Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and honour that I stand today to represent not only my constituents but all those of Newfoundland and Labrador and all those of the country for which I consider to be a grave injustice that has been served upon this country and certainly upon our neck of the woods, as they say, which would be Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today's motion states:

That this House regret that the party now forming the government has abandoned the principles respecting the Atlantic Accords, equalization and non-renewable resource revenues as articulated in the motion it put before the House on Tuesday, March 22, 2005.

The motion that was put forward by the Conservatives at the time read:

That the House call upon the government to immediately extend the expanded benefits of the...Atlantic Accord to all of the provinces...revenues severely curtails the future prosperity of Canada by punishing the regions where the economy is built on a non-renewable resource base.

The point of all this is very clear, which is to ask the Conservatives at what point they will start practising what they used to preach.

This a point that is an ultimate deception to the Canadian public. This is a point that they have made time and time again, not just in the last election but in the one prior to that as well. It is one that allowed our provinces, many of which rely heavily on non-renewable resources, to become principal beneficiaries of their own resources, which is to say that it gives them a sense of ownership, a sense of pride and a sense of hope for their future.

A few years back, we instituted the Atlantic accords which provided two provinces, Newfoundland land Labrador and Nova Scotia, with the ability to maintain and remain principal beneficiaries of their own resources. In doing that, they have provided offset payments and it has shielded them from clawbacks made in the equalization program. It was a promise that was made, negotiated and delivered.

However, during the last campaign and all the rhetoric that was made during the campaign, the Conservatives said that they would do one better. They said that they would provide the province of Newfoundland and Labrador with the ability to bring about $200 million per year. With that they would have added on to the current agreement with the Atlantic accords. What they had promised to do was to take non-renewables out of the formula. Throughout this day we will be making the points very clear.

I want to congratulate my colleagues from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and the rest of the country for joining me here. I would also like to honour my colleague, the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan for seconding the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Halifax West.

First I would like to address the budget directly. The budget talks about the exclusion clause and states:

As a result, the O’Brien formula provides both a substantial incentive to provinces to develop their natural resources and higher payments to most provinces than one that fully excludes non-renewable resources.

The attempt was made within the budget but what the government tried to do through the front door, it took away from the back. A promise was made and a promise was broken. Here is the essential element of this particular budget that outlines that.

Budget 2007 proposed to implement the recommendations of the O'Brien report. Basically it took it all. One item that is particularly alarming and basically negates the commitment that was made is the following:

--a fiscal capacity cap to ensure that Equalization payments do not unfairly bring a receiving province’s total fiscal capacity to a level higher than that of any non-receiving province.

I would like to illustrate something that was distributed within Newfoundland and Labrador during the last election. The Conservatives had written every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and had told them quite simply that there was no greater fraud than a promise not kept.

Here is what the Conservatives said:

That's why we would leave you with 100% of your oil and gas revenues. No small print. No excuses. No caps.

Here we are a year later and the cap is right here within this budget. A promise made and now a promise broken.

The injustice that we are debating here today is one that is of prime importance. I want to illustrate the lengths to which the government will go to get elected, to get seats and to be absolutely deceptive in all ways, shape and form. This is the crux of it for us in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Danny Williams, had written every leader asking for certain commitments and intentions of how they would govern the country. He asked about the equalization formula and the response from the then leader of the opposition and the now Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party was that his government would remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada.

That does not say anything about a cap. It does not say anything about going to either the old system or staying on the new system.

Interestingly enough, in the last budget the Minister of Finance had said that side deals with provinces undermine the principles of equalization.

Let us try to follow the logic here. They were saying to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that they could either go to the new system or stay on the old system but for every other province and territory they need to go to the new system.

If that is the case, if Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia decide to stay in the old system, we have the same situation: two provinces now under a different equalization formula; a side deal supported by this party after saying unequivocally that side deals undermine the principles of equalization. It is one step forward, two steps backward.

Let us go to the deception once more. The following are some of the headlines in recent days from the moves made by this budget and the Conservatives' idea of fixing the fiscal imbalance and answering some of the concerns of the Newfoundland premier.

“N.S. to take big hit in program funding if it opts out of new federal formula”, is the headling from the Newswire in Halifax. Another headline is “Tory MP accuses Saskatchewan premier of lying as government defends budget”. Not only have the Conservatives deceived them, they are attacking them for saying to them “Where is your commitment?” Not only have they abandoned the premiers, they now have decided to victimize them as well.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

moved:

That this House regret that the party now forming the government has abandoned the principles respecting the Atlantic Accords, equalization and non-renewable resource revenues as articulated in the motion it put before the House on Tuesday, March 22, 2005.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a promise on equalization. True to form, this is promise made and promise broken.

The way the government has set this up my province is forced to choose either the Atlantic accord or the complete exclusion of non-renewable resources but with the cap. The Conservatives have promised it all only to get votes.

My question is specifically for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Will he stand in the House, right here, right now, and condemn this betrayal of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Leader of the Opposition, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, James Murray is indeed a senior researcher for the Conservatives fully funded by the taxpayers.

Mr. Murray was sent on the road last week with his little digital camera getting footage of the Liberal leader to be used for election purposes. It seems these people cannot tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and repay the money to compensate the Inspector Gadget that was used in this particular exercise, and repay that money because it was used and will be used for election purposes?

[Fisheries, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ask questions when one does not get a decent answer whatsoever. I would implore the parliamentary secretary to push hard on this one.

Each year, Germany slaughters over one million deer and over half a million boar pigs, including the young. It attacks our seal hunt with lies and conjecture and now is the time for us to fight back.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his colleagues unanimously support my motion to ban the importation of deer and pork products from Germany?

[Fisheries, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in a callous manner that is both uninformed and misleading, the German minister of agriculture has condemned the Canadian seal hunt and wants to ban seal products in Germany.

All parties in the House support the seal harvesters on the east coast but yet the Prime Minister has said absolutely nothing about this situation. When will he act and when will he say something to condemn Germany for its actions?

[Seal Hunt, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a motion that the Government of Canada ban the importation of all deer and wild boar products from Germany.

In Germany 1.2 million deer and over 500,000 wild boar are cruelly slaughtered annually, most of which are killed for sport.

This past Monday, February 26, Germany's agriculture minister announced plans to introduce in the German Bundestag a bill to prohibit the importation of all seal products from Canada. If the German agriculture minister is going to take a high moral stand with respect to Canada's legitimate seal hunt, then he should clean up Germany's own backyard first.

As a parliamentarian representing thousands of sealers in my riding, I am deeply disappointed by the actions of select parliamentarians from European countries who are being led by the blatant misinformation and distortion of animal rights groups.

If European parliamentarians are so determined to reject the science and the sustainable use principles that govern Canada's seal hunt, they should look again to their own backyards and clean them up.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, February 23rd, 2007]

I thank the member for Random—Burin—St. George's for clarifying that. He was also a member at the time.

If it says in clause 36 that the minister may issue releases for aquaculture purposes, where is the rest? If the minister truly believes, as he did in 2003, about the special rules and regulations around aquaculture and its effect on the environment and all fisheries and all stakeholders, why is it not addressed here? Again, that is another question.

Clause 37 refers to the allocation the minister can make in fisheries “not managed by a province”. The question here goes back to the provisions under clauses 7 and 23 with respect to delegation and whether it is possible that the federal minister, in the wake of agreements or a delegation, would actually have very few fisheries over which to have authority to allocate. Again, the government may have a good answer for that, but yet not vetted through the right people, the stakeholders, and not translated fully.

The provisions in the bill that deal with the tribunal is one that is extremely plausible. We find, for the most part, with a few minor changes, they are certainly acceptable to our country. Unfortunately, what we have here is an omnibus bill that covers everything. Clauses 130 to 133 concern the alternative measures to judicial proceedings. The only concern here is to ensure that those who violate the provisions of the act of a serious nature are dealt with in a manner befitting the degree of frequency of violations. Again, we go back to the tribunal aspect of this act, which we feel is a positive one, but yet the first part of the act with co-management is a major issue.

I would like to bring up a few concerns. The parliamentary secretary in his opening speech said that they consulted a lot of people, that they had a lot people give them feedback. Yesterday the minister said that it was mostly positive. I beg to differ. Herein lies some of the negative stuff. It is not only negative, but it raises questions as well. Everybody wants to know.

For example, Bill C-45 would change all that with clauses 43 to 46. This comes from the Fisherman Life submission by Christopher Harvey who has said that on the fisheries management agreements with any organization, which in his view represents a class of persons, the minister is left with an unfettered discretion. He has problems as well with clause 37, making allocations among any groups.

A letter to me stated, “We also have recently read an article in the Peninsula News about the Liberal caucus position on Bill C-45, and it mentioned you had concerns”.

The stakeholders across Canada are voicing disapproval with the bill.

The common theme here is lack of consultation. After second reading to go to committee is not the proper way to management. Therefore, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'That' and by substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

Let the stakeholders have their say.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, February 23rd, 2007]

The hon. minister just asked if that was a promise. I will take that under advisement.

Clause 15, which again provides a minister with discretionary powers, says, “The Minister may, for the purpose of conducting research” obtain information from any person that the minister considers relevant to conservation, proper management and prevention of pollution of waters. Again, clarification is needed.

The apparent user fee structure in clauses 16 to 17 requires clarification with respect to fees charged for the service or the use of a facility.

There are many other sections in this and a lot of it deals with the first half of this bill. It troubles me greatly that so many people have contacted our office, and many offices of other members of Parliament and DFO, about their concerns on the bill. Again, the theme is very simple, questions, questions, questions. Remember, we are replacing an act that existed for 137 years. We have to ask the essential question. Was due diligence exercised? I do not think it was in this case. There were too many questions and too many people asking them.

Under clause 25, while the minister “must” take into account in exercising the powers the need to conserve the fishery while also securing access to the fishery. The question arises as to how these are prioritized. At the same time the minister may take into account matters such as adjacency and historical participation, which require careful consideration due to the matters arising out of, say, the Marshall decision, which took into account historical attachment and adjacency issues. Do these issues relate to the licence holder specifically or can adjacency and historical participation relate to the historical attachment of fishers from communities? What are we opening up? Again, this a question that needs verification. The law has to be translated for all stakeholders. The law has to be carefully vetted for all stakeholders. For communities, we have ourselves a new concept. Who does that include? We need to ask that question.

Also I will address clause 36. This very important. Clause 36 refers to aquaculture, a very simple little addition that definitely needs more clarification. Under “Leases”, it says, “The Minister may issue leases for aquaculture purposes”.

I am a proud member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans now. It is a very non-partisan group that gets along very well and it has a great chair. However, if memory serves me correctly, and I was not a member of Parliament at the time, around 2003 the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans took the decision that aquaculture would have its own special unit, or at least the characteristics of its own special unit within the government. From my understanding, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was a part of that committee in 2003.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to lower the noise for just a little bit, if I may, in respect of my hon. colleagues.

I am proud to be standing here today to be talking about this significant act, there is no doubt about it. This is something that replaces an act that existed for well over 137 years, so certainly we take this very seriously.

What I would like to do in my allotted is just point out some of the questions that surround this particularly thick piece of legislation. Questions, I am afraid, probably outnumber all of the comments, all of the negativity, and even the positive comments that come from this. That is what is troubling to us.

For the record, we had requested the government to send this to a committee before second reading, to widen the scope and to gain some insight from across this country. This will not be addressed by sending the legislation to committee after second reading. Unfortunately, it was dismissed and here we are finding ourselves today at second reading.

I would like to start, if I may, with the few notes that I have made and delve into the act itself, as the parliamentary secretary did earlier. Some of those I will take some issue with; some I will have some positive comments about.

The provisions of Bill C-45 represent a significant redirection in the role of public policy with respect to the fisheries on our coast and our inland fisheries. Quite significantly, the devolution of authority appears significant enough to ensure a far greater role for the provinces in terms of management and activities associated with the conduct of the fisheries, as well as a new empowered role for fishers, communities and the organizations which either represent them, or more importantly, employ them. As we all know and my colleagues know, this has been going on for many years, the idea of co-management and the idea of a greater say, which leads me back to my first point.

It is unfortunate that here we are, taking the first step toward a regime where we can have more say in the fishery by the stakeholders, but yet this bill itself did not receive the same process. Suffice it to say, we are not off to a positive start when it comes to recommendations, and certainly with the input.

Let me discuss some of the initial recommendations, and again, my speech will be filled with many questions, some doubts, some positive comments, and some negative comments. But mostly clarification, so that hopefully, through the course of this debate, a lot of this clarification can take place. I would also like some clarification on how far the ministry is prepared to go when it goes to committee, if it goes to committee after second reading.

Let me begin with the preamble. When it comes to the preamble, one of the things it says is: “the conservation and protection of fish habitat and the prevention of the pollution of waters frequented by fish.” It also says that: “Parliament intends that Canada’s fisheries be managed sustainably”.

First of all, we have to talk about “managed sustainably”. There is need for more clarification on this issue and to flush out exactly what it is we are talking about here. The act is a little bit loose in many areas and unfortunately, that would be one of them.

It says “Parliament intends”, and there we have to deal with that as a contentious issue. Members will find that a lot of this act contains a lot of intends, wishes, mays, and all the things that sound great but lack a lot of teeth. Therefore, we are hoping that this part of the bill can be changed and amended. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I do not feel that it can be done to our satisfaction by going to committee after second reading, and this troubles me.

The preamble also states:

WHEREAS Parliament intends that this legislative framework be applied in a manner that fosters cooperation with the provinces and with bodies established under land claims agreements--

Therein lies, with some of the application principles, some of the doubts in some of the feedback that we are getting. No doubt about it, we are getting a lot of positive responses from the provinces. We are also getting a few questions, and a lot of provinces are also, in their own departments, still trying to go through the legal framework of this to wrestle with some of the concepts.

Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms the existence of aboriginal and treaty rights. It also talks about the stable access.

After that, we find that there is a contentious issue in the preamble itself. It states:

WHEREAS Parliament is committed to maintaining the public character of the management of fisheries and fish habitat;

Many people have commented and questioned, and no doubt about it we will hear a lot of comments and questions from my hon. colleague in the NDP about this particular issue, which I am looking forward to hearing, that the public character of the fishery itself has to be addressed and is something that cannot be addressed within the scope of a committee after second reading.

As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that in many instances in Parliament, as well as the standing committees, many of the attempts to fix a preamble cannot be done in committee after second reading. In many cases, it can be ruled out of order or when it comes back to the House, it can be ruled out of order by the Speaker. Therefore, it puts us in a bit of a bind. As my colleague pointed out in his questions and comments, where is the charter decision from a few years back?

There is another issue that is not addressed here and there is ample opportunity to address it within the preamble as one of the guiding principles, so to speak. There is an issue in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for Atlantic Canada with regard to fleet separation and, more importantly, trust agreements. I think there is room in the preamble to address this issue, as mentioned to me by many groups.

Vertical integration will scare a lot of fishermen. It has always been the policy whereby what trust agreements do is freeze out the inshore fishermen and, therefore, is the cause of grave concern across this country. Some may like this policy, but for the most part they do not.

That is not addressed in this particular act, as it should be. I would compel the minister to please do this, to provide the standing committee the power to do this and, I go back to my original comment, to do this in committee before second reading would have accomplished this.

I will now go to some of the clauses beyond the preamble itself and again I have grave concerns as to whether the preamble can be fixed in this manner of going to committee after second reading. I would implore the minister to answer this question at some point in his speech. I am assuming he will be speaking during this debate.

There are specific clauses which should be examined. There is need for a very significant strengthening of a number of specific clauses. The following, while attempting to be comprehensive, is not exhaustive given additional concerns of respected clauses, not referred to, will likely arise.

I will begin with clause 3. There is the need to ensure that those participating in the fishery are clearly defined. For example, in clause 3 there is reference to organizations as being licence holders while in clause 43, the minister may enter into fisheries management agreements with an “organization”. Clarification around the term “organization” is certainly necessary within the scope of this bill. It keeps it open ended.

I go back to the theme that I talked about in the beginning. There are a lot of open ended variables involved here that need to be clarified, the scope of which, after second reading, is likely not going to be.

Let me go to clause 6. Under the provisions of clause 6, the application of principles, there is the need to strengthen these provisions which will ensure that the minister will take the strongest possible actions in order to ensure that the fisheries are managed in a manner consistent with sustainable development based on the principles, of course, of conservation. The wording of this clause does not necessarily reflect that priority. Again, it is a major question that needs to be clarified.

The implications of clause 7 require careful examination as well. On the surface, it would appear that the minister will be empowered to enter into agreements with the provinces to further the purpose of the act as contained in clause 2, which effectively will devolve management decisions to the provinces. Therefore, I have no contentious issue with that.

However, a lot of clarification is needed on questions of funding. It is touched on in this act, but what does it imply? Does it mean they must or they may? Again, we go back to that concept. If we look at some of the language that is contained within this bill, we will see that there are a lot of variables surrounding this particular issue. For instance, “The minister may, subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with a province to further the purpose of this Act, including an agreement with respect to one or more of the following”. Again I go back to the issue of “may”. It facilitates cooperation, that is true, but there needs to be more clarification.

I understand from my hon. colleague that he is getting favourable responses from the provinces, and obviously we are off on a positive step. However, what he refers to takes place prior to the tabling of the bill, and I will touch on that in just a moment. The consultation process that my colleagues talk about in the Bloc as well as the NDP is an extremely contentious issue and one that needs further discussion, far greater than the scope of a committee that follows second reading.

Under the provisions of clauses 11 to 13, the federal government, through the minister, will be able to undertake programs and projects. The scope and range of these programs and projects are widely spread and imply that the federal government will be financially responsible for funding them both. Again, this is a matter which requires careful consideration.

Under the provisions of clause 14, “The Minister may”, and again I stress the word “may” “in order to carry out the purpose of this Act”, strike advisory panels. However, that discretion allows the minister not to strike panels as well. He may do in whatever case that he deems necessary. Therefore, the power, we would think, becomes far more stretched, far more varied, more wielding under the situation of “may”. For example, at the end of this day, I may jump off the House of Commons right into the lake, but I may not. The chances are I will not, but I may. So hon. members will get the point of--