Yvan Bernier

[Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to speak a bit longer because I have the feeling that we both could use more than five minutes to debate this issue. Anyhow, I will try to get to the point with my question, to limit myself to only one thing.

In his speech, the parliamentary secretary mentioned fisheries management agreements. I spoke before the parliamentary secretary and I said that the minister's arguments were flawed with regard to the wording of subclause 17(1).

I do not know if the parliamentary secretary agrees with the minister, but for my part, I have some experience with management agreements called partnership agreements; partnership means transparency, you must know who your partners are and let them know what is up your sleeve.

I will give you as an example the crab fishermen in zone 12 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, who had negotiated such an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans in February. This agreement was broken because the minister used his discretionary power to allow new players in. I have nothing against the arrival of new players per se, but nothing in the act provides for their arrival.

What annoys me is that it says "in the opinion of the Minister"; letting in new players is within his discretionary power, it is not information known to fishermen. The member opposite is also a distinguished lawyer and he must know that to make a partnership work, partners must share information.

In view of what I have said and given the example I described, could the parliamentary secretary tell me whether he agrees with the opposition that there are flaws in the bill as it stands now and whether he will support the opposition to remedy them? If he cannot see them now, he still has the whole second reading and report stage to become aware of them.

[The Quebec Socio-Economic Summit, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week a socio-economic summit was held in Quebec, which has led to an unprecedented mobilizing of resources for job creation and economic renewal in Quebec. The vast majority of the principal actors on the Quebec scene have reached a major consensus on ways to stimulate economic growth and investment in Quebec.

Participants in the summit approached a host of subjects that are important to Quebec society, including job sharing, family policy and social economics. Furthermore, dozens of job creation projects were presented, totalling more than $2.6 billion in investments, which will create about 40,000 jobs in Quebec.

This summit, which did not forget the most vulnerable among us, is a first step towards employment expansion and economic recovery in Quebec.

[The Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

-to have a good knowledge of Canada's ocean resources or a good knowledge of administrative decision making.

I even heard someone say: perhaps to be a card-carrying Liberal. Well, he might have to be a card-carrying member of some other party when the time comes, but we want is transparency.

I am not saying that people in the fisheries sector are incompetent, but I want the process to be transparent. I want fishermen and the people who make a living in this industry to be judged with a genuine traditional system. These are not second class citizens. They should not be judged by a second class court. And especially not by friends of the party who will have to do exactly what the minister asks them to do.

I may recall that three years is not a long time, so if you do not do the job, my boy, they will put someone else in your place who will do exactly what the minister wants him to do. That is how I interpret this part and that is how it is written.

To conclude on this issue, what the minister is proposing to us is a second-rate, parallel justice system. At the same time, he is sending real judges, who have completed law studies and know the system inside out, the message that they are doing a bad job. I am not convinced the minister is in a position to teach them lessons.

If the Minister of Justice thinks that judges and lawyers should be better informed, he should follow in Quebec's footsteps. When Quebec amended its civil code, it invited all the judges in the province to review the new parts of the civil code.

If the minister of fisheries thinks this is important, he should ask the Minister of Justice to establish a process to familiarize Canadian judges with the new fisheries act. I agree that the last one dates back 100 years.

The many points we raised show how important this is. Fishermen are not second-class citizens. They have the right to go to court, to benefit from a transparent, equal and equitable justice system across Canada.

What bothers me somewhat is the perception by departmental officials that fishermen are poachers. Fishermen are not poachers; their goal is to catch fish at the lowest possible cost while protecting the environment to ensure that this resource can be sustained.

Again, regarding departmental officials' notion that fishermen are poachers, who drafted the regulations? Who said that any cod measuring less than 16 inches should be thrown back into the water?

Fishermen cannot see the ocean floor, while the fish do not know that fishermen are prohibited from catching fish measuring less than 16 inches. So what should fishermen who inadvertently catch fish measuring less than 16 inches in their nets do? If they bring it back, they will become poachers and be fined by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So what do they do? They throw the fish back into the water. But if they throw it back into the water and Fisheries and Oceans finds out, they are still poachers in the department's eyes.

How can we establish a system that will treat fishermen not as poachers but as people trying to catch fish in a cost-effective way while protecting the environment so they can continue fishing year after year?

This may be a different subject, but let me tell you that, as far as I can see, the tribunals certainly do not look like they will be fair and impartial, given that they will be the ones making the regulations, and I am not always sure that the people who work there use their heads to make them.

My point, and perhaps some people will have a hard time following, but what we must realize is that, as I said earlier, the main problem with fishery at present is the need for a constant relationship, the same tool box, so that all the fish caught by the fishermen, and hopefully only the most mature fish will be caught, all this fish can be sold. But we have just changed jurisdiction here. Because dead fish is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Could we not focus on seeing how fisheries will be commercialized, by providing the fishing industry with the tools it needs to avoid making blunders like forcing fishermen to throw their catch back in the water?

We should work toward giving them the necessary tools. And if the federal government does not have the authority required, it should refer the matter to the provinces, because they are the ones licensing fish processing plants, guaranteeing boat loans and, in some cases, helping fund the construction of processing plants.

What is left for the federal government to be responsible for? Issuing fishing licences.

As for conservation, I think that it is clear to everyone that stocks overlap. We are prepared to share and to live with a central player in the form of Fisheries and Oceans.

But for the province of Quebec or for Newfoundland, working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to conserve the resource or working with NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, boils down to the same thing. But what is better about NAFO's rules is that they are respected by Canada and by all other countries in the world, as well as in the provinces because Canada is a member country. It would not be a heck of a lot harder, and in fact would be that much easier, to get along in this respect.

I will therefore wrap up before I run out of time. I would like to remind viewers that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the bill. I am nonetheless pleased to take part in discussions about a bill that I described as the bill of the century, but I am saddened because it is badly put together.

In review, there are three major reasons the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the bill at second reading. The first is that the minister determines who may enter into management agreements. This prevents fishermen from knowing all the players.

The second irritant, still in part I, concerns the delegation of authority. In my view, the delegation of authority set out in clause 9 is inadequate, as well as contradictory.

The third point concerns the Fisheries Tribunal. I would call it a front. It resolves nothing. The minister will sort things out quietly himself behind the scenes.

At the start of my speech, I also criticized what I would call the minister's lack of interest. And yet, at the same time, it is as though he wants to ram the bill through. The best he could manage was a 15 minute speech yesterday in the House to launch the fisheries bill of the century. In my view, this is a lack of respect for the fishery and for the Canadian people. I think it is simply lacking in respect to ram through in 15 minutes a bill that will not come up for review for perhaps another 100 years. I hope to be able to meet with him again to discuss this subject, because I am not certain that Quebecers and Canadians will share his sentiments, in light of the introduction he gave the bill.

[The Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I could say right away that, indeed, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to the bill of the century, since we are talking here about reviewing legislation that dates back almost to 1868. However, I must say first that the bill of the century is badly structured. I am surprised to see that the fisheries and oceans minister took only 15 minutes in this House, yesterday, to deal with a bill of the century.

You will understand all the fears and all the concern that one may have about such a bill when one sees that the fisheries minister gives so little time to such a bill, the bill of the century.

I could add that, despite the fact that the minister seems to give it so little time, I appreciate the relevancy and the usefulness of reviewing and updating legislation dating back to Confederation. Unfortunately, instead of taking the opportunity to solve the serious organizational problems within the fishing industry, the federal government is presenting us with a bill containing major deficiencies.

I will have the opportunity this afternoon to instruct my other colleagues in the House. The Bloc Quebecois hopes that, this time, the Liberal government will be able to show a little more judgment

and will accept to put partisanship aside to make Bill C-62 acceptable to fishermen.

This act being about fisheries, there is a need to get the fishing industry, the fishermen, to see it as good piece of legislation. It is important to do a good job about it, especially if no changes are to be made to the legislation for another century.

I must say that, until such time as major changes have been made to the bill, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the principles set out in this bill for reasons I will explain later.

For the benefit of my hon. colleagues and our audience, I would like to say that Bill C-62 has four parts. Part I deals with fisheries conservation and management; it creates a work system. Part II is about fish habitat conservation and protection, and pollution prevention; it contains a series of measures allowing the legislator to achieve his goal.

Part III is administrative sanctions. Two fisheries tribunals would be established to look after the administration and implementation of the administrative sanctions. Finally, part IV of the bill deals with administration and enforcement. Basically, part IV describes the working of the administration.

I told you how shocked I was when I saw the botched job the government had done with its fisheries legislation. I would like to start my remarks by recalling the three main reasons why Bloc members will vote against Bill C-62 at second reading.

First of all, we disagree with the approach taken by the minister in relation to fisheries management agreements. These agreements are covered by part I of the Fisheries Act. Second, as the bill stands, not enough powers are being delegated to the provinces, which flies in the face of the management agreements provided for in the same act. I will explain a little later.

The third reason why we disagree with and will vote against this bill has to do with Part III concerning the establishment of fisheries tribunals to manage administrative sanctions. These tribunals are a smoke screen that will allow the minister to maintain control over sanctions. Those are the three reasons why the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-62.

I would not want to overlook another reason related to Part II, which deals with habitat conservation and protection, but I will let my colleague from Laurentides tell you about this later. I think that Part II as drafted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans directly encroaches on environmental matters under the jurisdiction of the provinces, including Quebec. I will let my colleague elaborate on this.

To get back to the heart of my speech, I will try to explain the reasons.

I spoke to you earlier about management agreements. We did not think the minister should propose management agreements. For the benefit of the members present in this House and the people listening to us, I could perhaps quote part of clause 17, whose title is "Fisheries Management Agreements".

Subclause 17(1) provides that:

1. (1) Her Majesty in right of Canada, represented by the minister, may enter into a fisheries management agreement with any organization that, in the opinion of the minister, is representative of a class of persons or holders.

That is to say, licence holders. It is not known whether the clause refers to licence holders or fishermen, but the word "persons" is used.

What I find greatly irritating-and I fear the fisheries sector will feel the same way-is the discretionary nature of subclause 17(1), which specifies right away that fisheries management agreements can only be signed by the organizations or individuals invited to do so by the minister.

In my view, this bill shows a dichotomy. A little further in the documentation on the new fisheries act, a link is made between fisheries management and partnership agreements. Mention is made of a partnership with the fisheries community. Well, partnership should equal transparency. There is an obligation to earn the trust of those they want to work with.

If, at the outset, the minister has the discretion to decide who he will invite to take part in the management agreement, the whole thing seems to be unfair, it is not fair play, as we say in the industry, for the other partners or players sitting at the table. Those people do not know who will be invited and when.

In other words, the minister always knows who will be invited, but at any time he can come out and bring another partner into the management agreement and that is when he could jeopardize the beginning of the partnership set up by the players already involved. This is the first problem.

I want to stress this issue because we are at the very beginning of the revival of the groundfish industry. What I am trying to say about subclause 17(1) will be seen as a precondition to the revival of the cod fishing industry. Let me explain.

The fisheries resource advisory council recommended quotas representing, year after year, close to 10 per cent of the catches registered previously. This means that not everyone will be able to start fishing again at the same time. It means that someone will have to decide who will start fishing and who will go first.

So, the first problem I see with this so-called bill of the century, since the old one was passed 100 years ago and needs to be modernized, is that the minister will have to make a recommendation in mid-December.

How is it that he did not take advantage of the tabling of his bill to at least write a clause somewhere to tell us that the minister or the cabinet, the executive body of government, could establish the rules to determine parameters thereof. There is absolutely nothing on that subject. If we are not able to plan for the short term, it will be at our door tomorrow morning, or almost, how can we expect to live another hundred years with something that is still at the minister's discretion, since the delivery of licenses is still just as discretionary? It was a ministerial privilege.

Fishermen will need to know that and that it is not visible.

I always make a comparison with the reopening of the cod fishery, which many are hoping for next spring, after the moratorium established in 1993 by the department.

When the moratorium was established, the department talked about a rationalization of fisheries. Fishermen said that maybe the way to do so was to make their trade a profession. Fishermen put a lot of work into that issue. There is nothing in the bill about a legislative framework for professional status.

Surely the multitude of officials surrounding the fisheries minister have undoubtedly heard the fishermen's demands; how is it that there is not one iota of this in the bill or a reference to the fact that it will be done soon. No, there is nothing at all.

You will note that I find that, in the first paragraph only, the minister should have mentioned two little things, that is, professional status and a definition of the essence of fishing. He could have told us in this clause how he sees the future, but no, there is nothing about that either.

In the same perspective-and I would like to help people see whether the minister is clear or not and whether he has understood the wishes of the fishing community-when a moratorium was imposed on the cod fishery, fishermen said that, when that fishery would reopen, they would like more versatility. What did it mean? It meant that they would be able to catch different species, which seemed logical to me since there is always a risk of accidentally catching other species.

However, when we are talking about management agreements, we are talking about a group of individuals who will be invited to develop management measures for a particular fishery and to harvest that resource. How will people who are not part of the group be allowed to join in? Will it be by designation or on the minister's discretionary advice? If such is the case, what confidence will the people who developed the agreement have in this agreement? I am not talking about excluding people. I am just asking how new people will be included in such a group. There are methods for doing that, and I will be happy to give the minister a course on that subject.

I want to raise a second point with regard to these management agreements. Paragraph 17(2)( d ) refers to the obligations, responsibilities and funding arrangements with respect to management of the fishery. But just before that, paragraph 17(2)( c ) says that Canada or Her Majesty may collect fees for the issuance of licences.

That is exactly what Nova Scotia fishermen are contesting right now with regard to the lobster fishery: the increase in their fishing licence fees. All fishermen in Canada know that fishing licence fees have been raised by 300, 500 or even 1,000 per cent in some cases.

These increases have hurt fishing communities and have had a devastating effect on the economic activity in these communities because that is money taken out directly from their economy.

In clause 17(2)( d ) of the new bill, the minister immediately announces that, in order to have access to a particular fishery, you will now have to sign or you will be invited to sign a partnership agreement, but, on top of that, you will have to pay new fees related to management and protection of this resource. As it stands, this does not resolve any of the fisheries' organizational problems, but it does one heck of a job of resolving the department's financial problems.

The minister has come up with this clause, and this bill, to sort out his own problem of organization. He sets up a screen, he appoints a committee, he can add as many players as he likes, and to cap it all he sends them a bill.

What is the benefit to fishermen in all this? How does it help the fishery? I repeat, it is the statute of the century. The last one was written in 1868; it is now 1996 and we are about to be taken to the cleaners.

With respect to financial costs alone, I would like to give the example of the partnership agreements signed last year with respect to the crab fishers in zone 12 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Traditional crabbers worked like fiends, I have to say, with Fisheries and Oceans officials over a long period of time. They were working on a partnership agreement.

But last February, the new fisheries minister blunders in and says "That has to go". What happened? He brought in new players. I am not contesting the right of new fishermen to come into this fishery. What I have a problem with is the cavalier manner in which the minister has acted. How can the traditional crabbers in the example

I have just given trust a minister who scraps a partnership agreement worked out by his own department. He is the boss, after all.

And the crab fishermen. He brought in a new breed of shore fishermen by the back door. I do not have anything against this, but as I said with respect to clause 17(1), there must be a mechanism setting out under what circumstances new players will be allowed to join, something transparent for those around the table.

Imagine, the crab fishermen were preparing, for this year alone I believe, to pay $500,000 to Fisheries and Oceans in shared management costs. That is a lot of money. These people were going to invest money without knowing how much ministerial honesty and transparency there would be. If history repeats itself, how do you think the fishermen will react? How will they react to the minister's present request for a blank cheque?

I would like to raise another small point. I have spoken of the first item: our position with respect to the way in which the minister proposed the management agreements. I offered you some examples to explain our opposition.

Now, I would like to speak about why we are opposed to the wording of the clause concerning delegation of power to the provinces, delegation I would characterize as insufficient and contradictory.

In this connection, I would just like to point out that, at present, the minister or his department is in the process of working on an agreement in principle with British Columbia, precisely for the purpose of reviewing the division of powers. Yet, with respect to the division of powers referred to in the June press release over the signatures of B.C. minister Glen Clark and the present federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, they indicated that everything was on the table and negotiable.

The delegation of power described in the present bill refers only to transferring licensing, with the added bonus of any charges that might be collected.

This is insufficient, if we are going to be coherent with respect to fisheries-and I believe the B.C. Premier was when he said: "Now then, if we want to look at what is happening with respect to fisheries, we must lay everything out on the table: licensing, conservation, administrative rules. Coherence is necessary, for at present, as everybody knows, a live fish is federal, but a dead fish is provincial". We must work to ensure that this industry has all the same tools in its tool chest. When delegating, you cannot delegate just the doorknob; you have to delegate the whole door, with hinges, lock and key.

I gave the example of British Columbia perhaps for fear of being criticized for talking about Quebec all the time. I will remind the House immediately that, at the Victoria conference in November 1994, Quebec too asked for more power over fisheries.

If time permits, it may be a good idea to remind all the hon. members in this place and the public as well of what Quebec publicly requested and is still requesting, as repeated by Quebec fisheries minister Guy Julien just recently, one or two weeks ago. This public position has been reiterated.

Regarding stocks captured completely and entirely by its residents, which basically means inshore species, Quebec was asking for full administrative responsibility for fish stock assessment, preservation or management policy development and issuing of licences on the basis of allowable harvesting levels, as well as control and monitoring of its fisheries.

To be effective in an area such as this one, you have to take a top-down approach.

Furthermore, it was requested that the related budgets and positions be transferred along with these responsibilities. This is the kind of issue that can easily be settled through the transfer of tax points. The Quebec fisheries minister was reaching out. Looking at the federal minister's bill, I notice that he is trying to resolve some financial problems. But Quebec's proposal would have resolved both these financial problems and structural problems in fisheries.

The other items requested by Quebec were that, regarding underexploited fish stocks and stocks captured by residents of more than one province, the federal government assume responsibility, directly or through special agencies, for resource assessment as well as the control and monitoring of the use made of this resource. As far as these stocks are concerned, the preservation mandate should go to an independent agency with decision making authority set up by the federal government.

The Atlantic provinces and Quebec would designate representatives from their respective industries as well as government representatives to this agency.

Again, regarding the stocks caught by several provinces, point ( b ) calls on the federal government and the provinces to establish a multilateral process for determining provincial fleets' access to fish resources. In other words, the quotas would be set before the fleets went out to sea. This would be a good way of settling matters, of being proactive. I think this kind of approach is occasionally needed.

Under point ( c ), Quebec would be responsible for distributing its share of the stocks among its own residents, and receive related budgetary appropriations.

In other words, Quebec's minister of fisheries offered to resolve many of the issues for his federal counterpart as long as he had the powers to do so. In this regard, I am still in a good position to say that the provinces may be better able to resolve fisheries-related problems, since last spring-to get back to the example I used

earlier-the current federal minister of fisheries was unable to even make a dent in the troubles in the crab fishery.

I would suggest that he even poured oil on the fire by refusing to meet with the parties in the fishing industry who could not come to an agreement.

Who restored public peace? Quebec's minister of fisheries, Guy Julien, and New Brunswick's minister of fisheries, Mr. Thériault, who bore the brunt of the fishermen's and factory workers' discontent. The windows of his house were smashed.

It was not his area of jurisdiction but he had to settle the matter himself. If there is any desire to be in the least consistent, when the minister dares-either out of naivete or because people are thought to be foolish enough to swallow such a thing-to draft something like clause 9 on delegation of powers, with its insufficient description of powers, when this spring he needed his provincial counterparts to settle his problems, this is a real shame.

Still relating to the delegation of powers to the provinces, I would also like to draw the attention of the minister, the members of this House and the public, to the contradiction between a desire to delegate powers to the provinces, as stipulated in clause 9, and reference to fisheries management agreements as set out in clause 17.

In clause 9, what is delegated is not the power to issue licences and to collect fees. Clause 17 on fisheries management agreements is not subject in any way to clause 9. Thus, what will those provinces wishing to take advantage of clause 9 have to administer if, in another forum, the federal level, via its present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is signing partnership agreements with those he himself designates, and who in his opinion represent the fisheries? What power does he delegate to the provinces? An empty shell.

I am getting carried away, but I see time is flying, and I would not like to leave you without speaking of the third point which is an irritant to myself and the Bloc members, part III of this bill which addresses the creation of a Fisheries Tribunal, which I have just now described as a smokescreen for the minister.

The purpose of part III, as described under the establishment of tribunals, was to prevent Fisheries and Oceans, both the department and the minister, from being judge and jury, in other words, from hearing evidence that a fisherman had committed fraud or violated a fishing regulation and then imposing the sanction right away.

I think that under any civilized system, every accused person is innocent until proven guilty. What is being proposed here is this: the fine will no longer be imposed by the regional directors of Fisheries and Oceans, oh no, but by people we are going to appoint. The minister is going to appoint people for a period of three years; he will give them guidelines.

What is the difference between appointing a representative who works under the supervision of the minister according to the minister's guidelines, and the current regional directors of Fisheries and Oceans? I do not see the difference. Perhaps the Liberals do. The difference is that they will be able to appoint their friends to these positions. That is obvious.

In fact, the only two criteria for being appointed judge of these tribunals is-

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak in this House to Bill C-29 banning the use of MMT. First of all, I would like to say that I feel like I am trapped in a bad movie. Admittedly, back home in the Gaspé, the air is pure, we do not really have any problems with the environment as such, and given that I come from that area of the country, the fisheries are more up my line.

When I listen in the House today to all the efforts of the Liberal Party to justify its bill C-29, I want to get up and ask them what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, you will tell me if I have misunderstood. The Bloc Quebecois amendment proposes a six month delay because no study has been done. We would like to know why manganese is being banned, but we would also like to know what will replace it. When I say it is like being trapped in a bad movie, as the member for Laurentides said a few minutes ago, it is more like a trade war we are engaged in here.

I hear people who seem to be caving in to the automobile lobby and I hear people who seem to be caving in to the ethanol lobby. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has a popcorn solution to the ban on MMT. As you know, popcorn is another way of using corn. As my colleague on the backbench mentioned, it creates energy. When corn pops, it causes movement. But where are they headed with this bill? They have lost me.

Have they a viable alternative in mind? I do not think so. In the case of ethanol production, what are the other negative impacts that have not been studied? I am told that if we launch blindly into large scale production of corn on the same acreage, the soil will be impoverished.

I tell myself that maybe there is enough land in Ontario, in Canada, to rotate crops. Farmers always like to limit their risks. Is there a risk of ethanol pollution? I am told that perhaps not from ethanol as such, but if insecticides are used on corn crops, then there is a risk of pollution. I know that farmers will be tempted to use insecticides.

As you can see, there is no clear solution to these questions, and I am only looking at something that would give the government an opportunity to find an alternate solution. That is why I like the popcorn image. They are looking for an easy solution, but they are not just going to pop this problem away with a poof.

The other questions we might have about MMT concern the studies on the real impact on people's health.

Yes, I too am aware of that, but no one has yet confronted us with any direct cause and effect relationship. You will reply: yes, but as soon as there is any danger perhaps it will be wise to be a little more careful. There are no other solutions. Will any attempts to save money, maybe with impact on people's health, be done away with completely because the next solution has not been worked out properly? I think that the proposal by the hon. member for Laurentides is a very good solution, namely to take another six months, at least.

I wondered whether we were not in a league by ourselves, since the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who spoke just now, was telling us that MMT was banned virtually everywhere. I

am told that it has just been reintroduced in some states in the U.S.A. That opens the door. I am trying to see whether the Americans have made a mistake. We are 25 or 30 million Canadians, while they are 250 million, 250 million Americans who may be wrong. I think the solution to give ourselves another six months is reasonable.

While my colleague for Laurentides was speaking just now, with her numerous questions, for which I congratulate her-someone has to stir up the government, and she does an excellent job of it-I heard some of the Liberals saying: Yes, and if ever that study is done, it will never come out until after the elections. Once again, we understand the spin the government is trying to put on the debate on Bill C-29-it is pure vote-chasing. On the one hand, if they do want a study, it will be released only afterward, so why are they talking about it now? Because of the automotive lobby, the ethanol producers' lobby, wanting to get its share of the pie-a trade war pure and simple.

I was just thinking that we have been here three years now, and how can it be that the government has nothing better to offer on the environment? A good question, and I would like to hear the Liberal members, the Minister of the Environment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment give us the answer. What is the story on PCBs in the Magdalen Islands?

Those islands are just across from us in the Gaspé. From what I hear, there was a PCB problem relating to the wreck of the barge Irving Whale. PCBs escaped on the ocean floor. Tests were done and, perhaps as in the popcorn solution-poof-the Minister of the Environment sees no more trace of PCBs on the ocean floor.

This is something tangible. The danger relating to contact with PCBs has been proven. As for MMT, there is not yet any scientific proof.

You will understand my surprise, will understand that I am wondering how much the speeches of the government side are based in fact, and you will understand that there is good reason to listen open-mouthed.

The hon. member for Lachine has also asked whether Canada is really entitled to legislate on this. I think the answer is yes, we are.

It is not because we have the right to pass legislation that we have the right to ruin people's lives, because we have no alternative solution to offer. If we really want to act intelligently in this area, I believe that we must stack the decks in our favour as far as possible. That would mean adopting the member for Laurentides' amendment, a six month hoist, and to do the necessary work during that time.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments and ask a question to my colleage across the way.

I took some notes during his speech. The member started his speech by saying: "Does Canada have the power to legislate in this matter?" His answer was yes. "Would it be the good solution to ban MMT?" Yes, he said. He ended his speech by talking about the pressures exerted by American multinationals. However, he said nothing about the pressures exerted by the auto makers lobby, which do want to get rid of MMT.

Is the member across the way saying: "No, we will not give in to pressures by American multinationals; however, we are ready to give in to pressures exerted by multinationals that build cars here".

The real point at issue here, and I think the Bloc and the Reform Party made it quite clear, is the amendment of the member for Laurentides to postpone third reading of this bill for six months. Why? And this is where we, of the Bloc, are not giving in to any pressure. We are not giving in to any pressure.

We expect impact studies on MMT to be made. We want to know the impacts of this product and we want to know if there are substitute additives that could be used. Those studies are needed. Why does the government want to have its bill adopted so quickly since we could get clear answers to our questions six months from now?

We have to ask ourselves this kind of question. We must ask why the government is so anxious to pass its bill when the Bloc and the Reform Party are making a constructive proposal and asking that passage of the bill be postponed for six months. If the hon. member across the way is truly sincere when he says that health and a clean environment must be considered, that his main concern is the health of Canadians and Quebecers, I think that a six month delay, which would allow us to find out what the alternatives and the

impacts of MMT are, would be an wise, fair and reasonable decision.

I would ask the following question of the hon. member: Considering his concern for the well-being of Quebecers, does he not think that it would be advisable to wait six months and have all the necessary information to make the right decision?

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, to begin with I would like to say hello to my colleague for Dartmouth. I had not seen him for a while. It is true that we no longer sit on the same committees.

I would like to go over some of the points he made in his speech, and above all mention that indeed the Bloc Quebecois did help improve this particular point in the bill. We did not oppose the main thrust of this legislation, namely the national oceans management strategy.

Nobody can oppose virtue, but to make sure that we go beyond wishful thinking and that this becomes more than a pile of papers on a shelf, we must ensure that the partners in charge of developing and implementing this management strategy feel comfortable with the lines of communication that are established with them. I can tell you right away that if we cannot define clearly, with everybody's agreement, the kind of partnership it will be, the national oceans management strategy will not be worth the paper it will be written on. This is the gist of what we have been saying in the House, and this is also what we opposed in committee.

The member for Dartmouth is quite aware of this. The then fisheries minister, Mr. Brian Tobin, even assured us that the spirit of partnership would be respected. But when people are told that they will be respected, when an individual provides a definition and is told that there is no problem with it, how is it that it does not appear as the preamble to the definition of what the national oceans management strategy will be? How can this be?

If the member for Dartmouth had carefully looked at the subject of today's debate, he would know that we are dealing with an amendment to postpone third reading for six months. Why? In fact, to give the government a chance to remedy these flaws, define partnership, and clarify the grey areas in the bill. With regard to the environment and open spaces, we are told by the federal government that it does not want to intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction.

Fine. You do not want to intrude? Fine. We will make sure this is very clear when we enter into partnerships. Since the government needs the provinces to act as partners with respect to this strategy it should say so. Why all the secrecy? They accuse us of partisanship. Let me remind you, and the member must remember, that the Bloc was the first to extend a helping hand when Brian Tobin wanted legislation against overfishing on the nose of the Grand Banks. We reached out and offered our co-operation.

I remember, and I think the parliamentary secretary was present at the time, that we passed a bill through all three stages in one single day. That is real co-operation, not stubbornness. Today we ask that the same good faith be applied in the case of a strategy we feel is necessary. If we want it to pass and be efficient afterwards, we must respect that.

To conclude my comments, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question: if relationships are so clearly established, why is it that a premier, namely Mr. Glen Clark, a man I greatly respect, slammed the door during the premiers' conference in June because he felt Ottawa was not listening to what he had to say on fisheries management and all related problems he was faced with at home?

Mr. Clark has now reached an agreement with the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whereby they will see what powers they can share. That is the type of relationship we must develop and should find in this bill. So if what the Bloc member said is false, if we are blinded by sovereignty, how is it that someone at the other end of the country, someone definitely in a different party, is reporting the same problems as we are? How can that be? That is my question.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Frontenac, explained the position of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-26 very forcefully in his comments to the member for Gander-Grand Falls, and I admire him for it.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the purpose, to the validity of a national strategy on ocean management. However, we have always said that the relationships between the partners involved should be better defined, and this was supposed to be at the core of the bill. That is what my colleague said; failing such a clear definition, we are very concerned about the new powers the minister is grabbing under this bill.

The minister did not have all those powers before, and look at the horrendous things that went on last spring. It is certainly not for the beauty or the grandeur of Canada they are proposing a national strategy. There are other reasons behind these new powers of set fees.

If Canada really wants its national strategy to succeed, it will have to establish clear relationships with its partners. The member for Gander-Grand Falls knows what I mean. He has been in this House for 22 or 24 years in this House; he has seen Tory prime ministers. He will recall that there once was a Liberal premier in his province called Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford was a fervent defender of cod conservation but he never got a hearing in Ottawa as long as the Tories were in office.

If we want to avoid repeating past mistakes-and the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls will surely agree that the good standing of the prime minister or his success on the campaign trail, both in Ottawa and Newfoundland, will not go on forever-so, if we want to prevent bickering in the future, we must clearly define the roles of all partners and the relationships between them. That is what we must do. I am sure that my colleague shares my views on this.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague from trois-Rivières for the presentation he just made as well as congratulate and thank him because he was an associate member of the fisheries and oceans committee at the time when the committee considered the proposed tariff structure for navigational aids that the coast guard imposed this year.

Thanks also because we had to go so quickly and hear many witnesses. I must praise the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his regular attendance and say that his remarks were always to the point, just like today, in relation to the concerns he had, along with industry representatives.

That said, the focus of our colleague's remarks was part III of the bill, dealing with the minister's power to fix fees. Even though Bill C-26 has not yet been passed, a great deal of arm twisting has already taken place in the industry. Now, once Bill C-26 is in force, imagine how quick and easy it will be for the government to go around picking pockets, as required.

This may sound slightly exaggerated, but I think my colleague has clearly put the point across that people have had it with having their pockets picked all the time without any impact studies nor examination of the efficiency of the services offered by the coast guard.

At many hearings, people testified before the fisheries and oceans committee that they were prepared to do their share to lower the deficit. Coming from the industry, it does them credit to come out and say something like that. But they added this: "But we do want to be sure, for one thing, that the services are provided efficiently. Also, could there be a fee setting mechanism?"

This bill gives the minister the power to set fees but does not provide, in the name of transparency, for further consideration in this House. We did not ask for much in our proposed amendments, just for another three hours of debate. Why was this proposal rejected?

A feedback process should also be put in place. My colleague, who has very close ties to the industry, knows what a valuable contribution the industry can make. We will need the co-operation of the industry, of these taxpayers, in the future. They are quite willing to do their share, but we must show them how transparent our actions are. We must also tell them how they could co-operate, tell them where cuts must be made, where concessions have to be made. We must do things like that.

One more point, before I complete my remarks. I would like to draw attention to the wisdom of what my colleague for Trois-Rivières said when he pointed out that the regulatory measure establishing the fees to be paid for Coast Guard services, for navigational aids, by ships sailing on Canadian waters, will not apply to ships bound for the United States sailing through Canadian waters. That is unfair.

After having established in the preamble of Bill C-26 that:

Parliament wishes to affirm in Canadian domestic law Canada's sovereign rights

how can a Canadian government do that? If we are sovereign, we should also take the means to enforce the law when those ships sail through our waters. Since I see that my colleague would like to add something to that, I yield to him.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for the speech he just made on Bill C-26. He made a good analysis of this bill, dealing with each of its three parts separately. I took note of his remarks.

But before commenting on the speech made by the member for Champlain, I would also like to mention that the Reform member's question was very appropriate. It is true that my colleague, being an opposition member, does not have to prove the merits of this bill. It is also unfortunate that we do no Liberal member has risen in this House and said: "Yes, we are eager to get rid of this bill because we have other bills to study which will create jobs". In this sense, the Reform member was right to raise this question.

I would now like to come back to the speech made by my colleague from Champlain. In the first part of his remarks, he mentioned that Canada was using the preamble to this bill to proclaim its sovereignty over its waters. This will not increase, and I am sure my colleague will confirm it, the quantity of fish in these waters.

I would like to add to the member's remarks that it is funny to hear that from the Liberals. When we say the word "sovereignty", they think it necessarily means separation. Should we expect a declaration of separation of Canada from the rest of the world? I do not think so. I take this opportunity, since the Liberals now use the word "sovereignty" in its true sense, to do a bit of teaching. Sovereignty means being able to enjoy the rights you are entitled to within your own territory. In a sense, that is what we mean in Quebec when we talk about sovereignty.

I noted that my colleague mentioned that there is no distinction between the rights of the Department of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is a complete mess. The former fisheries minister has already admitted in committee that the two departments had become the Yin and the Yang. Once again, good marks for the member for Champlain who has understood everything.

The other point he raised deals with the power of the minister to set fees, and many other colleagues of mine will also raise that point. Without having those regulatory powers yet, the minister has already grabbed 20 millions dollars from the marine industry for aids to navigation.

Last summer, during consultations over the issue of pleasure craft, they tried to get an additional $14 million. But because of our protest, and my colleague from Champlain had already begun to raise the issue in his own riding, people came in great number to those consultation hearings and the Canadian Coast Guard had to back down.

Imagine if the power to set fees had already been in place without the transparency process necessary to guaranty efficient services!

When the Coast Guard provides services those services must be efficient. Secondly, there has to be transparency in the establishment of fees. Like myself, numerous other members are wondering how we will improve security by requiring recreational boaters to pay five dollars or even 35 dollars to register their craft. That does not make any sense.

So I would ask my colleague to tell me if he believes that, in the riding of Champlain, thanks to this new legislation and the powers it provides, because it seems that the power to set fees is the only

thing that interests the minister, safety on the lakes will be improved be requiring fee of $ 35 on a pedal boat, for example.