Michael Chong

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from York—Simcoe on his criticisms of this government's very hastily crafted and ill-conceived bill, and more particularly, on how this government has failed to address the real problem facing fisheries across Canada, such as those in Manitoba and Ontario, that is, the degradation of the watersheds and the Great Lakes due to the decline in water quality and the invasive species.

Ontario is home to the greatest freshwater fishery in the world. The Great Lakes are home to some of the best freshwater fisheries anywhere on the planet. The government has done absolutely nothing over the last 12 years to address ever increasing declines in water quality and the threats to native species such as those posed by invasive species.

There are heritage rivers in York region, Simcoe County and Wellington County, all across southern Ontario: the Grand River, the Maitland River, the Saugeen River, the Thames River, the Don River, the Credit River and the Humber River. In northern Ontario, there are the French and Spanish Rivers. All these rivers and their watersheds and all of the Great Lakes that these river watersheds feed into are under threat. I include in that Lake Simcoe.

There is a lack of resources in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ontario to address some of the problems facing our watersheds. We do this with very short-sighted vision, because these watersheds provide the drinking water for 13 million Ontarians. The damage to these watersheds, which is a direct result of lack of attention from this government, is absolutely unfathomable to Ontarians.

Yet the government can rush through a flawed bill such as Bill C-52 just like that. I cannot understand why the government would have the resources and the political will to rush through a bill like Bill C-52 without addressing the real problems facing Ontario's watersheds and watersheds across the country.

My question for my colleague from York—Simcoe about Bill C-52 concerns why this government is putting forth such a flawed piece of legislation. Why is the government allowing regulations that would be created under Bill C-52 to be exempt from parliamentary oversight and the Statutory Instruments Act? It seems to me to be a tack very similar to the one the government has taken with the $9 billion in foundations. Those too are not subject to parliamentary oversight or to scrutiny by the Auditor General.

In much the same way, the government is exempting itself from scrutiny under the Statutory Instruments Act with this bill. It is another example of the command and control style of executive management best typified by the government instead of Parliament being allowed the legislative and parliamentary oversight. Could my hon. colleague comment?

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is indeed correct. The committee found the concern of the minister unwarranted in that the regulation would have been more appropriately crafted if it had said that people who violate the terms of their licence would have their licence revoked. That would not be beyond the bounds of the statute, the bounds of the Fisheries Act.

The heart of the problem was that regulation 36 went beyond this. It said that if people violated the terms and conditions of their licences, they would be subject to penalties in the act, such as fines and other penalties. That violates a fundamental principle, that of Parliament delegating authority to others to make subordinate laws.

The committee's first report, tabled on October 21, 2004, stated that it has responsibility to ensure that “the appropriate principles and practices” are “to be observed...in the drafting of powers enabling delegates of Parliament to make subordinate laws”. The problem is that the act allows the department or the minister to enact regulations concerning the creation and revocation of licences, but not fines and penalties around violating the terms and conditions of those licences.

If the minister wishes to exercise his authority in that area he needs to come to Parliament to have the Fisheries Act amended to allow for fines and penalties in the event that the terms and conditions of licences are violated. That is the heart of the problem.

Not only has this government very hastily brought this legislation forward to address this problem of regulation 36, but it has also, in a very undemocratic and unparliamentary way, exempted this particular amendment to the Fisheries Act from the Statutory Instruments Act, which I think is a very circuitous way of preventing parliamentary oversight. That is why we will oppose this bill unless it is amended.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, whatever time I do not use, I will share with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's.

In speaking to Bill C-52, I support fisheries conservation. My riding of Wellington—Halton Hills has the Credit River and the Grand River, two of Ontario's heritage rivers running through it. The Grand River is world famous for its fly fishing. The Grand River Conservation Authority has done much in recent years to rehabilitate the river and ensure its use for future generations.

I also take the opportunity at every chance I get to go up to Algonquin Park and fish. Two summers ago I went down the Nipissing River. I made sure I purchased my Ontario outdoors card first and caught some brook trout in that river. Therefore, I am a big supporter of fisheries conservation.

However, Bill C-52, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, is a short bill hiding a major flaw and a major problem for the government. There is a bit of a historical perspective.

Before 1950, regulations did not come under parliamentary scrutiny. At the time, the size of the government was such that it was not required. However by 1950 the growth of regulation and the growth of government required legislation to be brought in place to ensure that the regulations had some oversight and in 1950 the regulations Act was introduced.

However, a flaw with that was the act did not provide for executive accountability and for ministry accountability back to Parliament for the regulations that were put in place.

Subsequent to that, in 1970 the government introduced the Statutory Instruments Act. This act provided for Parliamentary oversight of the regulations that the ministry or the executive had put in place.

Subsequent to that, in 1978 the statute regulations act was introduce which covered those parts of the consolidated regulations and those regulations enacted prior to 1971, I believe, to also fall under parliamentary oversight.

As I said initially, Parliament has oversight for regulations. However, Bill C-52 circumvents that. This is not about the fish or the fishery. There is a bigger principle at play here. This is about the improper use of delegated powers of the government to create offences that have not been approved by Parliament. Conviction for these offences could result in large fines or even imprisonment.

The problems of the bill are about the reluctance of the government to bring forward new legislation and a new Fisheries Act in this minority Parliament.

The problems of Bill C-52 came as a result of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations that examined regulation 36(2). It did so in its second report which was presented to the House on May 9, and it recommended the revocation of this regulation on the grounds that the regulation created an offence that exceeded the authority found in the Fisheries Act.

The committee found that this regulation violated three principles or three criteria that it had set out.

First, the regulation is not authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation, in this case the Fisheries Act, and it has not complied with any conditions set forth in the legislation.

The second criteria it violated was that this regulation imposed a fine, imprisonment or penalty without express authority of having been provided for in the enabling legislation.

The third criteria it violated was that the regulation amounts to the exercise of substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment.

For these three reasons, the committee rejected regulation 36 in its report tabled in the House on May 9.

As a result, the government had to react, and react quickly, to ensure that it had its way. The government, in an attempt to block the revocation of regulation 36, produced Bill C-52.

Before I go into my critique of Bill C-52, let me quote from one more finding in the report presented by the committee on May 9 to this House. It concerns the regulation that the committee recommended be revoked. This is the heart of the matter, both in the regulation that was going to be revoked and in the bill that this government has introduced. The report stated:

To summarize, the purpose of section 36(2) of the Regulations is to make it an offence to contravene the terms and conditions of a licence. In section 78 of the Act, Parliament has provided that only contraventions of the Act and the regulations are to constitute offences. If Parliament had wished contraventions of licence conditions to constitute offences, it could, and no doubt would, have so enacted. Section 36(2) is nothing more than an attempt to treat contraventions of licence conditions, which are administrative requirements, as if they were contraventions of legislative requirements. Regardless of whether this is characterized as creating an offence or not, the requisite clear and explicit enabling authority for such a provision cannot [be] found in the Fisheries Act.

As I mentioned, in response to the committee's finding, this government very quickly introduced Bill C-52, which, I might add, is an extremely short bill that contains only two clauses. The first clause allows the government the authority to enforce compliance with a licence under section 4 of the Fisheries Act. The second part of the bill allows this government to not undergo parliamentary oversight. The second clause in this bill exempts this bill from oversight under the Statutory Instruments Act. This a roundabout way for this government to circumvent parliamentary oversight.

This bill does not address what is fundamentally at heart here, that is, the inadequacies of the Fisheries Act. Indeed, this bill will simply prolong the life of this legislation, the life of a statute that is badly in need of revision. It keeps major reforms out of this minority Parliament.

I have read and heard of concerns from certain people about the revocation of regulation 36 and this bill. In particular, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources expressed concern about his ability to enforce the sustainable fishery. We too share these concerns. I share these concerns. However, this is not to be addressed in Bill C-52, not in a very poorly crafted bill that circumvents parliamentary oversight by not allowing the Statutory Instruments Act a purview over this amended section of the Fisheries Act.

This government has failed to introduce modern fisheries legislation and this bill is far too vague and far too encompassing and sweeping for us to support. With Bill C-52, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is trying to slide through Parliament an amendment to the Fisheries Act that would allow the jailing of fishers who might fail to meet a condition attached to a licence created by the department.

In principle, we are not against toughening penalties or fines for those who are found in violation of fisheries legislation. Indeed, I am not against jail terms for those caught polluting or damaging our fisheries or our environment. However, I believe that this should be done through legislation. It should not be done through regulation. The big principle here is that Parliament should be making these decisions concerning fines, penalties or imprisonment, not the minister through orders in council.

In conclusion, let me note that I find it highly ironic that while this Prime Minister has talked about the democratic deficit it is exactly legislation like Bill C-52 that circumvents the democratic will of Parliament. While many people who are watching this or who will read about this later may find the points nuanced and may find these points to be finer, I do believe that this is at the heart of the problem. That is, the democratic will of Parliament, the democratically elected members in the House, not only should have oversight of the regulations but should have a say in crafting legislation that would enforce penalties, fines and imprisonment. It should not be the minister through regulation and orders in council who does it.

I would like to move a subamendment to the motion. The member for Calgary Centre-North will second my motion. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the word “unelected” after the word “permitting” and before the word “public”.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

One of the census questions has to do with ethnic identity, although the government has agreed that the response can be “Canadian”. I think that since the diversity of our country is endlessly expanding, this question is no longer relevant.

For example, my six-month old son is of Chinese, Dutch, English and Scottish descent. To identify him as anything other than Canadian would be absurd.

In light of our diversity, does the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon think that such racist questions and answers still have their place?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would care to comment on the length of time we would allow to pass before allowing census data to become public. I understand that the current proposal is 92 years. I wonder if he could tell the House what the standard is in the United States and the United Kingdom, and how we came to the 92 year period.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, there is a sense of urgency here. The government's record on agriculture is poor. According to Statistics Canada, in 1993 net farm incomes were 18% lower than they were for 2004. That is on an inflation adjusted basis. Last year was one of the best years that the agricultural sector had in the last five or six years in this country.

The government's record on agriculture has been poor. However, supply management has been the one bright light in agriculture. I support supply management. We have 500 dairy farmers in Wellington County. As a matter of fact, I went to the Wellington County dairy producers' annual general meeting a number of months ago. I listened to the concerns they had and the investments they were making in their industry.

I support supply management because supply management works. We do not have billion dollar bailouts of this industry. There have not been any disruptive trade shocks domestically or internationally. It provides stable incomes and allows the hard-working family farms, hard-working dairy producers and poultry producers to make a decent living. That is very important.

There are three pillars to supply management. Supply management is like a three-legged stool. There are production quotas, pricing controls and import controls. Those are the three elements that are important to supply management. Those are the three legs to the three-legged stool. If one of the three legs gets knocked out, the stool falls over.

What is happening is that the government is undermining one of the three legs on the stool. It is slowly selling out supply management by selling out one of the three pillars, over quota tariffs, or in other words, import controls. I would be surprised if one of the fathers, so to speak, of supply management, Eugene Whelan, who would have sat opposite me in this House, would approve of what the government is doing by selling out one of the three pillars.

Why is the government, why is the minister, why is the international trade minister trading away at the WTO one of the three pillars, one of the three legs, in supply management? In doing so, it is going to destroy supply management.

Why is the government slowly trading away the pillar of import controls or over quota tariffs for supply management?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the member who just spoke I do not think worked on a farm. Yet he seemed to think that he knew everything about farming.

I grew up working on a farm. I worked for a farmer by the name of Jack Gilchrist who was a good Liberal. He had the International Plowing Match on his farm in 1968.

We have a farm in Wellington county just a mile down the road from where I grew up. In my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills the first Herefords were introduced to Canada in the 1860s in Puslinch township. The first square bailer was used in Canada, the first Angus cattle were introduced. We have the world famous University of Guelph research farms in Arkell and the Elora research station.

However, farming, and by farming I mean traditional agricultural, is in real trouble in our country. When I was growing up, the bank barns were full, the fences were up and the livestock were in the barns. Every barn was full and every field was full.

Now when I drive through my riding, half the barns are either falling apart or have been torn down. The fences are falling apart. The family farm is literally dying. As a matter of fact, for the first time fields are fallow this spring. Cash crop farmers are not even putting their crops in certain cases. This is the first time I have ever seen that in my lifetime.

Corn is at approximately $2.80 a bushel. It costs more to produce corn than they are selling it for. Do not rely on me for this anecdotal information. The statistics bear it out.

Between 1993 and 2004 farm income fell 18% in real terms. Between 1994 and 2000 the population of our country rose 10%. The government's agriculture policy is not working. The number of farms in Ontario has declined 10% in the last 10 or 12 years. Farming is not working in this province.

The only thing that is working in traditional agriculture and the only thing protecting the family farm is supply management.

In Wellington county we have 26,000 dairy cows. We have about 500 dairy farms. This is industry works. There are no billion dollar bailouts. There is insulation from the severe shocks that we have seen in non-supply managed industries.

Why is the government selling out supply management? It has had 10 years to deal with the issues of butter oils being used to circumvent the rules. It has had 10 years to deal with the issue of over quotas. The government is using the over quota issue to sell out the supply management industry. The time has come for us to get the Liberal government to come clean on this. Liberals are selling out this industry by stealth, little by little, not in one fell swoop. Would the parliamentary secretary care to comment on that?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, there is a lot of hot air going around this chamber about farming, especially from the NDP. I wonder if my colleagues in the NDP have ever driven a tractor, disked a field, packed a field or seeded it. I wonder if they know what a seed drill is or if they have birthed a calf.

I find it highly ironic that certain members of their caucus pontificate large about farming and farming needs, when many of them do not have farming backgrounds. The opposite is true in my caucus. Many of the members of the Conservative caucus have either grown up on farms or currently have farms.

It highly ironic that there is a lot of hot air coming out certain members from the NDP caucus, when they have no experience in agriculture.

[The Economy, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should not just take our word for it. He should listen to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and to the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who said that “to say that program spending is out of control would be an understatement”. He should also listen to The Economist magazine, which said that the Prime Minister “appears to have thrown fiscal restraint to the wind”.

How will he or can he reconcile with his budget this government's outrageous $26 billion in vote buying spending announcements?

[The Economy, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in February, the government presented its budget and announced that tax reductions were necessary to attract investment. The Liberals entered into a $4.6 billion deal with the NDP and have crossed the country announcing $26 billion in spending. The business community's concerns about our financial situation are justified.

Will the minister admit that he is prepared to pillage the public treasury in order to buy the voters' consciences?