Yvan Bernier

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

proposed:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-26, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 4, with the following:

"limits of any area, whether or not it is part of the territory of a province, other than the territorial sea".

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 7, with the following:

"sources, where they are not contained within the territory of a province, are vested in Her Majesty in right of".

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 7, with the following:

"Canada or, where the seabed and the subsoil are adjacent to the seabed and the subsoil of the territorial sea that is contiguous to the territory of the province, to Her Majesty in right of a province."

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 7, with the following:

"Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province, depending on whether the seabed and subsoil are included in the territory of the province."

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 8, with the following:

"vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province, depending on whether the continental shelf is included in the territory of the province."

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 8, with the following:

"vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada or, where the continental shelf is adjacent to the seabed and the subsoil of the territorial sea that is contiguous to the territory of the province, to Her Majesty in right of a province."

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-26, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 2, on page 15, with the following:

"apply, either directly or indirectly, in respect of lakes, rivers and their estuaries."

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary forgets or fails to see in this, when he says this is not the place to discuss the Constitution, is that I did not try to constitutionalize my proposals and I am not talking about constitutionalizing either.

What I say to them is that there are problems at the moment and that the federal government is not equipped to deal with the situation. I say they should look directly, look at the provinces which are prepared to play and they will avoid a pack of troubles. It is easy enough to understand. There is no need for constitutional meetings on the matter. However, sticking one's head in the sand is

worse. You cannot stick your head in the sand saying that you do not want to deal with the matter, that it involves the Constitution. When you have problems to face, you do not stick your head in the sand.

It does not take much for the government to say it will co-operate with the provinces, that it will talk to them directly. I can understand if it says it does not want to involve all 10 provinces. Alberta is perhaps less concerned about the oceans than perhaps either Quebec or Nova Scotia. It neither hurts nor takes anything away from the rest of Canada. That means that the meetings will go very quickly. Only the provinces concerned will be there. As for those that are not interested because of other problems or that prefer to let Ottawa handle it because they do not have the time, if it suits them, fine.

What I am saying is that it does not suit us and it is not reflected there. I did not ask for a constitutional rewrite. I only asked that the fact that we have to work with the provinces be taken into account. We have no choice in the matter.

There are other things we have to keep an eye on. With Motion No. 51, for example, we are asking for a consultation process, we want the matter to be sent back to the committee. Even though the parliamentary secretary tells us that the other place looked at it and said that it should go back to the committee every three years, it does not hurt to put it in here anyhow. I would rather know that it is the elected representatives in this House who are going to decide what to do with this bill. We are the ones who, within six months to a year, are going to face the people during the next election. I cannot tell my constituents in Gaspé that I could do nothing about it, that it had already been decided by the other place. It just will not work.

I am running out of time and words. There is a lot to say, but when the new chair of the fisheries committee rise-he is a very sensible man, at least he was last week-he too will recognize that people of good will can get along.

This is what our motion is all about. Look around, I am not talking about enshrining things in the Constitution. I believe that when you revamp a law, you should take advantage of it to make it more interesting. I already said at second reading that the principle could be good, that it was smart for the right hand to know what the left hand is doing.

I wondered why federal departments needed legislation to talk among to each other. However, it is there and we are trying to improve it. We are telling the Liberals it is there and we know there will be problems in relations with the provinces. We are mentioning that and they tell us we are trying to talk about the Constitution. I am not trying to talk about the Constitution, I am trying to solve some problems.

Motion No. 52 deals with marine protected areas-I have to go a little faster-but we would rather talk about protected areas for fishery resources. Why? I think that can be easily understood.

The primary objective of this bill is, of course, to manage oceans, but the second thing is-and I take this opportunity to point this out to the parliamentary secretary off guard in case he wants to comment later on-the Constitution provides that fisheries are under federal jurisdiction. I would be tempted to change this, but we will raise this some other time.

There are other management areas that are not outlined in the Constitution. There are grayer areas. To avoid problems, I would like that us to talk more specifically about fishery resources. If we want to get into the other domain, marine protected areas, there should be agreement with the provinces that make up Canada on what this expression refers to, what the government wants to hide in this expression, because it is unclear.

Is there a mixup or a misunderstanding, even if only in terms of the environment? There, I have said it. There are problems with the environment, even in the federal cabinet, at least there were in the previous one, which operated until February. I can mention it, as the two individuals concerned are no longer there.

When I questioned him at committee as to how Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada were getting along, former fisheries minister Brian Tobin's answer was: "Yvan, it is like yin and yang". At the time, Environment Canada was led by Ms. Copps, who will be seeking re-election on June 17.

If two departments cannot agree on definitions, if they cannot get along-and this is stictly at the federal level, in Ottawa-if two members of the team, two experienced politicians like Mr. Tobin and Ms. Copps, who worked together for a long time, cannot agree on the issue, what are we to conclude? The problem is not just at the personal level. Mr. Tobin's colourful language is well known. I accepted his answer in good faith, because it was reported in Hansard.

I am trying to give them a chance by saying: "Let us not refer to marine protected areas but to protected areas for fishery resources; it is much clearer". The other expression is unclear. How would the provinces react if the federal government adopted this terminology? Have officials, at the senior and deputy minister level, met to try to make this designation clear for everyone? I do not think so.

This bill was at the second reading stage when the former fisheries minister commented on the relationship between his

department and the Department of the Environment, led by Ms. Copps, saying it was like yin and yang.

I will speak again over the course of the evening, but you can already see that, on this group of motions alone, we could debate for hours on end. That is exactly what we did in committee. Unfortunately, I had to refrain from submitting some of my arguments, because any argument defeated at committee cannot be raised again in this House. As you can imagine, I have a lot to tell you still and a great deal of information to share with the public.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 17, with the following:

"Part, the Minister shall act in concert with the provinces and may consult with other".

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 35, on page 17, with the following:

"Part, the Minister shall consult with the provinces and the standing committee and may consult with other".

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 18, with the following: a ) with the approval of the standing committee, establishing marine protected areas''.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 33, on page 18, with the following:

"(a) establishing protected areas for fishery resources,".

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House this evening to speak on this bill. I must confess that I am fresh off the plane. Modern transportation enables us to travel rather quickly from one end of the country to the other.

The important thing to remember about this bill is that 13 groups of motions relate to it. The bill has three parts. The first group of motions deal with the first part of the bill, whose main intent is to incorporate the new law of the sea vocabulary, under the new United Nations convention Canada has not yet signed.

There may be worthwhile elements in there. I caught bits and pieces of the remarks made by the committee's former chairman, and I should perhaps put a couple of things right. We may agree on the need to upgrade certain aspects, but when we have to ask that the provinces' jurisdiction be respected, why is it that it takes them so long to understand?

My reading of the situation is that what is proposed to us in this bill and in the amendments put forward by the Liberals is just diluting the amendments we had discussed at committee, drowning the fish so to speak.

I have nothing against coastal or aboriginal communities or any other persons and bodies concerned with ocean management. Not at all. My point is that this umbrella legislation will have tentacular ramifications. We will see later that the purpose of Part II is to develop a management strategy involving all the various departments.

I would like to have the assurance that the provinces and territories that make up Canada will be heard at the first level of consultation. Why try to dilute this principle?

At this point, I would like to make a short digression. I was not going to raise the issue today, but I was led to do so. We are not trying to talk only about sovereignty and to play politics but, last December, in this House, the other side passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. That day, the government wanted to tell us we were different, but when it comes to legislation, it refuses to state clearly that Quebec is a player in the process.

The other provinces may not be interested, or they may not see things the way we do regarding this legislation and how to manage fisheries and waters adjacent to their coasts. This is fine, but why try to take away from us the right to manage these waters and fisheries, the right to take part in this process? I have been wondering about this for two and a half years.

I will always protect and actively promote the interests of Quebecers. I tried to do so through my work on the committee on Bill C-26, but in vain. I do not have it with me, but I even received a letter from our former colleague from the other side, Brian Tobin, concerning this bill, in which he said: "Mr. Bernier, your suggestion regarding a real partnership will be implemented". This was not done.

If Mr. Tobin was sincere-and I believe he was when he made these comments-, and assuming he were still a member of this government, I think he would take into account our proposed amendments. He would be true to his word and he would support these amendments, which only seek to ensure relations between the federal and provincial governments are clearly defined, because this is not currently the case. The provinces are included, but so are other interest groups and it should not be the case. It should not be the case.

Let me give you one last example. About two weeks ago, two or three provinces were involved in the crab fishery dispute. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is here right now, did nothing. He did not meet with the workers concerned.

Who made an effort to settle the issue? It is the provinces. Quebec met with its workers, and so did New Brunswick. Given such facts, why is it that the federal government does not want to give priority, in an act, to relations with the provinces?

New Brunswick was reluctantly dragged into the crab fishery conflict. From the outset, its fisheries minister said the issue came under federal jurisdiction. It turned out to be a mistake, since people in his riding threw stones at his house when he told them to go back fishing because the minister did not want to budge. The

main thing is that the province was forced to get involved in the conflict, even though the issue came under federal jurisdiction.

New Brunswick had to come up with solutions for its own residents. That is the conclusion drawn by the New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries, who does not agree at all with the sovereignty option I support. According to this minister, the members of the provincial legislative assemblies are closer to the people, they are more aware of the problems; they are also the ones who took the beating this time.

I do not think it will be the last time. More and more often, the people are going to appeal to their MLAs. True, here, in Ottawa, we are a bit out of touch with reality. We are blinded, not sufficiently aware of what is going on in the ridings.

I have always thought that for every local problem there was a local solution. People came up with solutions. There are negotiations under way, but I will not elaborate on this issue for now. All this to show that, in spite of themselves, the provinces must take an active part in management, along with the government which drafted this piece of legislation.

Since we are still part of the federal system, something I have to acknowledge, can we get some recognition? Anyway, we-that is to say the provinces-will have a key role to play. They must report to Ottawa the whys and wherefores of the wishes of their residents. They have to negotiate with Ottawa. They have to ensure that Ottawa has understood. They sometimes have to put their vision against the vision of the other provinces, to ensure that the great legislator in Ottawa will be enlightened when the time comes.

This bill hints at the development of a management strategy. They talk about an integrated oceans management system, with all that it implies, but what we need to do at the outset is to define our position with the provinces, and that is not being done. This is more than just rhetoric, more than a war of words, it is a true statement of the real need to operate this way.

Those who claim to be uninterested in this type of partnership will see their relationship with the federal government unchanged. The first thing we have to realize is that some of the players are different, they have different problems and different needs. I will limit my comments to this group of motions.

I will listen to the debate tonight. I will be here tomorrow if it is still under consideration. As long as the government does not get the message, we will repeat it over and over again.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 1, the following:

"WHEREAS the provinces of Canada also exercise legislative jurisdiction with respect to oceans and their resources;".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 15, on page 1, with the following:

"sources in concert with the provinces, taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government;".

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-26, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 1, with the following:

"and Oceans, in collaboration with provincial governments, with interested".

[Pleasure Craft, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister not acknowledge that the objective of safety he is hiding behind is nothing more than a pretext, because his real aim is to impose a hidden tax on pleasure boaters in order to bring in $14 million?

[Pleasure Craft, June 4th, 1996]

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

Last Thursday, the minister argued in this House that registering pleasure craft and charging fees for them would mean greater safety in pleasure boating. The Bloc Quebecois agrees that safety on the waterways is important, but we strongly question the real motives of the minister.

What services will the Coast Guard offer pedal boats, rowboats and canoes that warrant their paying a new tax of up to $35 annually?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because there are other members who want to speak and because we are anxious to vote on this motion. All I want to indicate to the minister with my comment-because I do not necessarily want to ask a question-is that this is a very emotional issue. I have listened carefully to questions and comments today and I must say that there was a lot of emotion involved.

If I may use a little irony, I will say to the minister that each time we speak on issues like this, we are opening up the crab trap. The minister is smiling, so he is definitely listening to the simultaneous interpretation. I would like to tell him that regardless of our political differences or the different perception we often have of problems, I have made the effort to listen to all the debates on this issue. I must tell him from the start that I am always interested in recognizing democracy through a referendum.

I am not interested in commenting on the specifics of what the province does or does not need. What I wanted to say is that I have taken the time to listen, and I will vote in favour of the motion this evening. I would like to hear from the minister that he too intends to listen to all the other problems that arise, including in the crab fishery, so that people of good will can be heard in this House.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I find it amusing to have to defend an argument coming from the former fisheries minister, Mr. Tobin, because when he sat across from me we did not always see eye to eye.

For that matter, I also find it amusing to be comparing my ideas or my view of Canadian democracy, or the democracy of each of the provinces, with a representative of the Liberal Party. He made a great point of saying that, as a good Liberal, he believed in democracy. But how is it that, when something does not suit members across the way, they always say that people took advantage of timing. They said the former premier held the referendum during the summer. The member also said that the question they used was vague. Why, then, did 54 per cent of the population of Newfoundland vote in favour? Someone must have understood something somewhere.

All that aside, if the people of the province of Newfoundland asked themselves the question they wanted to ask-because we must not forget that it was, after all, the people of the province of Newfoundland who elected the premier of Newfoundland and the government of that province as being capable of governing them, of administering what concerned them-I believe that the present premier has everything he needs, just as his predecessor did, to be able to administer and to continue to do so as the public wishes.

What I would like to ask is this: Would the member across the way not agree that once a province says that it has consulted its people, that it has agreed that democracy requires that Ottawa be asked to respect and implement the decision, it is wrong to question the validity of the referendum, to call into question the exercise of democracy in that province? I think it is insulting to the people of Newfoundland. They are mature enough to say what they want.

What they are telling us is this: Let us implement what the referendum, the consultation of the public, told us.

[Fisheries, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very certain that the minister understands. This is not a quarrel between traditional crabbers and ground fishermen at the present time, this is a problem with plant workers.

What does the minister intend to do in response to the decision by the president of the Acadian ground fishermen's association, which is showing its solidarity by giving up 1,520 tonnes of its crab quota under the plan and handing them over to traditional

crabbers, thus helping to save the jobs of deckhands and processing plant workers?