Yvan Bernier

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments for my colleague. First of all, I would like to congratulate him. For a member from Chicoutimi, even if people say fishing is not that good up there, I believe some people like to troll for redfish and go ice fishing in the winter.

But what I find so surprising is that the hon. member took the time to do his homework and to read the fisheries bill.

Now let me explain. People from Chicoutimi are not as familiar with the sea as the hon. member for Newfoundland or I myself might be, but he understands the problem perfectly.

Before I put a question to the hon. member for Chicoutimi, I would like to elaborate on the comment made by the hon. member for Newfoundland. I must say it is very apt, and because this lady replaced the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. John Crosbie, I suppose I can expect her to know something about the fisheries as well.

She pointed out that the fisheries industry was keen on professionalization. I want to make sure I understood correctly. I imagine she will have a chance to make her speech this afternoon.

When the first moratorium was established, Newfoundlanders referred to this as an act of God, and claims for financial assistance were the order of the day. When the second moratorium was proposed, again by a Minister of Fisheries from Newfoundland, but this time flying the Liberal colours, and I am referring to Mr. Tobin, the minister said that before the fisheries resume, it would be necessary to rationalize, by either reducing the number of fishers or their quotas.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi touched on this in his speech. Where are the government's measures for rationalization? The fishers said that one way to achieve rationalization would be to professionalize the industry. Where are the criteria for a professional fisher?

There is nothing in the bill. The minister should provide guidelines. He should tell us what his strategy is. But no, nothing, despite invitations to do so from other governments.

The hon. member for Newfoundland should tell us later on in her speech what the professionalization of fishers should entail. I wish she would mention this later on.

As for questions and comments on the speech made by my colleague from Chicoutimi, he mentioned initiatives by British Columbia and Quebec and that he would like to see a study, a breakdown of resources. I wish he would tell us more about this, because I think he hit on the right word, referring to the situation as total chaos.

Before starting up the fisheries again, it is useful to discuss how much we intend to catch. For the benefit of the House, I may point out that nearly 75 per cent of fish species now being caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or which were being caught before the moratoriums were already subject to individual quotas. These were referred to as enterprise allocations, and in some cases were transferable. That is also a management tool.

Nowhere in the bill does the minister provide any guidelines. Nowhere. One wonders what is going on here. We are entitled to an explanation from the minister. And if he cannot give us one, he should let someone else do his job.

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

What about the Gaspé coast?

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the two minutes remaining. I appreciate that the Liberal member for Labrador is impatient to make his speech on this subject but I would also like to have other Liberal members take part in the debate. I would like them to take the floor this afternoon and tell us why we should rush through an act which is supposed to be the act of the century, while Reform members are saying we should go back to the drawing board.

I believe that Reform members are right and I think it is up to the Liberals to convince us this afternoon.

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my Reform colleague. You will allow me to make a comment instead of asking a question. My colleague may have lost his momentum since he started his speech before the parliamentary break and finished it just now.

I would like to remind the members and the ministers present, and all those who are listening, about the irritants that Bloc Quebecois members mentioned during their speeches-and we will have the opportunity to repeat them-so that we can relate these irritants to the amendment proposed by the Reform Party and really understand what is happening here this afternoon.

The main point which annoyed the Bloc in this bill was clause 17, the provision on management agreements. My honourable colleague also mentioned these agreements. Thanks to his discretionary power, the minister can decide who will be party to an agreement. He can chose whoever he wants.

What I understood from my colleague's speech is that he criticizes the repeal of a privilege that until now all Canadians could enjoy, provided they lived close enough to a lake or river, of course, that is the privilege to fish.

I think the issue of fisheries management agreements is worth a closer look. I also think that, before we proceed any further, the minister should go back to his drawing board. I must also remind the House, as I think my colleague did, that we are dealing with the bill of the century, which proposes the merging of four existing acts, some of which are as old as the Canadian Constitution itself. It is very important that we do a good job because it could be another 100 years before this legislation is reviewed.

The other point I would like to stress concerns the delegation of powers to the provinces. There are clauses in this bill that allow or indicate delegations of powers, specially with regard to fishing licences and the environment.

I am not sure that both sides of the House agree on the extent of the powers being delegated. With regard to the intent of the bill, when the Minister, in Part I, deals with the delegation of powers relating to fishing licences, I think this is both inadequate and contradictory.

Clause 9, I think, provides that a provincial Minister of Fisheries may, by delegation, issue licences. But clause 17 provides that the Minister has the discretionary power to decide who will receive the various licenses. I think this is contradictory.

I say it is inadequate because provinces, including British Columbia and Quebec, are asking for more powers. When we talk about delegating powers with regard to fisheries, we do not mean only the authority to issue licences. For the sake of consistency, fisheries management must include control over fishery officers and the allocation of resources among communities, which is very important.

This fall, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been taken to task. The department lost a court case on its handling of the delegation of powers and the establishment of fisheries boards. Part III of the bill provides for the establishment of quasi-judicial tribunals to deal with issues and administrative sanctions relating to fishing licences.

Once again, allowing the Minister to use his discretionary power to appoint fisheries judges for a period of three years is no way to improve the situation. I do not see any difference with current procedures, under which sanctions are imposed by Fisheries and Oceans regional directors.

Those appointed will be in the minister's pay. Their mandate will last only three years. I think Quebecers and Canadians alike deserve a justice system that is much bigger, tighter, and above all more professional and politically neutral.

I will conclude with a question to my colleague. I will try to make it short. My colleague moved that the bill be not read a second time but sent back to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I would like him to examine the matter more carefully, because I understand there is still a lot of work to be done, and I will let him conclude this debate. Later this afternoon, I will get another chance to comment on this issue.

[Coast Guard, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister accept a study which says the impact of its tariff structure will be negligible, considering that, for example, this new tax will reduce by 15 per cent the profits of iron ore companies on the north shore and will result in the closure of the Port-Cartier mine two or three years earlier than expected, thus worsening the unemployment situation in a region that is already hard hit?

[Coast Guard, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister, who is bent on implementing a new tariff structure, will release this week an impact study on the fee structure for services provided by the coast guard to commercial shipping. However, we have serious reservations about the credibility of this study, which we have with us, since it seems to have been drafted specifically to support the minister's intentions.

Will the minister admit that the study, which he commissioned, is nothing but a report to accommodate him, since it does not take into account several essential parameters, such as the increase in the price of oil in the east that will result from the new tariff structure, and the jobs that will be lost because of increased competition from American ports?

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few problems with the recommendations just made by my colleague across the way. Allow me to explain.

When he wants to see the links between the provinces and the federal government reinforced in order to better protect the environment-and no one would oppose such a goal, I too want to be sure the environment is protected-in the fervour I thought I detected at the end of the member's speech, when he said he would like to see mechanisms reinforced in the areas of safety and monitoring of implementation, I take this to mean a form of partnership with the provinces to ensure that everyone does their job and that everything goes well, how will all this work?

I keep coming back to the same two points. I would remind members that what we are now talking about is the fisheries bill of the century. I would also remind them that, 100 years ago, environmental law was not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, the founding nation, Quebec, has just as much right to define its environmental law as does the rest of Canada. But since we are talking about partnership, since we are talking about the bill of the

century, I say that Canada has no more right over the environment than Quebec.

How dare they tell us, in clause 58(1), that the federal government may delegate powers to a province? And how, in a context of wanting to reinforce monitoring mechanisms rather than dictating how they will be set up, will agreement be reached in order to ensure that everyone wants the same degree of purity of water, air and the ecosystem?

This is immediately followed, in clause 58(3) by coercive measures. It says that federal environmental law will take precedence over provincial environmental law.

This is, I would remind you, the law of the century when it comes to the fisheries. One hundred years ago, when the two founding peoples came together to write the Constitution, it did not exist. Today we are being told: "Shove over, you little guys, we are the bosses here". I find that the minister has not done his homework.

First of all, as my colleague for Laurentides has already said, there is a lack of cohesiveness, an overlap between the federal departments themselves, between the federal Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Now what they are planning is to stir up quarrels and to give themselves all of the rights with clause 58(3), saying: "We are going to declare the delegation of power mil if we feel it is not right". Where is there any partnership in that? Where is the desire to create stringent measures of control, mechanisms to ensure a pure environment?

Clause 58(3) thumbs its nose at the rights of Quebec and the other provinces.

We will not understand each other if one side says "If you do not do what I tell you, I will cut off your rights." What entitles the provinces to additional rights? This is the law of the century, I say again.

When the Constitution was drafted 100 years ago, this was not in it. Now, if we wish to rejuvenate the Constitution, to get more modern, let us speak of how the mechanisms of harmonization rather than of coercion will be used.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the two minutes remaining to make a comment. I know we are at second reading stage. We are being told that opposition members should speak to the principles. I would therefore say right off the bat that as far as part II is concerned-I think my colleague, the environment critic, did a wonderful job-you have just been told about the potential, but very real, sticking points with the provinces.

We said that we found it insulting to be delegated authority, when we already have it, just as you do. We said that we also found it insulting that, in cases of disagreement between a provincial and federal department, the federal law would prevail.

I would like the minister to tell us that he will redo his homework. If he is trying to draft a bill that it has taken a century to produce, I would like him to tell us that he is not looking for a century of argument, but one of peace and productivity for the resource, for the people who make their living from it and depend on it. As the bill stands, what we see ahead is a century of dispute.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will address this question to my hon. colleague from the Laurentides but first I would like to made a comment and take this opportunity to take back remarks I made earlier to the previous speaker.

I said that powers were delegated only in relation to the issue of fishing licences. I was mistaken. I read the bill over, and, under clause 58(1), the minister has indeed provided for delegation of powers in relation to the environment and habitat protection.

Having done my mea culpa about what I said previously, the problem lies, and my hon. colleague from the Laurentides is absolutely right, with the environmental law. This is a relatively new field of law. I realize that it may not have existed 100 years ago, when the original fisheries act was drafted in 1868.

But it exists today. Quebec has made significant progress in this area too, but even if fisheries were its responsibility under the Constitution, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not have any power regarding the environment; the law said so. The department was not given such powers by the Constitution. However, in clause 58(3), the minister decided that, where the vision of any given province is inconsistent with that of the federal government, federal law will prevail. That is what it says.

In other words, the minister is telling those who have delegated powers: "Kiss your powers goodbye. I decide now". Which is

more insulting. How could the federal government delegate to a province a right that it is no longer entitled to have itself? As for the right to protect the environment, Quebec is already looking after that, and doing a fine job at it.

I find doubly insulting the fact that, on the one hand, the federal government would be delegating a power that it does not have itself and, on the other hand, where an inconsistency exists, the rule of law will be in favour of Ottawa.

Perhaps one hundred years have gone by before the Fisheries Act was reviewed but, with measures like these and provisions like these, I can see one hundred years of quarrelling lying ahead. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this.

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. I have run into the previous speaker before in committee, but his comments make me feel like I am on a different planet. I will try to explain why.

He went on and on about his fears regarding habitat protection, how the provinces would not be equal to the task. Unless something got lost in translation, but that is clearly what he meant.

He feared that the federal government might delegate some rights to the provinces, thereby undermining federal control over habitat conservation. I want to reassure him. Clause 9 in part I of the bill-which I find irritating-provides that the delegation of powers only applies to licences and related rights, that is to say, the money that may go with this.

What intrigues me the most-and makes me feel like I am on another planet-is the source of the new rights the minister gives himself in part II on habitat conservation. They are encroaching on the jurisdiction of the provinces, especially Quebec, which owns all the water resources and hydroelectric dams within its borders. People can figure it out for themselves. Is this his way of compromising our entire economic development?

This is not the worst bill of the century, but an attack against the provinces.

Can the hon. member admit that the provinces have done a good job in the past 100 years; that the federal government is interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction; that the provinces have done a good job of preserving habitats; and that, if it wanted to make the

new fisheries act fully consistent, the federal government should delegate more powers in this area and amend part II as it now stands?

All he has to do is compare the current version of part II with what was in the old law to see there is a huge difference. This is a major case of federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction, and they dare tell us that they will seek our agreement, that they will work in partnership with us. This is off to a very bad start, and second reading is on the principle, and I do not hold out much hope for principles.