bill consistent with the wording used in the Constitution and other legislation.

In addition, during the standing committee's examination of the bill, concern was expressed by the hon. member for Gaspé with the use of the term "communautés côtières". This term has been changed to "collectivités côtières" to address the concerns expressed by the hon. member.

I therefore urge members of this House to accept the government's technical amendments in Motions Nos. 33 and 35, to reject Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 19 in which the Bloc seeks to alter provincial boundaries, and also Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 which are based on erroneous assumptions that the federal government is seeking to alter federal-provincial jurisdiction and provincial boundaries. This is not its intent and it could not do so in this legislation.

Bloc Motions Nos. 32 and 34 should also be rejected to allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to assume the leadership role which Canadians have clearly requested.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I exhort members to reject Motions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 31 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gaspé. The purpose of these motions is to undermine the Oceans Act, which, as written, is in strict accordance with the codes and customs of international law.

Canada is a nation which has a long maritime history, one which has ranged from quiet diplomacy in the development of international agreements focused on the development of a comprehensive framework for the regulation of all ocean spaces to that of proactive action to protect straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

The legislation being discussed constitutes a major element of the overall strategy to intensify the Canadian government's efforts toward the conservation, protection and sustainable development of our oceans and their resources.

The first objective of Bill C-26 is to recognize in domestic law Canada's rights and responsibilities as a coastal state as regards maritime zones and to delimit the area over which Canada will exercise its conservation and protection initiatives.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which came into force on November 14, 1994 provides for the delimitation and establishment of maritime zones under national jurisdiction and identifies the rights of coastal states and of other states within these maritime zones.

The oceans act implements those provisions of the United Nations convention as regards the maritime zones. This is not the legislation by which Canada will ratify the United Nations convention. Members will recall that in the February speech from the throne the government indicated its intention to table enabling legislation allowing Canada to ratify the convention. This legislation will be presented to Parliament at a later date.

The clauses which the Bloc Quebecois wishes to amend recognize and delineate Canada's maritime zones seaward of the internal waters of Canada as codified under the United Nations convention, otherwise known as UNCLOS.

The amendments suggested by the Bloc in this group of motions would change all of this, and I refer again to what I said about the need for respect for juridical roles and missions. The Bloc amendments would intentionally have Canada contravene this international convention which we as a nation worked very hard to see established.

Motion No. 7 as proposed is unnecessary and misleading. It refers to clause 5 which describes how baselines are drawn in accordance with UNCLOS. The motion indicates, if I may say so, a confusion between the determination of internal domestic boundaries with the determination of the international boundaries.

The concept of baselines is not used in international law or in Bill C-26 to determine the internal boundaries of a nation. Rather the baselines serve as reference lines from which the nation defines its national maritime boundaries according to international law. These amendments, as proposed, therefore, are misleading. They do nothing to improve the bill, rather they detract from its clarity and accuracy.

Bloc Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 apply to Canada's exclusive economic zone and seek to imply that this area and its seabed could be contained in the territory of a province. The exclusive economic zone is delineated to its inner margin by the outer edge of the territorial sea and stretches out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline or the coastline. By definition under international law, the exclusive economic zone is well beyond provincial waters yet the Bloc amendments would have us alter this important legislation to suggest otherwise.

Bloc Motions Nos. 15 and 16 regarding the continental shelf make the same erroneous implications, namely that the continental shelf could be within the boundary of a province. The continental shelf is well beyond provincial boundaries. To amend this bill as proposed by the Bloc would make Canada's new ocean statute contravene international law. This is neither proper nor legally correct.

Motion No. 31 proposed by the Bloc seeks to alter clause 28 which defines the area of application of the oceans management strategy and makes it clear that oceans are defined to include estuary and coastal offshore waters. This clause, as it is, states that part II of the act, the part entitled "The Oceans Management Strategy" does not apply to lakes and rivers. This makes sense. An ocean management strategy does apply to lakes and rivers.

The Bloc motion attempts to exclude application of a strategy to estuaries. This does not make sense as the interface between the fresh and saltwater estuaries form a significant component of ocean ecosystems, as well as the social economic well-being of Canadians. To include these areas in the ocean management strategy would effectively ignore the principles of ecosystems management set out in this act.

I therefore urge the members of this House to reject the motions presented by the Bloc pertaining to the maritime zones of Canada and to the oceans management strategy. To accept them would contravene international law. It would also limit the effectiveness of our efforts to conserve and protect the ocean ecosystems.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to resume speaking in favour of Bill C-26, An Act respecting the oceans of Canada.

All Canadians who have followed the progress of this bill to any extent at all will know that the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have worked very hard to ensure that Bill C-26 is given a thorough and detailed examination.

The committee called witnesses representing more than 30 groups and organizations from everywhere in Canada during its several weeks of hearings. Not only did the Committee call those witnesses, it listened attentively to what each of them had to say, it listened to what all Canadians have had to say constantly for some years now: our country needs legislation to ensure the proper management of our oceans by including in the legislation the concepts of sustainable development, an ecosystem approach and one based on the precautionary approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources.

Canadians want legislation that will acknowledge the value and importance of traditional ecological knowledge with respect to ocean management. In fact, not a single witness nor anyone else has said: "We do not need a act respecting the oceans of Canada". Instead, what they have all said is the opposite: the law could do with some reinforcing. And that is exactly what has been done.

Equally important, the committee listened to the provinces and territories and proposed an amendment that guarantees collaboration with their governments as well as with affected aboriginal organizations, with coastal communities and with ocean stakeholders.

We should thank them for the work they have done. What hon. members have before them is an act that is both forward looking and solid in its principles. One of the goals when constructing this act was to ensure it was built on the most solid of foundations. From this foundation will come better decisions about ocean management.

It is for this reason that the government examined every clause, every line and every word of the bill as it has been reported to be sure that the foundation was solid, that it is an act that demonstrates to the citizens of this country that the government understands and respects what they want for the oceans surrounding Canada.

In this examination, the government discovered minor transcription errors, improvements that could be made in the quality and clarity of the wording and minor inconsistencies between the French and English versions of the text. Technical amendments can be found in Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91. Although these technical amendments may seem minor, the government recognized that without them, there could have been misinterpretation of the act.

The act makes it possible for Canadians to work together to shape the best national answers and the best local answers for the sustainable development of our ocean resources. The various technical improvements proposed by the government will add clarity to the act.

The basic criterion of an act of Parliament is certainty and flexibility. We believe the Canada Oceans Act balances these two principles of certainty and flexibility. We urge all members to vote for Motions Nos. 5, 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 74, 75, 89, 90 and 91.

Motions Nos. 47 and 48 by the Bloc Quebecois amend the same line in the text of the bill in two different ways. What does the Bloc Quebecois actually want? This section of the bill lays out the overall consultative theme of this bill and gives the minister the option of consulting with anyone or everyone on matters pertaining to part II of the bill.

Motion No. 47 proposes that the minister and the provinces together will consult with all the other players with respect to part II of this bill. Why would the provinces be consulting on something that is not within their jurisdiction?

May I suggest some better attention by the Bloc to the constitutional roles and missions, ordinary legislation versus constitutional amending procedures. It seems to me that the Bloc amendments propose to achieve by indirection constitutional changes that belong elsewhere. We are into a species of creeping constitutional amendments as to federal-provincial powers. That is not acceptable in ordinary legislation presented to this House.

The people of Canada have not asked that there be 10 leaders in the management of our oceans. They have asked that there be one. Therefore, Motion No. 47 must be rejected.

Motion No. 48 proposes that the minister must consult with all the provinces and standing committee in exercising his mandate in part II of this bill. This detracts from the flexibility of this section, which allows the minister to consult with the appropriate provinces or groups when an issue is relevant to them. It is not always necessary to consult with everyone when a matter may only have relevance to a particular province, territory or group.

Furthermore, this motion obliges the minister to consult with the standing committee in exercising his mandate in part II of this bill. This would involve the standing committee in the day by day decision making of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I remind the House again of what I said about creeping constitutional amendments. There seems to be a lack of respect for the constitutional separation of powers in this proposed amendment by the Bloc. It raises constitutional issues that are more appropriately dealt with in other arenas and in other processes not in the interstices of ordinary legislation devoted to oceans.

Besides the standing committee in its review of this bill already put in a section to allow the standing committee to review the implementation of this act in three years. For these reasons, Motion No. 48, as proposed, should be rejected.

Furthermore, the Bloc proposed through Motions Nos. 51 and 52 to make two separate changes to the same line of the same clause 35. These changes would require the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to seek the approval of the standing committee to exercise his mandate as it relates to the establishment of marine protected areas. It would also effectively restrict the establishment of these protected areas to fishery resources.

This is totally contrary to the testimony presented to the standing committee by Canadians from across the country. There are more living resources and habitats in the sea than only those that are fished and certainly there are many more worth protecting. Therefore, I ask all members to support the act by voting against Motions Nos. 47, 48, 51 and 52 and to support the passage of the Canada Oceans Act to the next stage of the legislative process.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today in support of the changes the government wishes to make to the preamble of the Oceans Act. It is no coincidence if Canada's motto is "a mari usque ad mare", from sea to sea. There is no country in this world more influenced by the sea than Canada.

Canada is, by definition, a maritime country. We are surrounded by three oceans, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. Most of our southern boundary is made up of a true inland sea, the Great Lakes. Throughout the years, the exuberance of seafaring life along the coasts has helped to define Canadian culture and identity, due in part to the coastal communities of the First Nations, the European whalers and fishermen unafraid to sail the high seas to come and harvest our marine resources, and the first settlers who came from the old world to start a new life along the coast of this new found world that came to be known as Newfoundland.

The large marine ecosystems along our coasts are varied, productive and precious. We have the responsibility at the national as well as the international levels to protect our marine heritage both for ourselves and for the future generations.

In its motion to amend Bill C-26, the Oceans Act, the government proposes to add four new statements in the preamble, which have been discussed and approved by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In trying to amend the preamble, the government wants to ensure that the wishes of the many witnesses the standing committee heard are taken into consideration in this legislation. The government is going about this in several ways.

The first statement is a recognition of the distinct qualities of the three oceans of Canada and a recognition that these oceans are the common heritage of all Canadians. This sentiment was expressed eloquently by a number of witnesses representing fishing organizations as well as by the aboriginal authorities who were also witnesses at the standing committee.

The second statement the government proposes to add as statement No. 5 to the preamble holds that conservation based on an ecosystem is of fundamental importance to maintaining biological diversity and productivity in the marine environment. This principle is the basis of a new oceans management strategy to be developed following enactment of the legislation. Amending the preamble in this manner responds to the many representations of witnesses before the standing committee and is consistent with the government's approach to conservation.

The third statement the government proposed to add would fall as the sixth statement of the current preamble. This amendment would emphasize that Canada promotes the application of the proportionary approach to conservation management and exploitation of marine resources to protect those marine resources and to preserve the marine environment. That is to say, as a nation we would rather err on the side of caution than wait until harsh consequences of dithering idly confront us before taking action to preserve our cherished and fragile marine resources.

Canada strongly advocated the inclusion of the proportionary approach in the convention on straddling stocks and highly migratory species. It is only natural to include this principle in our domestic legislation.

The final amendment to the preamble proposed by the government addresses comments made by ocean industries and regards the opportunities offered by our oceans. It would be the seventh statement of the preamble. It reflects that Canada recognizes the oceans and their resources offer significant opportunities for economic diversification and the generation of wealth to the benefit of all Canadians, in particular coastal communities.

All these amendments draw into the body of the preamble concepts that Canadians expressed from the legislation. It is co-operative legislation that will make it possible for Canadians to work together to preserve our ocean resources.

The motions brought forward by the opposition suggest further amendments, specifically to provide provincial jurisdiction over the management of oceans and marine resources. With respect, this

is an attempt to alter the authority granted the provinces under the Constitution. There is no need constitutionally to reiterate the federal government's commitment to a collaborative approach to oceans management. This is already contained in the preamble which highlights the role of the provinces and other stakeholders.

The particular statement of the preamble to which I am referring states that in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the minister by the act, the minister shall co-operate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations. The provinces are specifically mentioned again in clause 33(2), a clause dealing with consultation.

Does this sound like an exclusionary act? Does this sound like an act that wants to take away the rights and privileges of provinces? Of course it does not. It is not an act that attempts to do this. The government would not be here promoting Bill C-26 if it were such an act.

The act does not attempt to make any changes to the present constitutional framework or to the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces. How could it by way of ordinary legislation? It does not encroach in any way on provincial rights. Nor does it add to them.

The bill before the House today calls on all Canadians, including the provinces, to come together to develop a strategy that combines a harnessing of the oceans' economic potential with respect for the oceans' environmental needs. The national environmental agenda can no longer be separated from the national economic agenda or the social foreign policy agendas.

The preamble to Bill C-26 is visionary, thorough and inclusive. It is the convergence of visions of all Canadians from all across the nation for responsible ocean management. Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have worked hard to make those visions a reality in the legislation. They worked hard to ensure that Bill C-26 is inclusionary and that it fosters co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.

Provincial involvement in the management of our oceans is a given with the collaborative approach espoused by the bill. For that reason I hope all members will support the Canada Oceans Act and all it represents for ocean management, and Motion No. 1 proposed by the government to amend the preamble. At the same time I recommend members vote down the official opposition's proposed amendments, Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as unnecessary, given the

statements already contained within the preamble and those proposed by the government.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by 105 residents of the greater Vancouver region requesting Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms so as to extend to same sex relationships.

[Fisheries, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that the Federal Court of Canada last week indicated the fisheries complained of do not represent any harm to commercial fisheries. The hon. member will be aware of that because an injunction was refused to him.

The fisheries in question are part of the aboriginal fisheries strategy which is enjoined upon the Government of Canada by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The catch allocation is modest, less than 10 per cent of the expected returns, and under the terms of the agreement all net profits from any fish sold are to be used for fisheries management projects jointly agreed to by the department and by the First Nations.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerns chapter 5 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is addressed to constituent power, the ultimate source of constitutional power in the state.

It is an area in which there is an absence of compelling or binding precedents or practice. It is proper therefore for Parliament to attempt to lay down constitutional ground rules as to what is involved and what is not involved.

The first of these, of course, is that what Parliament says in a constitutional debate, unlike the position Parliament views in ordinary legislation, amounts to travaux préparatoires, authoritative sources regarding what Parliament intended, which are controlling on the courts in their approach to that matter.

Whether this is, as presented, a section 43 matter involving only Parliament and one other province is a matter for Parliament to decide, not the province, and that it is judicially reviewable as such by the courts.

Further, it is a mandate to Parliament in the sense of both chambers under chapter 5 of the Constitution, not to the cabinet, not to the Prime Minister.

I have argued, as members would be aware, for the attrition of the Senate's powers over the House as an unappointed body in other areas, but it is difficult to deny in the case of an act adopted as recently as the Constitution Act, 1982 that the Senate does not have full power equal to that of the House in this matter.

I reiterate that Parliament is not a rubber stamp for a proposal submitted by a provincial legislature. It is no mere ministerial one to follow up the wishes of provincial legislatures. Parliament has full political discretion in exercising its role to accept, to reject or to send back to the province with suggestions of desirable amendments that the province should make to obtain Parliament's approval.

I stress again that Parliament in approaching its role is aware of the principle of economy in the use of power which is applicable as much to constitutional matters as to military matters.

There is an obligation on a province approaching Parliament to exhaust the ordinary political processes within the province before escalating to a constitutional amendment which it would ask Parliament to adopt.

Parliament in this case is limiting itself to the facts presented by the provincial legislature of Newfoundland. It is a Newfoundland situation, and Parliament's decision to approve or not to approve the project of resolution should be understood in that context.

In particular, it should be taken in the context of chapter 5 of whole of the Constitution Act, 1982. It sets out various procedures for amending the Constitution with different degrees of difficulty in the procedures of amendment which are intended to correspond to the seriousness or otherwise of the proposals concerned.

Since section 43-based amendments are limited to the province or provinces actually approaching Parliament, Parliament in responding and carrying forward a proposal for an amendment is limiting itself to those provinces. What we are saying is no precedent in constitutional legal terms is created from this disposition that might apply to other provinces not represented as parties to the action. Section 43-based constitutional amendments have no application to any other than the particular moving parties concerned.

I suggested earlier when the matter first arose in political arenas that there might be merits in obtaining an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court that would address itself to the issues on which I have spoken. However, an advisory opinion can of course be a prior opinion, or a subsequent one if questions of doubt or interpretation arise. After the adoption of the present resolution, they could properly be referred to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.

In approaching this matter I am very sensitive to the principles of federal comity, that is to say the particular obligations of good faith and mutual trust and respect that link provinces and the federal government in a federal system such as ours.

I have already spoken of the prior obligation of a province to exhaust the ordinary political processes before approaching us for a constitutional amendment. The federal Parliament, in responding to a provincial request, will bear in mind what the late Mr. Justice Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court said about the duty of the federal government, in exercise of federal comity, to defer to a province even if on particular facts the federal government might have chosen to act otherwise in the legislation that is involved.

It is in that spirit that we approach this resolution. I have taken note of the fact that representations have been made to many members of the House by individual voters in Newfoundland on this question. We do take in mind the fact that the premier of Newfoundland has met with us and has given assurances that he will, in the application of this resolution of amendment, if it is adopted, negotiate and deal with people within his province.

Federal comity works two ways. It is a reciprocal obligation, and we take very seriously the assurances given by the premier of

Newfoundland who is well known and respected as a distinguished former member of the House.

I am acting on the basis of these assurances, and also my awareness that the application under section 43 cannot, in constitutional law terms, extend beyond the project submitted by the province of Newfoundland that it does not constitute a constitutional legal precedent for other cases and that, in particular, it can have no constitutional application to parties not represented before the Parliament in this proposal. It cannot touch fundamental rights or other matters. It would require other amending procedures with extraordinary majorities and processes not present in the relatively simple section 43 application.

Therefore, it is on that basis and having expressed these views which, as travaux préparatoires, do indicate an intent of Parliament and which we would expect the courts, as a co-ordinate institution, to respect that I am prepared to support the resolution.

[Chinook Salmon, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, extraordinary conditions created in 1992-94 by El Nino's warm water currents and by the movement north of hundreds of millions of mackerel that devour young chinook salmon have brought a crisis for west coast sports fishers who contribute $740 million a year to the B.C. economy and up to 6,000 full time jobs.

A more than 90 per cent loss of production of chinook has necessitated stringent conservation measures for the 1996 season with time and area based bans on chinook fishing on the west coast of Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlottes. With the co-operation of the sports fishers, this vital B.C. resource can be preserved and restored.

The state of Alaska, where 37 per cent of the mortality in chinook stocks occurs, should try to be a good neighbour and live up to the letter and spirit of the 1985 Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us forget the road building. We are discussing something else.

As far as the Senate is concerned, I thought I had made it very clear in my address that we expect the Senate to extend to us, as the House of Commons, the courtesy respecting our majority decisions. The Senate exists as an institution of our Parliament and we have to respect its autonomy too. It works both ways. We cannot have it on both counts.