Yvan Bernier

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for those who followed yesterday's proceedings, motions in Group No. 8 have more or less the same purpose as those in Groups Nos. 6 and 7, in that the goal of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is to draw the government's attention to the fact that the integrated ocean management strategy it wants to put in place must be implemented in co-operation with its partners.

This time around, the partners are the provinces that make up Canada. Each of these motions is aimed at reminding legislators that the provinces must be involved.

I even added another notion in these amendments, mainly in Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 40. These three motions revolve around the same idea: allowing the minister or the government to be a little more open. I would like them to get the co-operation of and a form of approval from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Of course, most members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans are from the government party. The opposition is not likely to hijack this bill or to throw a wrench into the process. This would allow the government to become more open, as it tries to establish a partnership through the integrated ocean management strategy.

Most members of the standing committee belong to the government party, but the official opposition and the third party are also

represented. We even have independent and Conservative members; we are very open. The committee is doing its work in the least partisan way possible.

I think that allowing members of this House to first become familiar with the issues in committee would help the government become more open. Second, I always come back to building bridges with the partners, the provinces. This would produce some consistency and everyone would be less surprised.

The main problem in management of things like that is to always ensure that our partners are informed at the same time we are.

If we manage to maintain this trust and this communication, my experience as an administrator tells me that 90 per cent of the problems will be solved before they actually surface.

There are also many other motions. For example, Motions Nos. 44 and 45, which deal with part II of the act. We proposed many motions, but these primarily seek to explain the letter and the spirit of the act.

However, since we are discussing several issues, I wish to point out, for the benefit of the members here and the people watching us at home, that Motions Nos. 44 and 45 relate to the minister's powers. The act provides that the minister may enter into agreements and it lists the groups with which the minister can reach such agreements, to implement the management strategy.

When I read this provision, I realized that the main partners, namely the provinces, are not included in the list. So, like a good team player, I am telling the government that it would be a good idea to include, through Motion No. 44, the possibility of entering into agreements with the provinces, since they are the main partners in the process.

As for Motion No. 45, it provides, as regards the minister's powers, that the minister may make grants to organizations and groups, based on the terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board. Again, since this is something which must be done with the greatest possible spirit of co-operation and with the greatest possible transparency, I am adding to the transparency of the process by specifying that it must be done following the committee's recommendations.

This motion gives the government the opportunity to raise awareness among the hon. members of the various parties represented in this House. But once again, it would not stand in the way of the government, since it still has a majority within the standing committee.

As for Motions Nos. 50 and 53, I am coming back to them in the same spirit as earlier. I am asking that the minister seek approval, and the approval of the provinces affected in particular.

When a decision is made to implement an integrated management strategy in a given area or to act in concert, the key stakeholders, that is to say the provinces, should have a say in the matter. These motions reflect this notion. I have tried-and we have worked at it within the standing committee last year-to sell the notion of partnership. I tried to explain the spirit in which this kind of bill ought to be drafted.

I must confess, however, that I apparently did not succeed in getting the idea across. Yet, the former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, made it clear to me in committee-and we could go back to the proceedings if necessary-that he wanted this bill to be implemented in co-operation, in partnership with the provinces. That is why I feel perfectly free to raise all this again today. Every time I hear that the minister may or shall act in co-operation and how he should go about it, I make sure to repeat to this House that the provinces must be identified as key stakeholders.

To wrap up and conclude, the main goal is to enable the federal government to show the transparency necessary to ensure the integrated management strategies that will have to be put in place will work well.

I will call your attention, if I may, to Motion No. 56. If the department, the minister and the governor in council look at it closely, they will see how far they can take this spirit of partnership.

There are three paragraphs in this clause of the bill and I would like to add a fourth one. Following consultations with the provinces, or a province, the federal government could revoke an order it issued when factors affecting the environment or the community have not been taken into account, since the provinces are closer to the issues than is the federal government. While we are here in Ottawa, provincial governments are closer to the communities.

Again, the recent crab fishery dispute in New Brunswick and in Quebec is a good example. It is the Quebec and New Brunswick fisheries ministers who took immediate action with plant workers.

I will let the fisheries minister answer in due time but, as you can see, it is necessary to include the provinces when talking about integrated ocean management. The provinces concerned are located right along the coasts; they are aware of the issues and they can react accordingly. In some cases, they can warn the federal fisheries minister, thus saving Canadian and Quebec taxpayers money. In other words, let us call on those who are concerned and involved to make sure the strategy is truly effective.

I am now going to sit down, but I will certainly rise again when we discuss the next group of motions.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-98, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 16, with the following: a ) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, shall develop and implement policies''.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 16, with the following: b ) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and coordinate with other ministers,''.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 16, with the following: d ) may, with the approval of the standing committee and in consultation with other minis-''.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 36, on page 16, with the following: d ) may, in concert with the provincial governments and in consultation with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, establish, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, marine environmental''.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 17, with the following: b ) may enter into agreements with the provincial governments, with any''.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 17, with the following:

"Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a resolution confirming the recommendations of the standing committee approving the making of grants and contributions; and".

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 17, with the following: e ) may, with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, make recoverable expenditures on''.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 18, with the following:

"regulations, with the approval of the provinces affected and of the standing committee,".

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 18, with the following:

"recommendation of the Minister and after obtaining the approval of the provinces affected, may make".

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 19, the following:

"(4) At the request of the standing committee or of a province that is affected by an order made under this section, the Governor in Council shall revoke the order."

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-26, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 28, with the following:

"(i) conduct or cooperate with the provinces and with persons".

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to go ahead immediately; the afternoon may be a bit longer.

I want to be sure I have understood you correctly. The motions are deemed to have been approved, but does that mean that there will be a vote on each one?

Before beginning my 10-minute speech, I would like to be sure I have understood. Last night, it was agreed with members across the way that it was not necessary to call a vote on each one since it was agreed a recorded division would be called on these motions. According to what was agreed, the vote on the first motion will be applied to the others and we will have to live with it.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

It is perhaps not due to jet lag, but I do not understand. Just to make sure all the hon. members in this House and everyone watching are clear on this, we are currently on Motions Nos. 28 and 30. Here is what they are about. There are two clauses on regulations in the bill, namely clauses 25 and 26. Clause 25 deals with recommendations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Clause 26 also deals with regulations made by the Governor in Council, but on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice this time.

If I am calling your attention to this, it is because the bill before us is trying to establish integrated management, which would effectively force all cabinet members across the way to talk to one another. That is great. Second, channels of communication also need to be provided for. Publication requirements are stated in each clause. But when we get to clause 27, it is not quite clear.

What I find shocking in all this is that, and I am getting to my Motion No. 30, and read the following in clause 27, paragraph 2: "No proposed regulation that has been published pursuant to this section need again be published under this section, whether or not it has been altered". What is the catch here? What it says is that regulations can be made, but that if they are altered, changes will not be published. I do not understand. Not only have we been told over and over all evening that this is not the place to talk about constitutional amendments and the kind of changes we would like

to make, but now we are told that changes will be made but that we will no longer be informed of changes made. What does this mean?

I will give the other motion the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned. It is from the fisheries department, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The proposed change relates to the provinces, and for once there was a clear reference to the provinces in clause 27. It was clearly stated that relations had to be established with the provinces, but they want to take that out offhand and write "notamment les provinces" instead. That was not said openly, but that is my understanding.

Since the beginning of the evening, I have been trying my best to make it clear that the intent of this bill is to establish integrated management, which means teamwork. To work as a team, you need partners. This spirit of partnership has to be honoured. Hence the need to clearly state who the other players will be. I for one believe it should be the provinces who make up Canada. How will all this be put in place?

Earlier, I mentioned that organizations would be established to oversee the implementation of the management plan. But we are denied the right to be consulted on appointments to these organizations. This time, we are told that it will be possible to make regulations without having to publish them again. Can you believe it?

It is becoming a tiring exercise. We spent a long evening discussing the issue. I spent hours and even weeks debating it in committee. This is the end result. It is supposed to be important.

You will notice that we mostly heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. But there are others who worked on that committee. I would like to hear them. This bill on the oceans of Canada is important. How come there are not more people discussing it? Are we to understand that either it is not important or it is controversial and people do not really want to discuss it? I am a little disgusted by all this. I would like the whole issue to be clarified.

After all that was said, what will people at home think of the debates that take place here? This is like a dialogue of the deaf. The hon. member rises and tells me this is not the place to discuss amendments. I rise and ask where I can discuss these amendments. I am trying to make things clear.

I tell government members precisely what I would like to see included; I tell them I would like a clear reference to the provinces; I tell them I would like the government to respect the spirit of partnership that is required. But the time is never right. When and where will it be appropriate? Given the government's attitude, it should come as no surprise that it refuses to do a reform, to modernize things, and to take certain factors into account.

The government should not be surprised to see the population, at least in Quebec, express its discontent. We are used to having a referendum every 15 years. It is little things like this that, over the years, result in accumulated frustration. In a business and a partnership, if you want to be successful in the long term, you must first make sure that the parties involved will not feel they got taken.

How come this is precisely the feeling I have this evening? I am all the more convinced of that when I read that: "No proposed regulation that has been published pursuant to this section need again be published under this section, whether or not is has been altered". Can we believe this to be merely a typo that escaped the lawmakers' attention? I do not think so. But, since the evening began, when I tell you that I think we might really get taken with this bill, that is a striking example, which shows the sort of thing the government will say.

As well, why is there such a rush for Canada to pass this legislation? Earlier, I mentioned the relations between the various departments, and I told you about the committee minutes. The former fisheries minister said himself that his relations with the former environment minister were like the yin and the yang.

If it is not yet clear across the way, how will they manage to agree when it comes to speaking with the other partners described? The point I am making, but I see my time is running out, is that for once the objective seems a laudable one. I am forced to admit that, at a given point in time, a bill that sets out to explain to the left hand what the right hand is doing is very wise, but it would not do for the government to get carried away, with the risk, in wanting to see all its bills pass, of removing what is important in them. I repeat, if we listen to this, these are management tools to ensure that 90 per cent of problems will be resolved before they find themselves in-Pardon me.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to be reading these documents differently.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 41, on page 14, with the following:

"27. A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make pursuant to paragraph 25( b ) or section 26, and any amendments to the proposed regulation, shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least 60 days before the proposed effective date of the regulation or the amendments to the regulation and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested persons to make representations with respect to the proposed regulation or the amendments to the regulation.''

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-26, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 41, on page 14.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have some difficulty understanding the parliamentary secretary's scheme of thought tonight when he says this is not the right place to discuss the motions I have tabled. It is indeed because we were not able to agree in committee that it is my prerogative as a member of Parliament to submit to the House certain observations that could not be heard during the committee's proceedings.

The implied spirit of all the motions before us tonight did not transcend the committee's work. I get the impression the committee was pressed by time, given Minister Tobin's imminent departure. The machine went somewhat out of control and we were forced to limit our work a little.

As a general rule, I am easy to work with, to communicate with. I must say that things were going well on the other side for a while, up till the moment when pressure from the government machine or the department, perhaps in anticipation of Mr. Tobin's departure, caused them to put aside the spirit underlying my motions. That is why I had to wait for the bill's debate in the House to explain what I mean to all hon. members and those watching us, since in committee we are not always able to speak directly to the people. That is why we are here tonight.

I always come back to the underlying spirit. I will read again the group containing Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27. It is quite simple. Since they are short, I will read them again. Motion No. 24 says "the Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments". Why refuse to mention one of the main partners?

Motion No. 25 says "after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations". Provinces have direct contact with populations. I feel it is normal that they should be consulted before regulations take effect. If we adopt that line, we deprive ourselves of a source of information. Since provinces are closer to them, they are normally able to convey or express their populations' problems.

I quoted a figure in jest a few moments ago in the anteroom for the members who were there. I told them that if we were to take simply this framework, we would not be rebuilding the Constitution and the history of Canada, but just giving ourselves the tools that would allow us to settle in advance 90 per cent of the problems before they appear.

So, we must find information sources.

Motion No. 26 reads:

"26.(1) The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments, on the".

I mention this motion again because we have here four groups of motions which say that consulting the grassroots is a good thing, that having a communication process, a feedback process is a good thing. Without such a process, we will run into problems.

Ottawa, the national capital, is a beautiful place, but it is right in the middle of the country. Of course, departments have regional offices, but that is not good enough when, as in the case of those in our ridings, they are all managed according to the viewpoint of Ottawa. Regional offices are maybe full of goodwill, but they have no contact with the grassroots. Therefore, it is very important to go back to the base.

I will try to go a bit faster. Among the other motions, there is Motion No. 39 which I find interesting. I will read it and explain after. I propose the following amendment:

"appropriate, members of those bodies, in consultation with the provinces and with the approval of the standing committee,".

Clause 32 says: "For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the minister ( a ) shall develop-( b ) shall coordinate-( c ) may-establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate, as appropriate, members of those bodies''.

If an organization responsible for the integrated management of oceans must be created, do you not think it appropriate to establish a good working relationship from the start? I would ask the federal government to discuss it immediately with those who created Canada, namely the provinces. That is the kind of ideas that should be discussed.

If there must be integration and implementation of a management strategy, it would be appropriate to consult provinces, since there will be more than two members on advisory or management bodies and those members will have to come from somewhere. It will not be from Mars. So it would be important to give the provinces a say in who will be appointed to these organizations, giving them a chance to ensure that the appointees will reflect or at least know their basic philosophies. As for the federal government, it will also ensure that this organization includes people who will reflect its basic philosophy.

I think that our actions are dictated by common sense so that, to make progress, we must share our ideas. We must then ensure that we have a say in the appointment of the people who will manage them.

My time is running out, but I also want to read Motion No. 66. If I do not have enough time to complete my comments on this motion, perhaps one of my colleagues could do so.

"(2) In exercising the powers and in performing the duties and functions assigned to the minister under this act, the minister shall, as far as possible, see to it that the provinces affected by the application of this act are consulted".

That is what I am asking. There was no mention of this in clause 40 of the bill. Clause 40 deals with the powers, duties and functions assigned to the minister in part III of the bill. This clause sets out in concrete terms the management powers assigned to the minister. Part II stipulates that he must implement an integrated management strategy, while part III lists the powers he will have.

I think that, whenever the minister takes a measure affecting a province or its people, he should consult this province. That is the least he can do. Why do I have to put this in writing? Because, as we just saw and as I have seen in my two and a half years as a member of Parliament, the federal government does not usually react that way.

Among other things, how come, in the case of the coast guard and the new fee schedule for commercial ships, there was no direct meeting between the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the transport officials from Quebec and Ontario?

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking myself questions and calling on this House to include this kind of provision because the federal government does not react in a normal way. In other words, we should protect ourselves in all our relations. So this, in a way, would be our safeguard.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-26, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 12, with the following:

"25. The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments, on the".

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-26, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 12, with the following:

"Affairs, after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations".

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-26, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 13, with the following:

"26. (1) The Governor in Council may, in consultation with the standing committee and the provincial governments, on the".

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-26, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 13, with the following:

"after consultation with the provinces affected, make regulations".

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 16, with the following:

"appropriate, members of those bodies, in consultation with the provinces and with the approval of the standing committee,".

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-26, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 26, the following:

"(2) In exercising the powers and in performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister under this Act, the Minister shall, as far as possible, see to it that the provinces affected by the application of this Act are consulted."

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is comforting to see the interest all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois take in the consideration of this bill at report stage. I thank the hon. member for Chambly for the kind remarks he made earlier.

To come back to my horses, so to speak, Mr. Speaker; horses are normally on land, but the white froth on the crest of waves is also called horses.

What we must understand here this evening about GroupNo. 5-and I like the expression my hon. colleague from Chambly used earlier when he talked about neo-constitutional relations-is that we are doing our very best to come to an agreement with the people opposite. That is what is commonly called creating a partnership. We are even doing so at the instigation of former fisheries minister Brian Tobin, who told me: "Yvan, we want to be your partners. We want to establish a partnership". When you want to establish a partnership, you sit down with your partner and start making comparisons and agreeing on definitions. This is the very foundation of any partnership: the equality of partners.

To do so, we need to be able to talk and to establish clear premises from the start. When I was preparing these motions, I never thought the debate was going to develop this way. I must admit that I tried to get the idea across during our committee work. I did not jump on people with my idea, but when people come and tell me: "We do want to have partnership with you and make headway", I take that opportunity to check how sound things are. That is how the kind of motions before you today came about.

I could perhaps share or read a few, if I may. They deal with simple things. I am on Motions Nos. 8 and 9. Motion No. 8 deals with clause 8, defining rights. I am simply adding the words "derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held before February 4", to include the notion of province. It does not hurt anyone. Why should the government be ashamed of mentioning in the legislation that the provinces are its main partners? This is an example.

I will read clause 9. It is very eloquent. Subclause 9(5) mentions establishing a partnership; this is the provision I would like to see withdrawn-I realize this is boring for those who are listening to us at home, but I too would rather be doing something else. Put simply, the word "Limitation" appears in the margin, on the left side of subclause 9(5). This provision contains a limitation.

Here is what subclause 9(5) says. It reads:

For greater certainty, this section shall not be interpreted as providing a basis for any claim, by or on behalf of a province, in respect of any interest in or legislative jurisdiction over any area of the sea in which a law of a province applies under this section or the living or non-living resources of that area-

What does this mean? We are told that a claim cannot be made. A limitation is imposed. This is a bad way to start a partnership. I do not pretend to be a constitutional expert. I may not have as much legal expertise as does the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra or the hon. member for Chambly. However, I am an administrator by training and when you start with restrictions, it is a bad sign.

The same goes for Motion No. 14-we can go into details this evening, since we have time to do so. I specifically use the word "provinces" in the motion. Again, it is for a simple reason. Why is the government afraid of naming one of its main partners?

I will get to motions that are even more interesting. MotionNo. 23 seeks to add a fourth paragraph to clause 23. Earlier, in reference to certificates, the member for Vancouver Quadra said that, as regards Canadian sovereignty and international law, this is not quite the way to proceed. The member for Vancouver Quadra does not have to convince the whole world. He must convince the partners, that is the provinces, and the members who are here in this House.

I would like clause 23 to be amended by adding a fourth paragraph which would read:

"(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province".

We might be told that what is indicated in clause 23 does not come under provincial jurisdiction, or what have you, but it would not hurt to include it in the bill, so as to stress the notion of partnership. One would say to the other: "Listen, if you accept it like that, I am prepared to live with clause 4, because I will not lose anything, and if it suits you, great, so much the better". But no. It cannot work like that.

I move on to Motion No. 32 right away. I will read it carefully, slowing down at the important words and comparing it at the same time. It refers to clause 29. This may be an academic exercise. In any case, I think it could be instructive for those listening at home, and even for certain members who did not have the chance to look through the whole bill.

As written, the clause reads as follows:

"29. The minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards, and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial-"

I note that the provincial governments are not quite last, but come after relations with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, in collaboration of course.

What I would like to see, and I mention it in the motion, because the provincial partners will have to make it work, because Canada is made up of provinces, I would rather see the following:

"29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments-"

So there is an direct link right off the bat. As soon as you read it, it is clear: the main partners are the provinces and agreement must be with them. This is followed by "in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada", and then "interested persons and bodies". But it is the minister, in concert with the provincial governments, who is going to "lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces-it does not hurt to mention it-the development and implementation of a national strategy".

In other words, putting things in the right order from the start simplifies things later. It is not because I am a sovereignist that I would put the words in this order. I told you earlier that my second defect is to be an administrator by training. I therefore like to be able to identify the other players from the outset so as to be able to determine what our relations with them will be. I have said "in concert". What is done in concert? To lead and develop the implementation of a strategy. Now that is clear. But let us not begin with a list that, when the clause is read by more experienced jurists, such as there might be in this House, waters down the purpose of this motion.

If you try to do that, you risk serious problems, since this act will be implemented to resolve problems. So there must be an effort, from the outset, to avoid creating problems so that the relations are very clear.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-26, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 4, with the following:

"derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-26, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 24, on page 5.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 7, with the following:

"derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held".

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 8, with the following:

"derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held".

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-26, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 8, with the following:

"20. (1) Outside provincial boundaries, with respect for the rights of the provinces and subject to any regulations made".

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-26, in Clause 21, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 12, on page 10.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 11, with the following:

"23. (1) Subject to sub-section (4), in any legal or other proceedings, a".

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 11, with the following:

"(2) Subject to subsection (4), in any legal or other proceedings, a".

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 38, on page 11, the following:

"(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province."

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-26, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 15, on page 15, with the following:

"29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments and in collaboration with interested per-sons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of marine eco-systems in waters that form part of Canada or in which Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada has sovereign rights under international law."

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-26, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 42, on page 15, with the following:

"31. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments and in collaboration with interested per-sons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, the development and implementation of plans for the integrated management of activities in marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada has sovereign rights under international law."

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what needs to be understood and what those opposite are having a hard time understanding is that, although they tell us they want to include such definitions in order to comply with international law, one of the very first sentences of the bill provides that its aim is to permit Canada to affirm its sovereignty over its waters. What I want to say is that we can also affirm our sovereignty; we are sovereign in what we want to do and say.

We can therefore, in keeping with the new convention on the law of the sea, still act imaginatively. We can design this bill according to the desires and needs of those involved and of the people who make up Canada. I repeat: the provinces form Canada.

The problem I am trying to reflect in this bill is the greyness of the powers, the jurisdictions and the definition of the maritime territories in this bill. Right off in committee, I stated that I had some concern about the government moving so quickly with this sort of bill and I felt some questions were unresolved.

I keep coming back to the fact that the minister of fisheries at the time, Mr. Tobin, had promised me the bill was not written to mislead any province. It was to serve as a strategy toward a sort of partnership. When you want to be somebody's partner you take the time to listen to what they have to say and to respond to their insecurities. The fact is that we will have to live with this bill we are considering for a long time. More particularly, we will have to work with the wording it contains.

If, as a Quebec representative on this today, I start off with concerns, how can anyone believe there was good faith on the other side? If, before signing the contract, I tell them I am having difficulty with this or that clause, which needs clarification, and they tell me it is not necessary, if it is unimportant in their eyes, why not include it?

All, or nearly all, of the motions I submitted-I am not interested in reading them all again for people's benefit, as there is not enough time to do so-are for the purpose of clarifying that this bill will not encroach upon existing rights, existing though not perhaps claimed by the provinces. Why, then, is there such a rush to do away with that, and to speak of the provinces as little as possible? As we progress, every time we speak of a definition of territory, I add "provided nothing abrogates or derogates from the rights, past or present, of the provinces".

I try to make it as clear as possible that we need total clarity on this. Why is it that they keep taking us back to square one every time, by saying "No"? It reminds one of the principle of least effort. They refuse to budge on certain points, and not minor points either. Perhaps I am running out of words this evening. If we hold this to be important, if there are concerns, what have they done to alleviate those concerns? Nothing.

They say it is not important, that there is nothing to be feared. If there is indeed nothing to be feared, let it be put in, let the regulations be changed, let it be added. That would make things a lot clearer afterward. Why do I also insist in Motion No. 31 that this clause does not "apply, either directly or indirectly, in respect of lakes, rivers and their estuaries"? Because there are many of them in our regions. Because we would like to have a say and because Quebec's relations with the various stakeholders, including municipalities and the environment ministry, are already

complicated enough. So why should the federal government come barging in with this bill? Why?

I have been told there is no reason to worry. That is no reason for me to stop worrying and start telling myself that there is no risk, that I should not get involved in this. We are clearly saying that this bill should not apply to lakes, rivers and their estuaries. I am told it would be frivolous to exclude estuaries. I do not disagree that the first glass of water from the Saguenay River will flow past the Gaspé region before reaching Nova Scotia and then Newfoundland.

I do not disagree it is a chain reaction. We are not saying we do not want to co-operate with them. Every time we talk about relations strategies, we indicate to them that, if they want things to work, the partner, that is to say, the province or provinces concerned, must be involved from the start. As soon as the minister gets an idea, he shares it right away with his provincial counterpart. Likewise, when a federal official gets an idea, he should be able to contact his counterpart right away to see if there is a problem.

In such cases, both levels would share the problems, but for this to happen, it must be clear and well understood that part of the territory in question is ours and that this is the reason why we will have joint responsibility and why management responsibilities will be shared. I am realize that the Liberals are just trying to hog the whole thing, basically telling us: "Mover over, everything is under control". Not so fast, there are problems.

To our friend opposite, the parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister, who said in his preamble that the intent was to modernize international law, I reply that the United States also read the Convention of the Law of the Sea. Having read it, the U.S. still saw fit to specify that, while they have sovereign rights over their oceans, coastal states-that is to say U.S. coastal states-have a responsibility. I think it is up to three miles off the coast.

How is the maritime territory shared with the provinces and the provinces' responsibility recognized?

I do not wish to start a dispute but I want to call the attention of the hon. members opposite to the fact that the modern thing to do may be to give management over to the provinces, as the U.S. have been doing with member states for quite a while now. This way, U.S. states deal with the big boss in Washington. If every power is taken away right from the start, what is there left to talk about?

I say it again. In December, the government passed a motion saying that Quebec was a distinct society and undertook to enshrine it in the Constitution and to have it reflected in all other Canadian legislation. Here is a chance to acknowledge Quebec's desire to deal with its own problems and participate in the management process with them, but they do not want us to.

Do not be surprised if you see me rise again and again this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I have a lot to say on this subject and I will keep talking until I get through to them. The night could be long; they are quite hard-headed.