Yvan Bernier

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, minor disturbances occur from time to time, but as I was saying-I have lost the gist- I was saying that one of Canada's prime objectives in connection with Bill C-98 is to reaffirm its sovereignty over its coastal waters.

One of my colleagues whispered to me that one project dear to my heart was separation. How is it that, when Canadians are talking about affirming their identity, they talk about sovereignty and, when Quebecers talk about wanting to be sovereign, Canadians call it separation?

Nowhere have I seen reference by international journalists or in the international press to Canada's wanting to separate from the rest of the world with the announcement of Bill C-98. It just wants to assert its sovereignty.

I hope my little digression will help some people to understand and to use the proper terminology in the future.

I would also like to add, before getting into this small digression, that the Bloc Quebecois took part in Bill C-29. We knew it would be difficult. We knew that our plan to protect fish stocks in overlapping zones outside our territorial waters had no basis whatsoever in international law. However, I should add that no point of law prevented us from taking the action we unanimously authorized the Canadian government to take, here in this House.

What I want to say is that common sense prevails, always. When we appeal to people's common sense, when we take the time to explain things to them, they understand. When we do not take the time, we keep going round in circles. This is what has been happening in the constitutional context for the past thirty years; we have not taken the time to properly explain to people, and we are going round in circles.

In terms of the bill before us this morning, we could have avoided going round in circles, but we did not take the time to properly explain. Had that been done, we in the opposition would have worked with the government members opposite and talked about our suggestions for part I and whether fundamental principles could be respected and an order of consultation established in connection with part II-that sort of thing. We would have saved a lot of time and a lot of taxpayers' money, and the problem would be solved. At least we would have a timetable that would allow us to say we would progress.

At this point, we do not have anything. I am saying right off the bat that if the government ever uses its majority without taking into account the comments made by members who disagree with it, we will always have problems with this bill. If I understand correctly, the minister of fisheries sees this bill as the way to correct the management errors we made in the past. We should, however, ensure that everybody understands and that the solution is appropriate to the problem. We must first agree on the definition of the problem before trying to define solutions.

All this to say-I am not such a bad guy after all-that I agree with the minister of fisheries that many things in Canada are scattered. I, too, recognize that this management is a little chaotic. I may not be using the same words as the minister but I think the same thing.

In this regard, I could agree to go back and sit with the people on the fisheries committee and work on what could be called an integrated ocean management system. For the people listening to us, integrated management system does not necessarily mean that everything should be centralized. We should first of all ensure that the right hand knows what the left hand will be doing.

At this time, when we are still at the starting gate, I am not sure that the other members of the cabinet are aware of the full import of this bill, but there is one thing I would like to know. If it is supposed to make things easier, I would like the minister of fisheries to show us that he is on top of this by inviting the 14 other ministers concerned by this bill to come and tell us how they see their participation in this proposed management committee, how all this will come together, so that we can see and feel it in front in us. But I have yet to hear the other ministers.

This sums up my position this morning. I could perhaps close with a brief summary of what I said and I will then have a motion to table. In short, this is the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Part I of the bill defines in the laws of this country Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. It is certainly important to recognize one's sovereignty. However, I am not sure that we needed a federal act to do that. Indeed, we were once told by the ambassador representing Canada during the negotiations on the convention that such recognition could be made by cabinet.

As far as I am concerned, Part II is only window dressing. The bill does not meet its objectives. The required legislative framework for the implementation of a national strategy is ill-defined and federal responsibilities regarding the management of oceans are vague. What is even worse is that the bill disregards the provinces' jurisdiction, including in the environment sector-as the hon. member for Laurentides will explain later on-and defines provincial ministers as mere associates on the same level as any other person, whether in the private or the public sector, interested in the issue.

This bill could therefore generate disputes. This is unacceptable, in our view. Consequently, we oppose the legislation. We feel it is

necessary to clearly define a strategy for the management of oceans, but that strategy must be efficient and not lead to conflicts.

In that regard, the minister must go back to the drawing board and come up with a strategy that will clearly define the responsibilities of each one involved in the process, without creating any new overlap between federal and provincial departments.

On that note, I would like to table a motion-although I do not know if I can do so at this stage-which could read as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurentides, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

"Bill C-98, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada, be not now read a second time, but that the order be revoked, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the standing committee on fisheries and oceans".

In so doing, we would create a climate which would ensure the implementation of an ocean management strategy much more quickly, efficiently and constructively, with the participation of parliamentarians. That would also result in significant savings.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore table my motion.

I note that there is still some time left but as I have already stated I would not wish to drag things out in my concern to save the taxpayers' money, and to launch into patriotic speeches as well, a move which I expect would offend some of those present in the House this morning because any flag waving I would do would not necessarily involve the flag of Canada.

Not that I have anything against Canadians, but my objections are instead against the federal system as it exists at present and as it is administered at present. The bill tabled this morning is to my mind a perfect illustration of the fact that no effort is being made to seek agreement among ourselves. The minister makes a decision. Perhaps an ill-advised one. I am, after all, prepared to attribute good intentions to him from time to time. But the minister heads in a certain direction, deliberately closing his eyes and ears to everything around him, probably even within his own caucus.

On these grounds therefore I invite the minister to withdraw the bill, to provide an opportunity for us to develop a strategy at last, but a strategy that must be created in an atmosphere of mutual trust. If we cannot manage to do so I feel Quebecers will understand that if, every time we take the floor to try to get our point of view across to the others, theirs is the one that wins out it would not be surprising if at some point when nothing can be changed from within it becomes necessary for us to break out of this federal morass.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Some call it that, but I have always said sovereignty. When you say in Bill C-98 that its purpose is to strengthen-

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Admittedly, it has been a while, Mr. Speaker, since we had the opportunity to debate a fisheries bill in this House. I can remember the House having to debate such legislation very soon after Parliament reconvened in 1993, even though we started in 1994 and had been elected in 1993. This morning, I would like to say from the outset that this is a sad day for myself, as a parliamentarian, for two reasons.

First, contrary to what had been the case with the two previous bills presented by the Liberal government, this time, we did not have the chance to familiarize ourselves with the legislation and prepare to provide proper explanations to our constituents. Let me explain.

This bill was introduced for first reading approximately three months ago, on June 14. During all that time, I tried to know more about the bill. I also spoke with the chairman of the fisheries committee, the hon. member for Dartmouth. I hope he can be recognized later, but the fact of the matter is that we do not have all the information. We asked senior officials of the department for information. We made all kinds of inquiries, had several briefing sessions, but never got the answers we were looking for. These could have been included in a precis, the purpose of which, and I will refer to my notes so that I do not mislead anyone, is to identify the scope of each clause of a bill. My point is that the fisheries department, and hopefully not the minister himself, did not make the task any easier for us parliamentarians.

Bill C-98 covers many other existing acts of Parliament. This is why I wanted to know the origin of each of these acts and see how they complement each other. I also wanted to be able to measure the scope of each of the clauses. I that sense, it is a sad day for me.

The other reason why it is a sad day has to do with the fact that we often ask questions in this House but seldom get answers. This is the first time, since the last meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria last fall, that the department has given us an indication of where it is headed. From what I understand, since the department's officials did not provide us with a precis, this new bill provides that the provinces will be consulted like any other legal person interested in the issue. Already, this is something that I have trouble with. Quebec attended that conference on fisheries management, but so did British Columbia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Some of these provinces had stated their needs, as well as their willingness to share with Ottawa the responsibility for fisheries management.

However, this morning, which is the first opportunity for the provinces to give an idea of where they are headed, the whole issue is downplayed. I do not oppose regional meetings and decentralization, but the importance of the provinces should not be overlooked. Moreover, there is no indication of any hierarchy in terms of the consultations and that also makes me sad.

The House is a place where we can express our views. I want to take this opportunity to say that even though some provinces may be prepared to give more power to Ottawa-and I cannot keep these provinces from doing so-we should take into consideration those provinces which are willing to play an active role in the management of fisheries. However, the bill does not appear to do that.

This was my introduction. I will now discuss the content of the legislation for the benefit of the members who did not have time to read it, as well as for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and that of the public watching us on television. The bill contains three parts, as the minister pointed out, but I will summarize them a little faster.

The first part seeks to recognize, in the law of the land, Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. There is a reference to Canada's role in the drafting of the Convention on the law of the sea, which came into effect in 1982. It is now 1995. They have taken 13 years. Now they are asking us to take less than three months to understand it all, to assimilate it all, while refusing to give us the

texts setting out the scope of the bill. This concerns Part I of the bill.

Part II deals with defining the legislative framework necessary for establishing a national oceans management strategy. I will say no more about defining the legislative framework just now, but will come back to it later. Part III addresses clarification of federal responsibilities with respect to oceans management.

I would like to touch upon these three points briefly. I have attempted to take notes of what the minister said, thinking this would help me in constructing my own address as well. But let me start by commenting on how the minister has been able to use this bill to do a great deal of flag waving. He is entitled to do so, except that in my opinion Part I of the bill which gave him such a chance to wax patriotic could, according to what I hear from some public servants, have been handled by the governor in council alone, in other words the cabinet, with ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Or, to put it more clearly, there was no need to bother the House, no need of a statute for it to be adopted.

And that from my understanding of his words is where he has placed the most emphasis in his speech. So you will understand my amazement.

Part II concerns the legislative framework. What is the framework he presents? My initial conclusion is that what is being addressed here is facilitating implementation of this integrated oceans management.

Reference is made to facilitating contacts between federal ministers and other concerned parties. Does it take a statute of the Parliament in Ottawa to encourage federal ministers to talk to each other? Perhaps encouraging ministers to communicate with each other ought to have been put into the Constitution right at the start. An act to encourage communication. Again, Mr. Speaker, pardon my amazement.

A little further on I do see how this legislative framework operates, but it still strikes me as poorly defined. Poorly defined in that the federal responsibilities with respect to oceans management as they are set out still strike me as fuzzy, but the relationships between the ministers also strike me as fuzzy, very very fuzzy.

At the briefing sessions I was told that as many as 14 departments could be involved. Upon reading the bill, we see four or five departments referred to by name. The Department of Foreign Affairs will be responsible for approving the zones. Oddly enough, when the bill refers to sustainable management and the quality of the environment, we see that the minister will be able to set standards. However, unlike certain cases when the Attorney General of Canada is asked to issue a certificate, the minister would not be required to seek the permission of the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of the Environment. However, that is a matter on which the hon. member for Laurentides will expand later on.

As far as I am concerned, I find it rather confusing, and I have the impression it will take more than one bill. The Prime Minister will have to attend quite a few of these meetings to be sure that all ministers are present and are willing to take part in the sessions the fisheries minister will have to set up to implement his management strategy.

Imagine how the bureaucrats and the ministers will react when they have to do it all over again together. I think the sequence is all wrong. I said earlier there were three parts to this bill. They could have set up the first part with cabinet. As for part two, the management strategy, they could have provided a better framework. As well, before second reading they could have asked us to work on the bill in the fisheries committee. It is really too bad that such a poor job was done, according to some bureaucrats and some members opposite, Liberal members. We will not name them because solidarity bids me to respect their silence. They will speak for themselves. However, the confusion this morning could have been avoided.

We could have avoided the sniping that went on earlier, and we could have avoided the partisan remarks. In any case, I will try to be objective to the very end, but I have a feeling that some members have already been given notes for their speeches and will have to read what the party asks them to say, not what they feel like saying or have already said. In clear terms, from what I understand, the minister is not proposing a specific strategy, but merely a duplication of powers.

The minister could have tabled a specific strategy that recognized the respective roles of other federal ministers and the provinces. Once approved, the strategy could have been supported by a bill. There was nothing to prevent the minister, at that point, from calling a meeting with his federal and provincial colleagues to define the strategy. But no, the minister preferred to give himself new powers and, as I said earlier, to put his colleague, the environment minister, before a fait accompli and leave the provinces out of the debate altogether.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois co-operated with the government at the beginning of its mandate on Bill C-29, the legislation to protect straddling stocks. I think that in this case we showed our good faith, we showed we were not influenced by partisan considerations nor by our cherished goal.

[Unemployment Insurance, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister confirm that he is coming back again to a scheme with two classes of unemployed, heavily penalizing seasonal workers because they will be considered from now on to be chronically unemployed and will receive reduced benefits? Is he aware of this? Is he prepared to admit it?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The confidential document from the minister's office on unemployment insurance reform the federal government wants to keep hidden from Quebecers proposes nearly a 20 per cent reduction in the unemployment insurance cheques of seasonal workers.

Does the minister acknowledge that if he were to make his true intentions with respect to these unemployment insurance cuts

known now, seasonal workers would become aware that they will be getting less money for a shorter period of time?

[Environment Week, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of Environment Week, June 4-11, I would like to acknowledge the laudable efforts of the Canadian and Quebec mining industry to be more environmentally conscious.

The Canadian mining industry is the first mining association in the world to develop an environmental policy for all of its members. Under this initiative, dubbed ARET, Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics, the largest mining companies have committed themselves to reducing the most offensive emissions by 71 per cent by the year 2000.

We can only welcome any measure which aims to make the sustainable development of natural resources more environmentally friendly.

The mining industry's commitment to reducing its emissions is a big step in the right direction. Our congratulations.

[Minister Of Labour, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, desperately in need of francophone spokespersons for federalism in Quebec, the federal Liberals recruited a former minister from the Bourassa and Johnson governments.

Not even six months after her recruitment, the Minister of Labour has already done a brilliant job of assimilating the credo of the proponents of very centralized, orthodox federalism.

Yesterday, she abandoned Quebec's minimum demand, recognition as a distinct society. In the same breath, she forgot all of the years she spent defending the five minimum conditions set in Meech, promoting the Allaire report and fighting the federal government's infringement on areas of provincial jurisdiction as a member of the Liberal Party in Quebec.

It is regrettable that the Minister of Labour's political ambitions have made her betray the convictions she had up until her arrival in Ottawa.

[Fisheries, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appear so optimistic about the outcome of the negotiations, when the Spanish prime minister, Felipe Gonzalez, said that Spain was definitely rejecting the terms of the agreement in principle?

[Fisheries, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has confirmed that Canada and the European Union reached agreement in principle yesterday in the turbot dispute, subject to approval by cabinet and the officials of the European Union. With Spain and Portugal's rejection of it, the European Union has called for the reopening of the agreement in order to wring even more concessions from Canada and thus bring the negotiations to a standstill.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that the European Union, under pressure from Spain, in particular, has rejected the agreement in principle, thus bringing us back to the starting point?

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. He made a nice speech, but forgot to mention that the Liberals were in office for a long time and that the deficit started growing back then.

I am somewhat sceptical when I hear that restoring confidence in the economy will result in the money markets lowering interest rates which, in turn, will stimulate job creation. I am from the Gaspé Peninsula and I can tell you that fringe areas need catalysts. Unfortunately, that budget does not include any job creating initiatives. There is no catalyst to help people improve their lot.

The government's proposed approach, which is to let the private sector act freely, presupposes that it expects the private sector to create jobs for people with low levels of education. However, these jobs will not be well-paid. I would like to know how the regions will be mobilized. All the nice rhetoric heard in this House is fine, but the regions expect positive measures and guidelines. Instead of that, the government is cutting the financial support available through the Federal Office of Regional Development. Where is the support? Instead of providing support, the government is withdrawing it.