Yvan Bernier

[Coast Guard, June 18th, 1996]

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

On Saturday, Le Journal de Montréal released the content of a coast guard internal document entitled ``Fleet Merger'' and dealing with the cuts affecting the coast guard. Once again, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is displaying a blatant lack of judgment by cutting everywhere, except in his province of Newfoundland.

After favouring his province with the fee structure for commercial traffic, how can the minister justify that he is about to make drastic cuts of $25 million in all regions of Canada, except in his own province, where the cuts will only total $140,000?

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Group No. 13. These are, again, very important motions. Since this is that last group of motions, let me start with a brief preamble, nothing too long.

During the report stage here in the House, every time I rose to speak on the 13 groups of motions with, as the hon. member for Chambly put it, a hand held out in co-operation and a new approach to constitutional negotiations, because I did not want to launch a constitutional debate, I only wanted to make the government realize that to reach this bill's goal, which is to implement an integrated oceans management strategy, it had to create some kind of partnership.

I wanted to draw the government's attention to the fact that, in my opinion, the government's major partners are the provinces, because they are the ones that formed Canada. For each part of this bill-there are three-I asked the government not to forget about the provinces and to consult with them right at the beginning and, in some cases, to work with them.

Since we are talking about Motions Nos. 84 and 85 concerning the fees stipulated in clause 50, let me say again that I am asking the government to consult with the provinces, because it is within their territories that the action will take place. In many cases, we want the provinces to levy the fees.

In order to improve transparency, I am urging the government in Motion No. 85 to consult with the standing committee. I want to reassure the House that consulting with a House committee is nothing to worry about, especially since the majority of the standing committee members are from the Liberal Party. That is what my motions on this issue are all about.

As for the other motions, Motions Nos. 77, 79 and 81 presented by members of the Reform Party, I regret to say that we are not in agreement with them. We think that the idea of setting fees by specific marine sector runs counter to what the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee were saying. The majority of witnesses objected to the government's proposal of dividing the country into three regions. I therefore cannot go along with the Reform Party's motions.

However, in order to show you that, in the House and in committee, we have taken a non-partisan approach for the good of the cause, the Bloc Quebecois will support the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, since the purpose of this motion is to force the government to consult with the users of services.

It would be only natural to consult the users, given that, in the case of fees for navigational aids for commercial vessels, the government has often used the expression "user pay". But there is also the expression "user pay, user say". I think that this is the thought behind the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, which the Bloc Quebecois will support.

Motions Nos. 86 and 87 are very interesting and very forward looking. I would not want to get into the wording as such. But I am very interested to see that they contain the idea of a two way communication. Motion No. 83 provides that users shall be consulted. Motion No. 86 specifies how users shall be informed. The idea is a very good one and we will support it.

Time is flying and I must quickly wrap up. Motion No. 86 sets out when the information shall be published and how must time shall elapse. Motion No. 87 provides for a process of feedback. It is not enough to announce something. You must make sure that it will produce the expected results. If someone in Canada can show the government that it is on the wrong track, there has to be a review mechanism. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore support the Reform Party's Motions Nos. 86 and 87.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I have appreciated working with parliamentarians from all parties, especially members of the Bloc Quebecois, who sometimes got quite carried away. You cannot blame them for their enthusiasm, with all they had to say, and their responsibility as representatives of the people of Quebec. I think we should be proud of the work they did.

We hope that the work we did as the official opposition will bring the government around to delaying third reading of this bill, because they need to go back to the drawing board. On that note, and in the hope that the government will be understanding about third reading, which, we hope, will take place as late as possible next fall, the Bloc Quebecois is ready for the vote.

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30, with the following:

"the Minister shall consult with the provincial governments and with such persons or".

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30, with the following:

"the Minister shall consult with the standing committee and with such persons or".

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I was not trying to initiate a conversation between the parliamentary secretary and myself. The point I would like to put across, through the Chair, is that British parliamentary rules are such that the only way members of Parliament can express their views and make themselves heard of the government is through the procedures made available to them in Parliament. From time to time, our friends opposite may find their decisions are not approved as fast as they would like. What can I say? It goes with the territory.

Now, coming back to Group No. 12. As the official opposition critic, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this matter, I would like to discuss the substance of the motions in Group No. 12. The substance is quite simple to understand.

I will not read them in full, but we are talking about five motions tabled by the Bloc. The gist of these motions is that, whenever the minister's power to fix fees is referred to in clauses 47, 48 and 49, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, wants to promote transparency, as it has been its goal since the beginning of the proceedings at report stage of Bill C-26.

Such transparency would be ensured by Motion No. 82, which reflects the other ones, and which provides, as regards the minister's power to fix fees:

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 35, on page 30, the following new Clause:

"49.1 The fixing of fees under sections 47, 48 and 49 is subject to adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution debated for three hours in the ordinary course of the business of the House."

The purpose of this motion is to promote transparency and to provide all elected members of the Canadian Parliament an opportunity to express themselves, regardless of their political affiliation. Such a procedure would only require one afternoon, in fact three hours. It would in no way delay any other decision which the minister may make.

I hope it was not the minister's intention to fix these fees in secret. The minister must give members of this House the opportunity to express their views.

We could discuss the issue for a long time, or we could, as the hon. member for Richelieu did on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, ask the government to postpone the bill at least until the fall, and to review its form as well as its content.

My goal here is to get the message across. The spirit of the letter must be preserved. If we manage to do that, we will have fewer problems in administering the act afterwards. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed it out to the Chair. The member for Gaspé is also trying to make the best of the situation by improving the bill, even thogh the Bloc Quebecois is devoted to sovereignty. But as long as we are a part of Canada, I will try to improve this bill, because it will apply to Quebecers too.

Whatever the political suasion of people in my party or of Quebecers in general, I will do whatever I can to make laws of this Parliament easier to implement and to live with. I urge hon. members to read once more motion No. 82, which underlies all of this, and see for themselves that openness is our goal.

I have even been generous enough to suggest a three-hour debate, which is really not long, you have to admit. It would be more of a technicality, but at least, the exercise would take place. Nobody in Canada could suggest that we have not given it a try. But time flies, and since a number of my colleagues would like to speak to Group No. 12, I will yield the floor to the next speaker.

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is always with pleasure that I rise to speak when the subject-matter of the bill under consideration is close to my heart. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and parliamentary secretary, who knows the customs and practices of this House as well as I do, will have to graciously accept, as part of his parliamentary duties, the fact that the hon. member for Richelieu has decided to use not only all the time he was allotted, but time he was given by unanimous consent of this House. I think it is very good for parliamentary relations that the system allows this.

You know, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, how things work here-

[Oceans Act, June 12th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 30, with the following:

"47. (1) The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any".

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-26, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 30, with the following:

"48. The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any".

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 30, with the following:

"49. (1) The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any".

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 35, on page 30, the following new Clause:

"49.1 The fixing of fees under sections 47, 48 and 49 is subject to adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution debated for three hours in the ordinary course of the business of the House."

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-26, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 31, with the following:

"51. The standing committee may make regula-".

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena had the floor, but perhaps I could start right away and he can use his remaining five minutes shortly, if he wishes.

We have now reached motions in Group No. 11 at report stage of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

Group No. 11 comprises three motions. I will just run over them, since we were interrupted for a vote and for private members' business.

The member for Vancouver Quadra referred to Motions Nos. 67 and 68 proposed by the Liberal Party. I have problems living with what the government proposes in Motions Nos. 67 and 68. I say to the House I intend to vote against them.

As for Motion No. 70 proposed by the Reform member for Skeena, I am pleased to see that, even though we form the official opposition and the hon. member for Skeena and myself represent ridings at the opposite ends of the country, one in Vancouver and the other in Gaspé, the nose of Quebec, we can still reach a similar view on how to administer the Coast Guard.

I would like to read the final part of his motion, which states:

-provided in the most cost effective manner possible.

The hon. member for Skeena takes advantage of the opportunity to add what he means by this. He says:

"The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries."

And what does this mean? Who are the beneficiaries? The objective of the Coast Guard, through its new fee charging powers, is to get money out of the users. They went from hearing to hearing, trying to make us understand in committee the new Coast Guard charges for navigational aids, trying to get through our thick skulls the idea of user fees.

A real user pays principle implies canvassing those using our services to find out the type of service they really want. Those paying for the service are also entitled to have their say. They want to know from the government whether the service offered is at the lowest possible cost, whether it could be offered another way and whether privatization is a possibility. All this in the context of the socio-economic and human impact on those who have to deal with the rationalization.

Regardless, as for the need for this motion, as we will see later in Group No. 12, that ideas will blend. The principle is to have the government not collect money just for the sake of collecting it and not to lay principles on the table and then ignore them later.

The government says: "We want to collect money, we are short". The Bloc Quebecois also advocated deficit reduction in the latest election campaign. However, the difference lies in achieving the objective. And here I am delighted to see that even people at the other end of the country, who call themselves reformers, can appreciate good common sense.

So, I still have to try to convince one of the three groups in the House. I realize the job is a bit difficult, but part of our work in Parliament is to try to find the words to help them understand the thing.

What can I say? I spent three weeks in hearings, from 9 in the morning to 9 at night. People would come and express their opinions. This too is hard to take: there were consultations, but it did not change a thing, and the legislation was not yet in force.

Imagine what would happen if we did not include right away in this bill the principle that there must be consultation, that users must be able to say what level of service would be appropriate and what level of spending they feel capable of taking on. To negotiate this change it is contemplating, this change it has to make to face the music and reduce its deficit, the Canadian government needs the help of the industry. It needs to establish what I would call partnership ties. I will reaffirm this basic principle over and over again.

In previous motions, we dealt with the notion of partnership in the context of the integrated management strategy that needed to be developed. In these motions, I specified that Canada's partners were the provinces, which make up Canada. In the case at hand, they are service users. These services are sometimes used by the provinces, but most of the time, they are used by industries and businesses.

As such, these should be our focus of attention. It is with them in mind that the consultation and feedback process should be put in place. But nowhere in this bill do I see this notion expressed. I cannot detect this kind of spirit in there. I cannot detect a hint of this notion either. What shall we make of it, especially when we see the minister press on with his new tariff structure after three quarters of those in the industry came before the committee to tell us loud and clear and in black and white that they did not want this new tariff structure for navigational aids, for commercial shipping? How far will they go if we let them? That was my first point.

Second, still on the same topic, the coast guard's new fee schedule for navigation aids was set for purely financial reasons. The Minister of Finance gave an order. Even though the coast guard appeared not to have a choice, it did have one. It could have continued to cut spending. If it wanted to collect more revenue, it could have considered what the people had to say about this.

Talking about a $20 million financial objective is a mathematical trick, as commercial shipping activities are not spread over 12 months. Rather, the targeted level of activity must be compressed into the commercial shipping period. Consequently, the objective for this summer should be set at $26 million or $28 million to take this into account.

Furthermore, still on this topic, what is not mentioned is who will administer all this. How will these accounts be collected? At this point, no one knows. The funniest thing in all this is that these orders were not published for 30 days in the Canada Gazette , as it customary for any order of the governor in council.

This item in Part II slipped through almost unnoticed on a Friday afternoon. The industry was flabbergasted. They are still wondering how all this will be administered and what the administrative costs will be. I have already heard that the person who will administer this new fee schedule will receive a 5 per cent commission to bill the people concerned.

The bill has not been passed yet, but the regulations on the new fee schedule have just been put in place. There was mention of $20 million, then $28 million because of the short collection period, and they have just added 5 per cent. There is nothing reassuring in all this. We do not see how this shows respect for those who will use this service. I think it is very important to instil such respect and entrench it in this bill.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will address Motion No. 65. This motion is rather technical in nature and I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it deals with an issue which may have been overlooked at the time.

Be that as it may, I am not trying to hurt the feelings of the government, but if it cannot agree now on how to establish a partnership, and if the provinces cannot be included in the process from the outset, how could I support it when it says: "Here is how we will hand out the penalties and fines"? The government should know I will ask my party to vote against Motion No. 65.

I would like to go back to the comments that were just made by the member for Skeena and to those made earlier by the member for Gander-Grand Falls. When he talked about managing the resource, the member for Skeena seemed to say that various applications of the act, or different forms of penalties, would be used, depending on whether an offence is committed on the Gaspé coast, the coast of Newfoundland, or the coast of Nova Scotia.

We must first know what is going on locally. Is a fishery open? If not, why? Earlier, the member for Gander-Grand Falls made a brilliant speech on the migrating ability of the fish found along our coasts. He is right to mention the species that arrive first. There is a

reason for this. For example, squid start south and travel up the coastline, all the way to the gulf, before going back down south to die. Nice place to die, as the member said.

It is the migration of these species that attracts other species. I understand why the member wanted to stress the importance of this fact. This migration process is what attracts other species. The cod will chase these species. This is what is called the food chain. The big ones go after the small ones. In the case of the whale, it really eats much smaller species. It comes into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, around Anticosti Island, in the estuary, to eat shrimp. It is important to realize there is a migration process going on.

Some isolated phenomena also occur as part of that food chain. The member for Gander-Grand Falls is well aware of what I am alluding to. We are talking about two main species. I will talk about the cod in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. There are two main stocks, referred to as 4RS cod and 3Pn cod, that is the one along the north shore in Quebec and the one along the western coast of Newfoundland.

There is cod in the southern part of the gulf. There are mainly two stocks. When indicating that cod sport fishing was still practised over the past few years in the Gaspé Peninsula, the hon. member should mention that it was mainly the stock in that zone, in the southern part of the gulf, that was being caught.

Where he comes from, it is a different stock. What is happening with that stock, how it is faring? As we know, we sometimes see cod of a good size and nice density in a certain bay, but biologists warn us, saying that this is perhaps a reserve and that it should be preserved.

What I am interested in seeing the hon. member do is bring about the disclosure of information for the benefit of the local population. Are the biologists telling the truth? Fishermen and people living in local communities have as much difficulty as we do finding out who is telling the truth on this matter, because it is very difficult to follow.

It even happens at times that biologists do not agree among themselves and that everything they have told us so far-and the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls is right about that-did not turn out as they had predicted. Some things have been left to deteriorate.

This is all very important, and that is why I would like the support of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.

People like Mr. Wells, not Mr. Wells, but his predecessor, play a very important role. They created quite an uproar on the issue of foreign fishing. It all started with his predecessor. Mr. Wells also took some measures. Without all this fuss, would the Parliament of Canada have done everything it did to stop or slow down foreign overfishing? I do not think so. My experience in politics may be limited, but I do know that you have to hit the nail over and over again, once you have identified it, in order to drive it in.

The message has to be understood by the people. That explains why it took three premiers of Newfoundland to try, in their legislative assembly, here, in Ottawa, and through the national media, to make the people of Canada understand that there was a problem off Newfoundland. That problem had no impact at all in the prairie provinces. Someone had to drive it in.

The motions I put forward may need to be rewritten or redrafted, but it is important to realize that they stress the need for the provinces to be consulted first. After all, it was the provinces that formed Canada, so they must have a say for Canada to stand tall and proud. Do you not find it funny that these words were spoken by a sovereignist? The message I want to get through is that for Canada to stand tall and proud, it must really accept the partnership concept.

I do not come here with a sledgehammer ready to hit nor do I hide anything. No. Everyone can see that I am empty-handed. I speak clearly of a definite phenomenon.

As we know, there is a migration. Therefore, it is important that we all discuss it and that the province of Newfoundland get the means to act as soon as it gets a signal: Cod is less abundant today? What happened? Because it takes time for the message to get here, in Ottawa. Newfoundland needs to have the means to immediately call a meeting. The minister responsible for the integrated management partnership will have to be made aware of the situation. It will be there in black and white.

That way, Newfoundland will also be able to call Quebec. It will be able to say: "Let us stop quarrelling about other things, call the Quebec government and tell it we have to do this or that". The Quebec Minister of Fisheries will answer: "You are right. I am glad you told me. OK. We will go to Ottawa together. I want to hear what you have to say to the Canadian Minister of Fisheries". This is real partnership. This is working together.

As I said a while ago, I am aware of the migration process. When Quebec and British Columbia demanded that fisheries management be transferred to the provinces at the Victoria conference in November 1994-and this may be what the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls was afraid of-we never ever asked to manage the fish stocks separately. What we asked for was the right to manage the share of the province, i.e. the right to manage the licences relating to the 25 or 30 per cent of the resources that could be allocated to Quebec or New Brunswick, that could be caught in their own fisheries and that they could themselves share out among their communities, but always in accordance with the basic conservation strategy.

I realize that time flies, and I still have a lot of things to explain. I do not know if we can ask for the House's consent, but I would like to clarify this issue, with the agreement of the House. We could try to examine the kind of true partnership that is required.

Surely, the member for Gander-Grand Falls will stand up in a moment to tell us a bit more. But procedure at report stage does not allow us to look at the issue in greater depth.

In conclusion, you can ask the House if it gives its consent; meanwhile, I will sit down and wait for your ruling.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 27, with the following: c ) navigation safety, including the regulation of the construction, inspection, equipment and operation of boats;''.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-26, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 27, with the following:

"ing to fisheries resources;".

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-26, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 49, with the following:

"establish a protected area for fishery resources in any area of".

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 9. I admit this makes a lot of paper to deal with. This must be tiresome for the people at home who are watching, and I know it is a little onerous for the hon. members who are less familiar with this type of bill.

I will talk about Motions Nos. 54, 71 and 92. I will deal with them in three separate sections. What I am trying to make the government understand with these motions, the message I am trying to convey, always with the goal of avoiding the problems we may have with this bill in the future, is to determine the areas where there could be problems, where there might be conflicting areas.

This is a good opportunity for doing so, since the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is also the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, had legal or constitutional experience before coming to the House. In fact, he uses it a lot to repeat this may not be the right place to change the things I am trying to change, as the hon. member for Lévis pointed out so brilliantly.

I want to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that, of course, according to the first Constitution, fisheries were a federal jurisdiction, but at that time, there was something we did not know much about and that is environmental problems. It was not even part of our vocabulary. When definitions are too all-encompassing, when the words used to describe the things to be managed are a little too vague, it can create problems in some cases.

I am no constitutional expert, but in order to avoid conflicts on environmental matters for instance, I prefer asking the government to use terms such "fishery resources", that is the content of the ocean, rather than "marine resources", a vaster concept.

Why do I wish to make such a distinction? Well, this is still a new concept and, since I do not think this is the intent of the bill, I would not like to see the federal government grabbing the opportunity to spread its jurisdiction over other spheres of activity, besides the main one which is fisheries management.

Indeed, we are now talking about ocean management. However, I doubt that there has been enough discussions between the main partners-the provinces and the federal government-between ministers, and between provincial and federal officials, to agree on wording. According to the information at my disposal, there are different definitions of those words, different interpretations. It is important to stress this fact.

For those who have just joined us, I also want to remind them that last year, in committee, the former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, recognized that he and Sheila Copps, the then Minister of the Environment, wer like yin and yang. What about it? Surely, this did not mean that there was a clash of personalities between these two people. They had been working together long before I arrived.

Must I conclude that their own officials did not have the same perception of things? This is why I draw the minister's attention to the necessity of being cautious, of choosing a less controversial term. Once there has been agreement on the first term, we can go on to the second.

During the time I have left-and it is a source of concern and frustration to be limited to 10 minutes at report stage-I would like to address the other motions, Motions Nos. 69 and 55.

Motion No. 69 seeks to draw the department's attention to the safety of pleasure craft. Since he is responsible for safety, I would like the minister to extend his definition to include the safety of anything that navigates and not to limit himself to one kind of floating object, that is pleasure craft. I would like safety of commercial vessels to be taken into consideration-something which should have been done when the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were merged. The same minister recently set user fees for commercial vessels. I would like to also see him look after their commercial safety.

As for Motion No. 55, this is one presented by the government. I will close with this one just to prove my good faith. I can live with what is proposed in this motion. Its purpose is to ensure that there is no incompatibility with native land claims that have already been ratified, would be ratified, or might be declared valid by a federal statute. That is totally sensible and I can live with that.

In other words, if I am capable of acknowledging that the Liberals across the way are capable of some good things, I would like some non-partisan acknowledgment from time to time that we, too, are capable of good things. And if we are capable of acknowledging that care must be taken with respect to aboriginal treaties, the same spirit ought to be reflected in the letter of the act in view of all that was said in respect of motions in Group No. 8 concerning the provinces.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page 19, with the following:

"of the opinion that a fishery resource is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that".