CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 26, 1995
Bill C-349. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 14849
Bill C-350. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted. 14849
(Motion agreed to.) 14849
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14849
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 14850
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 14853
Division on motion deferred 14860
Bill C-98. Motion for second reading 14860
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 14865
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 14868
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 14874
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 14881
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 14883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14883
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14884
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14884
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14884
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14886
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14886
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14886
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14887
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14887
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14887
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14887
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14887
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14888
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14888
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14889
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14890
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 14891
Bill C-98. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
the amendment 14891
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14893
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 14894
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 14906
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
of the amendment 14908
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 35; Nays, 169 14908
14849
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 26, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), to table in
both official languages a report entitled
Towards a Rapid Reaction
Capability for the United Nations.
[English]
This is a document entitled ``Towards a Rapid Reaction
Capability for the United Nations''.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Criminal Code (peeping
Toms).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
private member's bill, seconded by my colleague from Fraser
Valley East.
It is very short and very simple. It has been brought to my
attention by police officers and other law enforcement individuals
that in the Criminal Code peeping Toms apply only at night. It is
my understanding this has caused a lot of concern because it seems
like the criminals are getting braver in this day and age and a lot of
this is happening during daylight hours. This amendment would
enable the police to lay charges against those individuals doing this
activity during the day, an activity for which they are normally
arrested at night.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-350, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call from a constituent
asking why he and his family were forced from their rented house
when their rent payments were all paid on time and the full amount
was remitted.
When I investigated his complaint it was discovered that no
warning was given to the constituent that the owner of the building
was facing foreclosure and that current legislation requires vacant
possession of the building before the lending institution can be
paid.
This bill will amend the National Housing Act to allow a lending
institution full redress without having to evict current tenants and
the tenants will receive notice from the lending institution that it is
proceeding with foreclosure on the building owner.
I trust the House will support this measure. It may allow
Canadians the opportunity to remain in their homes and at least
give them ample time to relocate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the following members be added to the list of associate members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: John Cummins, Dick Harris,
Elsie Wayne, Hugh Hanrahan and Jane Stewart.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1010 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting petitions on behalf of 819 Albertans from across the
14850
province who urge the government to make our streets safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of victims of convicted
murderers.
They pray to allow reclassification of offenders as dangerous
after sentencing. They pray also to allow the indefinite detention of
dangerous offenders after warrant expiry and they pray to allow
violent offenders to be ineligible for parole until the full sentence
has been served. I concur with the petitioners.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition which has been
circulating all across Canada.
It has been signed by a number of Canadians from Alberta and
British Columbia. The petitioners draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized
for its value to our society.
They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour this morning to present petitions pursuant
to Standing Order 36 on behalf of over 1,000 petitioners in their
fight to get recognition in the courts for grandparents to have
access to their grandchildren.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I present a petition calling to
the attention of the House that the Bloc Quebecois has publicly
dedicated itself to the disloyal objective of the secession of the
province of Quebec from the Canadian federation.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to preserve
Canadian unity and parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights
of all people of Canada by prevailing on the Speaker of the House
of Commons to recognize the Reform Party as the official
opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege today to introduce more petitions along the same lines
as many I received in the last session.
The first two draw to the attention of the House that the inclusion
of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will
provide certain groups with special status, rights and privileges.
They call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual
orientation. I have two separate petitions on that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with an ongoing petition campaign, the undersigned citizens of
Canada draw to the attention of the House that the majority of
Canadians are law-abiding citizens, they respect the sanctity of life,
they believe that physicians in Canada should be working to save
lives, not to end them.
Therefore they ask that Parliament ensure present provisions of
the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide should be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active
or passive euthanasia.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14850
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-94, the
manganese based fuel act.
14851
I will explain the bill and why we are taking action against
MMT. MMT is a manganese based fuel additive used to increase
the octane rating of gasoline. It has been used in Canada since 1977
as a replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline.
(1015 )
Lead was phased out of virtually all Canadian gasolines by 1990.
Who uses MMT? Just about every Canadian motorist does, and that
is because Canadian refiners use it. The exact amount of MMT
used may vary, depending on the batch of gasoline. However,
premium grade gasoline generally contains a higher dosage than
regular grade gasoline. Canada is the only country that uses it. The
United States, for example, banned it from unleaded gasoline in
1978.
The automobile industry is convinced that gasoline containing
MMT adversely impacts the operation of sophisticated onboard
diagnostic systems. These OBD systems are important because
they monitor the performance of emission control components in
vehicles. The auto industry has made the decision that it will not
accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs caused by damage
related to MMT. Some companies have even indicated that they
will disconnect the OBD systems in whole or in part and may
reduce Canadian vehicle warranty coverage starting with the 1996
model year if MMT continues to be used in Canadian gasoline.
That means that the cost of maintaining these systems will be
passed on directly to Canadian consumers.
This is where the federal government comes in. Last October the
Minister of the Environment urged both industries to voluntarily
resolve the issue of MMT by the end of 1994 or the government
would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended until
February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry
proposals. The matter was not resolved, so the federal government
has had to step in. This has resulted in Bill C-94.
The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can
affect the vehicle emission program we are putting into place and
in the long term could negatively impact the automobile sector.
Successful solution of the MMT issue will ensure that
environmental benefits are realized through the use of the most
advanced emission control technologies. It will ensure that
Canadians are offered the same warranty coverage as in the United
States. It will also ensure that the Canadian motor vehicle
emissions control programs do not diverge from those of the
United States. This means that Canadians will continue to benefit
from the cost and technological advantages of a North American
harmonized fleet. It also means good news for Canadian jobs and
the Canadian automotive sector. That of course is because
diverging emissions standards and different anti-pollution
equipment on Canadian cars will negatively affect the marketplace
and decrease the competitiveness of the automotive sector.
We could also be faced with a situation where cars built in
Canada to go south of the border could have more advanced
equipment than those sold in Canada. That is clearly not
acceptable.
We should be clear about the economic impact of removing
MMT. It will be small for the entire petroleum industry. Estimates
for the cost of MMT removal provided by the industry range from
$50 million to $83 million per year. That means an additional
increase of 0.1 to 0.24 cents per litre at the gas pump.
I would now like to take a few moments to explain some of the
key highlights of the bill.
Bill C-94 will prohibit the import or interprovincial trade for a
commercial purpose of MMT or anything containing MMT. It will
also give the minister the power to authorize exceptions for MMT
that will not be used in unleaded gasoline subject to monitoring
requirements. Coverage of the act can be expanded by order in
council to cover other manganese based substances.
The act is binding on all persons and entities, including the
provincial and federal governments. The enforcement tools are
similar to those that are in the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, and the penalties are strict.
(1020 )
For the unauthorized import or interprovincial trade of MMT,
the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a $300,000 fine
and/or six months in jail. On indictment, the maximum fine is $1
million and/or three years in jail. For knowingly providing false or
misleading information on the importation or interprovincial trade
of MMT, the penalties are the same, but with a maximum of five
years in jail instead of three on indictment. On conviction, as in
CEPA, the court can also order an additional fine equal to the
monetary benefits resulting from the offence, prohibit conduct that
may lead to a repeat offence, and direct the offender to notify third
parties about the conviction.
I believe this gives the members of the House some idea of what
the government is proposing under Bill C-94.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as members of the House will recall, during the June
session we heard the government's reasoning behind the proposed
ban on MMT. According to the hon. member for Davenport, the
government is proposing Bill C-94 to ban the interprovincial trade
of the fuel additive MMT in order to protect human health, protect
car warranties, and to take advantage of technological change.
This may sound on the surface to be reasonable. However, a
closer examination of the stated reasons is certainly merited. It is
my objective today to seek clarification on the purpose of Bill
C-94, a trade sanction bill introduced by the Minister of the
14852
Environment, allegedly to protect the warranties offered customers
purchasing new cars.
First, looking at the health issue, allow me to refer to the Canada
health study published in late 1994. I quote: ``Airborne manganese
resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline powered
vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or
under conditions that may constitute a health risk. All the analyses
indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not
represent an added health risk for the Canadian population.''
During our last discussions on this bill, the government
produced facts from the U.S. EPA that indicated the EPA suggests
tests be conducted on the potential health effects of MMT. The
interesting thing is that the government appears to be predicting
that the results of this testing will support its position to ban MMT,
certainly a very premature action on its part. It seems ironic that the
government chooses to discount scientific findings of the EPA
testing programs on the impact of MMT on vehicle emission
systems, the results of which clearly indicate that MMT has no
adverse effect on the emission systems of cars, while speculating
that the studies to be conducted on health will support its position.
One may also ask why the government wants to see EPA testing
results on health impacts of MMT when its own agency, Health
Canada, has clearly demonstrated that Canadians experience no
adverse effects from the level of airborne manganese that results
from tailpipe emissions. It appears the government is prepared to
discount scientific findings in favour of speculation that the results
of the EPA's proposed testing on health effects of MMT will prove
to be negative.
The second reason the government offers for a ban on MMT is to
protect car warranties. For those of you unfamiliar with the
motivation for this legislation, let me remind you of the carmakers'
claim that MMT in gasoline causes problems for onboard
diagnostic systems in new model cars made in the U.S. According
to the industry minister, the federal government has said it wishes
to ban MMT so that ``Canadian consumers will be protected by
ensuring that they are afforded the same warranty coverage as
automobile owners in the United States''. Another reason is
because the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association states that it
has research that indicates MMT causes failure of onboard
diagnostic systems. The MVMA has elected not to make that
research public, however, after a recent review of scientific
evidence collected as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency evaluation of the auto industry's claims.
(1025 )
The U.S. court of appeals stated in its judgment of April 14,
1995, that MMT would not cause or contribute to the failure of any
emission control system or device. According to the U.S. EPA, and
I quote: ``MMT does not cause or contribute to a failure of any
emission control system or device''. The decision goes further to
state: ``The administrators' analysis of data submitted by Ethyl was
careful and searching. The American Automobile Manufacturers
Association did not come close to proving that the administration's
analysis of data was arbitrary or capricious.''
We should also note that automobile makers have experienced
significant technical difficulties complying with the onboard
diagnostic requirements in the United States as well as in Canada,
despite the fact that MMT is not currently used as an octane
enhancer in American gasoline. In fact, difficulties with
certification of onboard diagnostic systems in the United States
have prompted the U.S. EPA to state in the Federal Register that
automobile manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated
difficulty in complying with every aspect of onboard diagnostic
requirements and difficulty appears likely to continue in the 1996
and 1997 model years.
Despite these facts, the Canadian government appears not to
have noted that vehicle manufacturers have failed to achieve
onboard diagnostic certification in the U.S. for most new model
cars and then chooses to conclude that those same problems in
Canada are somehow attributed to MMT.
The government's third reason for the proposed ban of MMT is a
desire to take advantage of technological change and to enable
Canadian consumers to reap the benefits offered by onboard
diagnostic systems, which the hon. member for Davenport
describes as contributing to pollution prevention. Unfortunately the
member for Davenport does not appear to realize that onboard
diagnostic systems merely notify the driver when there is a
pollution emission problem. They do not control or reduce
emissions. The onboard diagnostic is in fact a light on the
dashboard of the car, which when illuminated suggests difficulty
has been sensed.
The problem the automakers are experiencing with the onboard
diagnostic system, both here and in the United States, is that the
OBD has been malfunctioning and lighting up when in fact there is
no emission problem. This is causing vehicle owners to take their
cars in for service when none is required. Since most of these visits
are covered under warranty, the result is that the automakers must
pay for the service visit.
The government's confusion on the role of MMT is further
exemplified by the notion that removing MMT from gasoline will
contribute to pollution reduction. The member for Davenport tells
us that scientists in his community have informed him that MMT in
gasoline is contributing to greater pollution in the form of smog,
carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Again, the facts prove him
wrong. All scientific studies on nitrous oxide reductions
attributable to MMT in gasoline conclude the same thing: MMT in
gasoline reduces emissions of nitrous oxide, a leading contributor
to the formation of urban smog. In addition, the use of MMT in the
refining process reduces emissions of carbon monoxide and of
14853
hydrocarbons, not to mention emissions of benzene, which is a
no-tolerance carcinogen.
We should also note that MMT is compatible for use with
alternative fuels. In fact the use of MMT enhances emission
benefits of oxygenates such as ethanol and MTBE. For example,
EPA test results indicate that MMT with a 10 per cent ethanol blend
lowers nitrous oxide emissions by slightly more than 30 per cent
and lowers ozone potential by 29 per cent. When MMT was added
to an 11 per cent MTBE blend, nitrous oxide emissions were
reduced by 25 per cent and ozone potential was reduced by 18 per
cent. Not only does MMT contribute significantly to lower
Canadian nitrous oxide emissions, but use of MMT enhances
emission benefits of oxygenates.
As part of this discussion, we must consider the fact that nitrous
oxide increases resulting from the elimination of MMT from
Canadian gasoline are projected to add 41,000 tonnes per year of
nitrous oxide to the Canadian environment. That is a 16 per cent
increase over current levels.
(1030 )
In conclusion, the government's rationale for this bill is
inconsistent. It blatantly disagrees with scientific findings
regarding MMT effects on health, vehicle pollution control
equipment and the environment. It therefore seems to be in the best
interests of all constituents that we move to disregard the proposed
bill. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be not now read a
second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion of the hon. member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke will be considered as to its
acceptability and the Chair will pronounce on that matter after the
next speaker.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege to speak in this
Chamber on Bill C-94, the manganese based fuel additives act.
Before speaking about the specific elements of Bill C-94 I would
like to say a few words about some issues which affect the
environment and concern me, on which the government has acted
and more important what the government is intending to do.
[Translation]
Allow me to point out a few facts underlying my concerns.
World population is increasing at the rate of about 90 million
people every year. In the past 150 years, it has climbed from 1
billion to 6 billion. According to projections, it will reach between
10 billion to 14 billion in the years 2000 to 2050.
Between 1960 and 1990, economic activity grew at a compound
annual rate of 3.8 per cent. The growth rate in any given year
exceeded in absolute terms the total economic activity in Europe in
[English]
Over the past 30 years the manufacturing activities around the
globe have increased by 500 per cent, electrical production by 400
per cent and the production of automobiles by 300 per cent. Clearly
at the heart of our environmental concerns lies a historic trend of
unprecedented expansion and acceleration of human activity.
These now threaten vital components of the earth's ecology. The
major consequences include the fact that forests are vanishing at
the rate of 17 million hectares per year; six million hectares of
productive dry land are turning into desert every year; 140 plant
and animal species become extinct every day; and air and water
quality on a global scale is declining at an equally alarming rate.
The problem of inadequate distribution systems or ecometric
considerations such as the need to maintain price of excess
commodities exacerbates our environmental problems in a global
context.
The bottom line of all of this is that the combined impacts of
pollution and these other pressures I have mentioned cause
environmental capacity limits to be exceeded locally, regionally
and globally. It is now clear that without some major shift in
policies and practices a continuation of these trends is simply
ecologically unsustainable.
That is why in the red book the Prime Minister supported the
development of renewable energy and initiatives which limit
pollution.
[Translation]
To this end, the government has launched a variety of programs,
including the national bio-ethanol program. Announced last
December, this program will support the development of ethanol
production through a refundable line of credit to qualified
candidates who want to establish bio-ethanol fuel production plants
in Canada. Managed by the Farm Credit Corporation, the program
will guarantee up to $70 million in loans between 1999 and 2005.
(1035)
[English]
In other words the government will only assist renewable energy
companies which first invest their own capital and their own
strength. There will be no subsidies, no megaprojects. The
government will only provide assistance once the private sector has
invested its own capital for a period of five years. This is a fiscally
14854
responsible way to help turn wood chips, straw, grain and other
biomass derived waste into energy which can be used to fuel our
vehicles.
Properly blended ethanol gasoline can reduce carbon monoxide
emissions which degrade urban air quality. It can reduce carbon
dioxide emissions which are a primary source of greenhouse gases.
It can reduce benzene emissions, a substance declared toxic under
CEPA, into the atmosphere.
The program is targeted to encourage ethanol production in
every region of the country. This is a sound example of the concept
of sustainable development. We can deal with an environmental
problem and create jobs at the same time.
Our standards for the exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of our
cars and trucks are among the most stringent in the world. These
standards set strict limits for nitrogen oxides which contribute to
acid rain and are key components in the formation of smog. The
government has also set limits on the amounts of hydrocarbons,
another major contributor to smog, that cars can emit as well as
limits on carbon monoxide.
Although pollution from cars and trucks has diminished-they
do pollute much less than in the past-the number of vehicles has
increased significantly. As a consequence they represent an
important source of air pollution in Canada: 60 per cent of carbon
monoxide emissions; 35 per cent of other oxide emissions; 25 per
cent of hydrocarbon emissions; and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide
emissions. These are all attributable to automobile tailpipes.
As a result the federal government is following a strategy for the
control of motor vehicle emissions. It includes the adoption of
more severe depollution standards for vehicles and requires
advanced emission control technologies such as improved
integrated diagnostic systems.
There remains an obstacle to the introduction in Canada of the
next generation of emission control technologies which is the
continued presence of MMT, an octane enhancer that is presently
used in unleaded gasoline. Bill C-94 very clearly calls for a ban on
the import and interprovincial trade of MMT which is not
manufactured in Canada but imported from the United States. In
Canada the use of MMT as an octane enhancer is allowed in
unleaded gasoline up to a maximum of 18 milligrams of
manganese per litre. In the United States the use of MMT in
unleaded gasoline has not been allowed since 1978.
The automobile industry is convinced that MMT adversely
affects the operation of these advanced emissions control
technologies. All the domestic manufacturers and automobile
importers agree that MMT adversely affects their sophisticated
onboard diagnostic systems.
It is clear that reducing automobile pollution demands combined
action on two fronts: on the one hand improving technology to
control automobile emissions such as integrated diagnostic
systems and on the other hand improvements in the composition
and the properties of the fuels which motors use.
This bill is about the health of the environment. It is about the
health of Canadians. It is also about the sound management of
government. Canadians, whether they live in Quebec, British
Columbia, the Yukon or New Brunswick deserve a federal
government that projects their common interests, a government
that can rapidly act for the benefit of all.
To echo what the Deputy Prime Minister said, we can wait no
longer; we must act now. Any further delay will pose a serious
threat to federal emissions control programs.
(1040 )
In conclusion, this bill works for consumers, it works for
business and it works for the environment. For those reasons I ask
all colleagues to join me in supporting it.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the amendment proposed is
receivable. The debate is now on the amendment.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak in support of the amendment to hoist the bill for a six-month
period simply because there is pending in the U.S. a ruling by the
appeal court whether or not to allow the use of MMT in the United
States after an 18-year absence.
A member opposite this morning and the Minister of Industry
some time ago spoke about the urgency of uniformity in gasoline
blends in the North American market. The member this morning
spoke of how unacceptable it would be to have one standard in the
U.S. and a different standard in Canada for automobile emissions,
gasolines, warranties and so on. I agree with that.
In the interests of achieving uniformity in the North American
market we should wait until the ruling comes down in the United
States. Industry analysts tell me that the likelihood of a positive
ruling which would allow MMT to return to the United States is in
the neighbourhood of 70 per cent. It seems unacceptable to me that
Canada would move to ban MMT two months before it is again
accepted for use in the United States.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the argument.
The previous speaker said that the bill is about the environment and
air quality in Canada. He also said that the bill is about the health of
Canadians. That is rubbish. The bill is about whether MMT affects
the onboard diagnostic systems in new vehicles in Canada and the
United States. The claims that it affects the environment and the
health of Canadians have been proven not to be true without
14855
question both here and in the U.S. Those issues are simply red
herrings.
The matter of the onboard diagnostic computer systems is
another issue. It is a fact that in the U.S. onboard diagnostic
systems have been failing and are unreliable. The technology has
not been developed to the point where it is reliable. In fact the EPA
in the United States had to lower the standards for certification of
automobile diagnostic systems simply because the technology
could not meet the required standards. That is the problem. It is not
MMT.
In the United States the issue has been studied to death and it has
been proven that MMT is not the villain. The technology simply is
not developed to the point where it can be reliable. We have to
focus on the issue rather than going off on tangents on the side.
Ethanol is another example. We hear time and time again that it
is a product which is available to replace MMT and that it will
produce cleaner air. Again it is hogwash. People from the refineries
tell me that ethanol is not a substitute for MMT. It will not replace
MMT when MMT is banned. Gasolines will simply be further
refined to reach the octane rating that can now be obtained with
MMT. Further refining will cause higher pollution and higher costs
both for the consumer and for the refining industry.
(1045)
Let us keep the debate where it belongs. What is taking place
here, as far as I can see at least, is a payback for those who
supported the Liberal Party's return to power after nine years in
purgatory.
The facts that have been brought out in the debate on the MMT
issue simply do not support the action the government is taking.
The only reliable reason I can see for the government to push this
matter, in spite of all the evidence before it, is simply that it is
responding to the masters who supported that political party and its
subsequent election to the Government of Canada.
Let us keep it in perspective but let us also, for once in the
House, make a decision based on reasonable evidence and on what
is good for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian consumer. Let
us look at the facts, judge the facts and make a decision based on
them instead of make a decision based on what is politically good.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to stand to speak at second reading of Bill C-94, the
Manganese based Fuel Additives Act, the legislation designed to
take MMT out of unleaded fuels.
If the federal government is given an opportunity to protect jobs,
protect the environment, protect consumers and keep Canada on
the leading edge of automotive technology all at the same time,
should it take that opportunity? I would say that it should. The
government will seize a chance to support technology which will
help us improve fuel economy and meet our climate change
objectives. We will do what we can to reduce air pollution and
smog.
That is why we are taking action to remove MMT from Canadian
unleaded gasoline. That is why I am proud to speak on the
legislation today.
[Translation]
This bill will prohibit interprovincial trade in and importation of
MMT, a manganese based fuel additive made in the U.S. The
proposed bill will come into effect 60 days after receiving royal
assent. Canada is the only country in the world where MMT is used
in unleaded gas. The U.S. banned it from their unleaded fuels in
1978. Bulgaria and Argentina are the only two other countries still
showing some interest in its use.
Why is MMT not used by more countries? Because it hinders the
operation of anti-pollution devices found in today's cars and trucks.
[English]
Environment Canada has received and reviewed study after
study after study of the effects of MMT on onboard automobile
equipment. I agree with the Minister of the Environment and with
Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan,
Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
we are debating a Reform motion to hoist the bill until we get a
ruling from the U.S. court of appeal. The member opposite seems
to be debating the bill on second reading. It is our motion that is
being debated here.
(1050)
The Deputy Speaker: There is very little restriction on what one
might say in reply to the question of hoisting the bill for six
months. I do not believe that is a point of order.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of the member
opposite. In fact to show that the legislation is worth while is to
debate the amendment Reform members have put.
I was just saying that these various corporations support the
legislation and the evidence we are putting forward. Then there is
Lada, Jaguar, Land Rover and Hyundai. They all say that MMT
adversely affects the sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems
where the pollution control equipment of automobiles is found.
These systems are extremely important for the environment.
They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission controls
and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure the cleaner
burning of the engines of today and tomorrow. They ensure that
14856
automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased
tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy.
In short, these important onboard systems are the basis of
anti-pollution control measures across the continent and of reduced
fuel consumption in our vehicles. Therefore this onboard
technology is very important technology. It is extremely important
once it is installed that it works, that it does its job. The legislation
is designed to make sure that technology works effectively.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this government will not allow MMT to prevent the
Canadian automotive industry from designing vehicles that do not
pollute nearly as much. Canada's environment and Canadian
consumers have the right to enjoy the best anti-pollution devices.
The federal government has been waiting since 1985 for the
automotive and oil industries to address this situation on their own.
Last October, it urged the two industries to resolve this issue
between themselves before the end of 1994; otherwise, the
government would be forced to intervene. The two industries,
however, did not succeed in solving the problem.
We then pushed back the deadline to February 1995. Again, the
problem was not solved. Well, we have been waiting long enough.
The time has come for the government to take action.
[English]
If we do not act now, the federal government's vehicle emission
reduction programs will be in jeopardy. We will risk missing out on
major reductions in smog, carbon monoxide and hydro carbons.
If we do not act now, Canadian consumers will be prevented
from taking advantage of state of the art emission reduction
technologies simply because they do not have access to MMT-free
gasoline.
If we do not act now, we could face the situation where
automakers will be forced to turn off the onboard diagnostic
systems scheduled for 1996 models because of the damage MMT
causes. General Motors is already bringing models off the
assembly line with some of the onboard diagnostic functions
disconnected. General Motors, like the others, is no longer
prepared to assume the increased warranty risks for damage caused
to anti-pollution equipment. As we have said, MMT damages this
delicate, expensive and very important onboard equipment.
In the end it is the Canadian motorist who will have to pay more
to have his or her car maintained because of this kind of industry
action. We will not let this happen. We will not allow the buck to be
passed to the Canadian consumer. We will not allow anti-pollution
equipment in Canada to be less effective than anti-pollution
equipment in the United States.
We will not allow the competitiveness of our auto industry to be
threatened. We will not allow investment and the thousands of
Canadian jobs which depend on that investment to be put in
jeopardy.
(1055)
[Translation]
Resolving the MMT problem will have positive environmental
effects through the use of the most sophisticated emission control
technologies. This will also give Canadians the same guarantee as
that enjoyed by U.S. car owners and ensure that Canadian vehicle
emission control programs are in line with U.S. programs.
This means that Canadians will continue to enjoy the economic
and technological benefits of an harmonized North American car
pool. It also means that the Canadian automotive industry will
remain competitive.
[English]
Let us be clear. The job of reducing motor vehicle pollution can
no longer be addressed by just the auto industry or by just the
petroleum industry or the government. Progress at reducing vehicle
pollution demands action by all.
The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in
the composition and properties of the fuels the engines burn. The
auto industry needs to keep making improvements in vehicle
emission control technologies such as those offered through
onboard diagnostic systems.
[Translation]
As for the government, it must act to reduce automobile air
pollution. This is what we are doing with Bill C-94. We are taking
action by putting in place a global vehicle emission control strategy
including the adoption of tougher standards for exhaust systems.
To meet these standards, we are relying on state of the art
emission control technologies and on the types of fuel they require.
We need new anti-emission technologies such as onboard
diagnostic systems to help us reduce smog as well as carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. We must reduce this kind of
emissions, which have a major effect on urban air quality and
contribute to the greenhouse effect.
[English]
Preventive action means producing goods more cleanly. It means
using less energy and conserving our natural resources. It means
developing and using the latest green technologies like the
emission reduction technologies in today's cars and trucks.
The bill before the House is one important measure of
prevention. The bill is pro-environment, pro-consumer and
pro-business. Eighteen of Canada's automobile companies think
that what we are doing is right. Canadians think that what we are
doing is right.
14857
MMT can no longer stand in the way of the progress we continue to
make in emission controls.
Let us protect jobs. Let us protect the environment. Let us vote
for the legislation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to enter the debate about what is called a six-month
hoist. The motion reads: ``That this bill not be read a second time
but that it be read a second time this day six months hence''. The
reason that our party would propose a motion like that is that we
have serious questions about the suitability or the legitimacy of the
government's argument for banning MMT.
There is some requirement to go through briefly some of the
arguments or non-arguments on the government side about why
MMT should be banned. Its first argument is that MMT is a health
risk and that is why the environment minister is dealing with it. Or,
should it have been the health minister? Regardless, the
environment minister brought it in because of the so-called
tremendous health risk.
(1100 )
When I look through the documents I see a study performed by
Health Canada, not the minister's own department. It carried out
the risk assessment for the combustion products of MMT in
gasoline. This study showed MMT poses no health risk to
Canadians. The report stated: ``All analyses indicate that the
combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an
added health risk to the Canadian population''.
We are not talking about health. Health has nothing to do with
this ban, which is why the health minister cannot ban it legally. The
environment minister cannot ban it. All she can do is prevent the
importation and interprovincial trade of MMT. If the people who
make MMT wanted to set up a separate plant in each province we
could continue to have MMT and there would be virtually nothing
the minister could do about it. There is no scientific or medical
reason MMT should not be allowed.
They say MMT is bad for the onboard diagnostic systems of
1996 automobiles. It is interesting the minister has not
commissioned a study to prove that. The studies she quotes at
length are by different automobile manufacturers. Interestingly
enough, when she was speaking the other day she quoted at length
study after study that claim MMT is harmful to onboard
diagnostics.
We asked her to table those reports in the House. Many of us
would be interested to see how those tests were conducted, whether
they were done scientifically and objectively, whether they started
off with a premise and tried to prove it or what the case was. The
environment minister would not table one of those reports in the
House.
Time and again members of the government side say all these
tests prove the case for MMT being bad for onboard diagnostics but
they will not table any of the proof. They are corporate secrets and
the government cannot do it. I guess they would be corporate
secrets to people who are part of the automobile association.
Naturally they are out to prove their case and naturally they do not
want that information in the public domain. At least the
government has yet to table that information for us.
The other report we have access to is from the Environmental
Protection Agency in the United States, hardly a lapdog of any
particular industry. It decided from its own studies that MMT does
not harm onboard diagnostic systems. An independent study
indicates there appears to be no harm done to the computers. That
is the only one we have access to because the minister will not table
anything else.
To summarize, there is no health risk and there is no proof, at
least none tabled, that the onboard diagnostics are harmed. The
first two reasons are debunked.
The third thing the government is prone to talk about is that it is
necessary in order to improve the environment. I heard more
nonsense in the last debate on this. As if it is restating the obvious,
``I love the environment. I love clean air. Clean water is great.
Green space is lovely. Biodiversity is good. Apples pie is
wonderful and motherhood is okay''. Where do we stop? Those are
all obvious statements.
Removing MMT from gasoline will increase noxious emissions
from automobiles. That is one of the reasons MMT is in unleaded
fuel now. Removing it will have the effect of increasing the auto
emissions that create ground level ozone by up to 20 per cent,
which is not insignificant. As far as using ethanol as a substitute for
MMT, if it can be produced and sold without subsidy as Mohawk
already does, that is good. However, if we cannot prove
scientifically what is wrong with MMT then the decision to ban it
is wrong.
(1105)
The other day I mentioned another title for the Minister of the
Environment should perhaps be the minister of gas because of the
gas fumes and the increase in those fumes because of the banning
of MMT.
I read an article entitled: ``Sheila Copps: Minister of Smog'' in
the Globe and Mail, not exactly a fly by night outfit. The author,
Terence Corcoran, goes through the argument about what is
happening. He asks why the minister is pushing this now. Why can
she not wait the six months that we have asked which would give us
time to do either an independent study by the National Research
Council, more studies and rulings by the United States for this
14858
common market in gasoline and more time to study it in committee
if require? A six-month hoist is not the end of the world.
The author states: ``The sole purpose of the legislation, which is
being forced through the Liberal legislative sausage machine, is to
remove a gasoline additive''. He wonders why when the main
benefit will be to increase ground level ozone by up to 20 per cent.
Why would the minister do this?
This article says what I have already said, that there is no
scientific independent study that shows why. There is no health
risk. Whey would they do that? It further states: ``Enter the auto
giants. For reasons of their own, they have mounted a campaign
against MMT because they cannot meet the emissions control
standards set out for the 1996 model year''.
Mr. Gouk: They cannot make it in the United States either.
Mr. Strahl: My hon. colleague mentions they cannot make it in
the United States where MMT is already banned. However, still
they enter into the fray and say MMT must be banned.
The article continues: ``Not much else is happening within the
environment department apart from downsizing, leaving the MMT
ban as the high point of Ms. Copps' reign as minister''. This is it.
We are seeing the high point of the environmental agenda for 1995.
This is as good as it gets. We cannot do the Irving Whale. We
cannot do anything of substance so we will get on the MMT
bandwagon.
The conclusion of the article states MMT might be approved in
the United States later this year. My hon. colleague from Athabasca
mentioned it is now 70 per cent likely that this will occur. The
article reads: ``Ms. Copps' ban could become a major
embarrassment. It will be even more of an embarrassment if she
goes down in history as the environment minister who introduced
legislation that increased ground level ozone layers''.
What is happening here? What is the motivation here? I walked
to work this morning with a member from the government side. I
mentioned that in opposition certain members seem to rise to a
level of rhetorical flights of fancy, kind of a high octane, wild
spree. However when they get on the government side they become
a tremendous disappointment. They do not seem to have a handle
on their portfolio. They do not seem to take initiatives. They do not
seem to have the gumption to step forward and be bold in their
initiatives. Near as I can tell that is what has happened.
We have had nothing of substance from the environment
minister. The few things she has ventured into she has blundered
into rather than gone through them on a scientific basis. She seems
to be intent on somehow raising her profile, which has been
pitifully low. If we waited six months our arguments would be
proved out. If not, she could reintroduce it at that time.
I certainly concur with this motion and ask that the government
wait six months so we can have a proper scientific study.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke
for moving the motion to suspend this legislation for six months.
It would be a rather smart move on the government's part to put
this bill on the side and allow an independent tester to see if MMT
is really hazardous to these onboard diagnostic systems in 1996
automobiles. So far there is no conclusive evidence or data that
MMT ruins the idiot lights on the dashboards of cars.
(1110 )
We have debated the bill for some time now. I think the bill was
first debated on June 19, 1995. I have heard all the discussion from
both sides of the House and we still come to the same conclusion. It
is not clear that MMT is hazardous to our health, our air or
automobiles.
In the debate last week the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated: ``The product in question
has been known to have effects which are offensive to the health of
people''. The member presents the broken ideology of the entire
Liberal Party: make a statement, substantiated or not, so long as it
scares people into thinking it is right. In this case the member was
making an inaccurate statement. I guess he has not read his own
government's reports and is simply shooting from the hip.
Canadians have a right to hear the truth and have government
pronouncements backed up by real data. In the December 6, 1994
Health Canada report ``Risk Assessment for the Combustive
Products of MMT'', all analysis indicate the combustive products
of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the
Canadian population.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell cannot dispute a
study of his own government. What the member does not realize is
that if MMT were so hazardous to the health of Canadians his
colleague, the Minister of the Environment, could have easily
added it to the schedule under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. She cannot and so she has gone through the back
door only to find a few snags along the way. These snags are raising
questions from some within her own party and yet she refuses to
listen.
The Minister of Natural Resources has strong reservations which
the environment minister is ignoring. Why? The Minister of the
Environment is being pressured by auto manufacturers who have
told her that if the product is not banned maybe they will close
some plants and maybe lay off some workers. Instead of listening
to reason, the minister went ahead and proceeded with the bill
14859
banning the trade of this substance so it would not be
uneconomical to use in Canada.
There seems to be considerable concern about what type of
replacement for MMT will adequately address the increase in NOx
emissions. We know ethanol will not reduce NOx very much. We
know MTBE is a very expensive alternative, especially for the
refineries.
Another major concern I have heard from those who have an
interest in the legislation concerns the main rationale for the bill.
What is it? The minister has told us the MVMA has evidence to
prove MMT causes failures in its onboard diagnostic systems.
However, it has not elected to make that research public in order for
third party independent groups to evaluate it.
The minister has stood in the House on several occasions and
listed every car manufacturer under the sun and said they have all
done studies which prove without a doubt that MMT is hazardous
to OBDs. Several members of the Reform Party have asked her for
those studies but she refuses to table them in the House.
The minister knows these studies do not exist and she carries on
as if they do. What a shame the country has an environment
minister who is perhaps full of steam or vapour.
I understand General Motors is currently conducting a testing
program to evaluate the effects of MMT on OBD systems. Why is
GM initiating a test again when the minister claims it has already
done a conclusive test? Clearly there are some inconsistencies. It is
time the minister set the record straight.
On several occasions the Minister of the Environment has gone
on that the United States has banned MMT since 1978 and that
Canada is simply following suit. In 1978 the Environmental
Protection Agency did not approve MMT because of its view that it
might affect the health of Americans. However, the EPA's research
was reviewed by the U.S. court of appeals and based on the
findings the EPA was instructed to grant the manufacturers of
MMT a waiver which will allow the reintroduction of MMT into
the American market.
The minister might have egg on her face if she goes through with
the bill at this time while a reversal is being made in the United
States. At that time will the minister want to conduct further
studies in Canada? She may even ask for an independent test to be
done. We have been asking for that. This would not be the first time
the minister has completed a 180 degree turnabout.
This past summer off the coast of P.E.I. the government had
plans to raise the Irving Whale oil barge, sunk for over two
decades. Despite the presence of the PCBs on board the vessel the
minister went ahead. I questioned the minister in the House on that
one and she reassured Canadians that all appropriate testing had
been done and that the Canadian Coast Guard was more than
prepared to make it a safe lift. The lift did not occur due to bad
weather and was therefore scratched for this year. As a result there
was a court that was convinced there had been inadequate study of
the considerations of the PCB factor. The result was an injunction
against the action of raising the barge. We have now discovered
that the minister wants to undergo further testing on the presence of
PCBs on board the Irving Whale.
(1115)
I am discussing a pattern of the minister, ministerial
responsibility, accountability. First she tells Canadians that
everything is a go and there is no hazard at all. Then she says they
must do more testing. The minister does not seem to be able to
make up her mind. The same is going to happen if the United States
lifts the ban on MMT later this year. Will the minister organize
independent testing then? Perhaps she will be forced to.
The minister has a chance to save face and vote in favour of the
motion that was moved. If she waits for six months she will have
the opportunity to see what the U.S. courts will instruct. However,
if Bill C-94 passes and the U.S. courts reverse the decision
forbidding MMT to be sold again, the minister will have to bring
forward another bill that would reverse Bill C-94. This would not
only be an added cost to the taxpayer but it would also be a travesty
of our parliamentary system.
Does the Minister of the Environment want to really make the
taxpayers dig into their pocketbooks just because she is pressured
by her political supporters? What about this pressure? The MVMA
threatened that if the government does not ban MMT it will void
the warranties. In a copy of the fuel section of the owner's manual
of for example the 1996 Buick Regal, it bears no mention of a lack
of warranty coverage.
General Motors certainly knows how to disclaim warranty
responsibility since the 1996 owner's manual contains a disclaimer
regarding the use of methanol in the vehicle. The manual goes on to
state that the service light on the instrument panel may turn on with
the use of certain fuels, not in Canada and the United States, but
elsewhere because of a lack of grade of refining. If this occurs the
owner should simply contact the retailer for service. What it means
is they would want to clean the sensor. This certainly does not
disclaim warranty responsibility so those threats that were
mentioned in this House do not bear fruit.
If the auto industry has not carried through on its threat to void
warranties in instances where MMT is used in gasoline, then why is
the government trying to rush this legislation through the House?
This bill has been political from the outset. It is the responsibility
of the Ministry of the Environment to do what is best for the
country and our environment and not what is best politically. The
minister is becoming Canada's best non-environmental minister
and this in itself is hazardous to the health of Canadians.
14860
We should reflect on the gamesmanship and the deal making
related to this bill. It is becoming another instance where the
government's political concerns in its own mistaken view have
taken precedence over what is good for the country. This bill has
nothing to do with helping the environment. In fact, it is said that
the result is equivalent to adding thousands of cars immediately
to the exhaust load of the air if this bill is passed. It is not good
for Canada that we rush into banning trade in a commodity which
could very shortly be used in the United States.
I was sitting here listening to the member for Peterborough who
claims that the banning of MMT will save jobs. The MVMA
threatened the environment minister to ban MMT or else workers
would be laid off. The minister has denied that the MVMA
threatened her with this. Now the member across the way has
admitted that jobs might be lost, or at least that was the threat
anyway and he is peddling this as an argument. We now have an
admission that contradicts the minister.
I say this is all scare tactics and puffery in the absence of
scientific evidence. What seems the most appropriate course in this
instance is to use our motion, the six month hoist, so that we will
have sufficient time to review all the scientific evidence and make
a fair and considered evaluation of the rationale for Bill C-94.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1120)
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred until
5 p.m. this afternoon, at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the second reading
debate of the oceans act. We on this side of the House believe that
with the introduction of this legislation today we are coming to the
successful conclusion of a long and at times dramatic chapter in
Canada's maritime history. With this legislation we are at the
beginning of a new and even more vital chapter in that history.
The oceans act will define for Canada-and for many Canadians
this will come as a surprise-for the first time in legislation, an
exclusive economic zone covering almost five million square
kilometres of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. With the
passage of the oceans act, Canada will effectively increase the area
over which we in Parliament have jurisdiction by nearly one-half,
as the area covered by Canadian law will increase quite
dramatically.
Today Canada has the world's largest coastline measuring nearly
244,000 kilometres. Much of it of course is formed by islands in
the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans, as I have said. The Great
Lakes coastlines add another 9,500 kilometres.
With the passage of this bill we should think of Canada and the
area over which it has jurisdiction as not just encompassing the
prairies, not just encompassing the coastline of the great province
of British Columbia, our north and northern territories, east and
west, the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and of course
Atlantic Canada including Newfoundland. We need to think as well
about that tremendous area covered by Canada's three oceans and
notwithstanding recent problems, the tremendous wealth
represented by both the living and non-living resources of the
oceans.
As Canadians we have worked diligently over many years to
stake our claim and to establish our rights to control our ocean
areas. With this bill that struggle which has been undertaken by
successive generations of Canadians and by successive
governments of every political stripe is finally coming to an end.
The oceans act expands our notion of Canada as a country. The
oceans management strategy increases the priority that we place as
a society upon the wise development of our ocean waters. The bill
before Parliament will put in place the means for the government to
exercise Canada's new ocean responsibilities.
14861
The oceans act will give our country the framework for building
a new oceans management strategy. Canadians will have to work
very hard together to ensure that we achieve the economic
opportunities while at the same time sustaining the environment
and the living resources of our oceans. Over the years but in
particular in the last two years since the election of this
government, we have successfully asserted our rights. Now we
have to assume our obligations.
(1125)
Canada's ocean heritage stretches back to the very opening up of
our nation. The oceans enabled our ancestors, explorers and
pioneers to establish the basis of modern Canada. The roots of
Canada lie in aboriginal peoples finding their sustenance in the
Arctic ice and waters and the waters off both coasts and the
courageous crossings over the Atlantic Ocean by John Cabot in
1497, nearly 500 years ago.
Coming first to the teeming waters off the new found land Cabot
encountered not silver, gold, oil, minerals or other kinds of
resources that captured his imagination. Rather he encountered
teeming waters full of groundfish, a multiplicity of species, all of
which gave rise to the drive to colonize, to capture the new found
land, the new continent.
Of course Cabot was followed by Cartier in 1534 and Champlain
in 1603, together building the new land. For generation upon
generation immigrants came to Canada, wave literally upon wave,
building this country. With the oceans act today we salute the
historic voyages of Cabot, Cartier and Champlain. We continue
with confidence their work and their vision when they founded this
new land.
Canada's commerce was founded on ocean trading. Ocean
transport, communications, fishing, tourism and recreation have
helped forge our national identity. The oceans are as much a part of
Canada's soul, how we see ourselves, how we define ourselves, as
are the Rockies, the prairies and the Canadian shield.
Canadians have always cared deeply and passionately about our
oceans. For the past few decades that passion has been directed
toward securing international recognition of Canada's jurisdiction
over those waters and their resources. Canadians have been of one
voice in pushing for strong international binding agreement on
ocean management rules. We have been of one mind as a nation
when we have had to be in taking direct measures and yes,
sometimes bold measures, sometimes unprecedented and unilateral
measures to assert jurisdiction to protect our ocean resources and
the marine environment upon which they depend.
In 1958 Canada took a leadership position at the first United
Nations conference on the oceans. Since 1967, our centennial year,
Canadians have spearheaded discussions which led after many
years to a UN convention on the law of the sea.
Of course Canada again was in the forefront over the last several
years at the UN convention on highly migratory species and
straddling stocks which concluded last August 4 in New York with
a new binding convention. Members of this House from all parties
participated in that process. Members of this House from all parties
worked together united in building and protecting those ocean
resources, not only for this generation, not only for Canadians but
for citizens of the world.
The kind of influence that we in Canada, a middle power,
exercised was only possible because we were able to go to the
United Nations and speak with one united voice. We were able to
speak with a vision that was greater than the concerns as measured
or identified by our own backyards.
(1130 )
That is why we were successful. That is why Canadians in every
province today, without exception, can take pride in the work
successive governments have done and in the successes we have
achieved by working together.
Over the years we have sometimes been confronted with
challenges to our jurisdiction and challenges to our determination.
Members may recall that in 1969 the U.S. owned Manhattan sailed
through Canada's Northwest Passage without prior approval from
Canada. There was a tremendous public response. That is the polite
way of putting it. That response led to speedy passage of the Arctic
Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
I recall the minister of the day who had the responsibility of
shepherding that act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act,
was none other than the current Prime Minister of Canada. It was
an act by which Canada extended out to 100 miles its jurisdiction,
its responsibility, and made clear its authority to manage the
important and fragile Arctic waters. It was the present Prime
Minister who presented that bill to Parliament. It was a bill that was
supported by members on every side of the House.
In 1970 Canada declared a 12-mile nautical territorial sea. On
January 1, 1977 we declared a 200-nautical mile fishing zone. I am
pleased to note that it was the minister of foreign affairs of the day
who had a very large hand in seeing Canada make progress in this
regard, the hon. Don Jamieson, member of Parliament for then
Burin-St. George's in Newfoundland. He was, I will not say
assisted, in full partnership with the current Governor General of
Canada, the Hon. Romeo Leblanc, who was then Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. These two gentlemen stood side by side and
with the co-operation of all the members of the House and
Canadians everywhere claimed Canada's 200-mile fishing zone.
14862
I should note that it was only last year that members of this
place in every party of Parliament-the Conservative Party, the
New Democratic Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois
together with the Liberal Party-gave unprecedented and speedy
full passage within two sitting days in both Chambers to Bill C-29,
an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
It was that legislation which enabled Canada to take action to
protect important fish stocks on the high seas that straddle
Canada's 200-mile limit. It was clear that the national interest was
at stake. When the needs and the interests of those who live in
coastal Canada beyond the reaches of most of us, beyond the
experience of most of us, beyond the direct knowledge of most of
us, are confronted with the notion that straddling stocks which
sustained hundreds of communities for 500 years were being
decimated, and we were concerned with flag of convenience
vessels, Parliament was able to respond. It was able to rise to the
challenge and Canada, because its focus was clear, because its
cause was just and because its sense of nationhood was strong, was
able to respond. We passed Bill C-29 and we literally moved the
flag of convenience vessels off our continental shelf. We protected
those resources for Canadians and for the world.
The oceans act is the final major piece of legislation to make All
these efforts over so many years by Canada and by Canadians
complete and worth while. The act will formally establish Canada's
jurisdiction as a coastal state over its ocean areas and over our
resources.
The legislation before Parliament is completely compatible with
the law of the sea convention and with new global rules on the
management of ocean resources and the marine environment.
(1135 )
This bill defines our national maritime zones as consisting of
Canada's internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone,
the exclusive economic zone and Canada's continental shelf.
The legislation incorporates all relevant existing law that Canada
has, covering our full rights and jurisdiction over internal waters;
our fishing zones off the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic,
including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Queen
Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance; and our rights with respect to
the continental shelf. Canada has rights to living organisms
belonging to sedentary species in or on the shelf and jurisdiction
over the exploration and exploitation of minerals and non-living
resources of the seabed and subsoil.
Last summer, under the provisions of the law of the sea, Canada
claimed jurisdiction to manage Icelandic scallops that reside
beyond the 200-mile zone and not within it. Some American
fishing vessels decided to fish those scallops. Canada asserted
clearly, strongly and unequivocally our right under the appropriate
sections of the law of the sea to manage those species. Under the
appropriate provisions of the law of the sea sedentary species
which extend on the continental shelf are to be managed by the
coastal state.
Such a claim has never been made anywhere else in the world
before. We made it last summer. It led to a period of disagreement
with our good neighbour and friend, the United States. At one point
some direct action was taken to stop fishing activity. However
some months later there was a recognition by the United States of
Canada's jurisdiction over Icelandic scallop, even those scallop
residing in waters beyond our own 200-mile limit but on our
continental shelf. That was last summer.
This summer we staked a claim to control distant water snow
crab on the high seas, beyond our 200-mile limit. No country
challenged that claim this year.
For all these questions, the oceans act is a consolidation of
current Canadian law. What is so crucial in the bill is the
declaration of Canadian jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and
the exclusive economic zone. Most Canadians will not be familiar
with these technical terms, but many Canadians will have heard the
phrases 12-mile zone and 200-mile zone.
Canada's territorial sea extends from our coastline out to 12
nautical miles. In the territorial sea Canada has full jurisdiction to
ocean waters, to the seabed beneath those water and to the airspace
above. This is existing law.
The contiguous zone will extend an additional 12 nautical miles
from the outer edge of the territorial sea. In this zone Canada will
have the power to enforce our fiscal immigration, sanitary and
customs laws. The exclusive economic zone, which we are
declaring and prescribing for the first time in legislation today, will
absorb the 200-mile fishing zone and cover all economic activity in
the ocean area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline.
In this zone Canada will have jurisdiction for exploring, exploiting,
conserving and managing all the living and non-living resources of
the waters, seabed and subsoil.
Canada's jurisdiction in this zone will cover economic activity
and will cover marine scientific research, protection and
preservation of the marine environment and artificial islands,
installations and all structures. The act will grant Canada powers
that go well beyond the powers our country has asserted in the past.
It puts in place a clear definition of jurisdiction fully supported by
existing global agreements.
Canadians should rightfully feel proud and satisfied this day has
come. Canadians from every corner of the country and, as I have
said, from every political persuasion, from every party and every
walk of life, have at one time or another stood together for decade
after decade to make this declaration of Canada's oceans
jurisdiction a reality.
14863
(1140 )
For all the excellent co-operation that went into establishing
oceans jurisdiction, the truth is that Canada's policies for actual
management of our ocean areas over the years have been
piecemeal, fragmented and scattered on occasion. The same spirit
of partnership, co-ordination, co-operation and innovation that
enabled Canada to gain authority over ocean resources must now
be used to manage the same resources.
The oceans act sets out a basic legislative framework to support
a new Canadian oceans management strategy. The act provides the
building blocks for integrated management and sustainable
development of Canada's ocean resources. The act outlines a new
ecosystems based approach to marine resource management. It
provides a common focus for federal responsibilities and
consolidates federal programs and authorities from as many as 14
different departments under the jurisdiction and administration of
one department. It endows Canadians with legislative tools to start
working on oceans management holistically rather than sectorally.
The need for sustainable development of resources was made
crystal clear in the 1987 report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development chaired by Norway's current prime
minister, Prime Minister Brundtland.
That same year, in 1987, the previous government, the
Conservative government of the day, committed itself to the
introduction of an oceans act. Unfortunately that commitment was
not translated into action and no legislation was introduced.
The government is acting. Last year the National Advisory
Board on Science and Technology in Canada called for an oceans
act equipped to address the needs of ocean frontier development for
the present and, more important, for the future. The advisory board
called Canada's ocean management policies ad hoc and at times
haphazard. The board called for Canada to develop a proactive
oceans policy that plans for the future rather than responds to the
crisis of the day.
As the present Prime Minister said at that time, ``far-sighted,
prudent management of our oceans will provide us with a powerful
tool for long term regional development from coast to coast in
Canada''.
In November 1994 I released a document setting out the
potential elements of an ocean management strategy for Canada.
The government then sought advice all across the country, from St.
John's to Vancouver, from Inuvik to Quebec City. Certain things
emerged early and were clear. The federal government does have a
leadership role to play in oceans policy. There should be one
federal department taking the lead in developing new strategy.
People want to be involved locally in providing solutions to
regional priorities. There is a need to sustain resources and to
diversify ocean industries.
All the advice from provinces, municipalities, coastal residents,
fishermen, business, labour, environmentalists and scientists was
heard loud and clear. The bill now sets out the elements of an
oceans policy. However all Canadians must be involved in
developing specific mechanisms, planning and management
structures, and the guidelines and standards required to bring about
sustainable use of oceans and their resources.
In recognition of the need for an integrated approach to oceans
management, the government announced the merger of the
Canadian Coast Guard with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, which came into effect on April 1, 1995. The new
organization will provide for a more co-ordinated approach to
policy development and a strengthened operational focus. The new
organization will comprise the principal civilian marine
operational component of the Government of Canada. It is now
constructed and consolidated into one of the largest marine fleets
anywhere in the world today. As a consequence, we are able to be
more cost effective, more cost efficient, we are able to ensure high
national standards from coast to coast and be efficient in the
provision of services.
(1145)
There are new and increasing challenges for boating safety,
navigation, infrastructure, and under sea exploration. The Canadian
Coast Guard provides, in conjunction with the Department of
National Defence, the marine component of the federal search and
rescue program, marine aids to navigation, icebreaking services,
vessel traffic services, safety communications and the
dissemination of information regarding marine weather, ice, and
changes to navigational aids.
The coast guard brings much in the addition of programs to the
department of fisheries, programs that ensure the safety of human
life at sea, the safe and economical movement of ships, and the
protection of our marine environment. It makes sense to include
these programs with the federal minister responsible for oceans and
the protection of the fishery.
Bringing together these two fleets and bringing together these
two teams, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast
guard, also gives us the ability to multi-task ships from both fleets
and consolidate them and cross train them to ensure that people
who heretofore were doing primarily coast guard duties are also
available for enforcement duties on the fisheries side, and vice
versa. It also ensures that the helicopters that were flying resupply
missions to coast guard stations, to navigational aids, and to coast
guard lights are also available for carrying out enforcement activity
on behalf of the enforcement branch of DFO.
We will consolidate regional offices, regional directors general,
regional strategic locations into one combined, enlarged, and
improved location to find efficiency but at the same time sustain a
high level of services, which were heretofore divided between two
14864
marine based departments. It is a common sense approach to
dealing with the problem of the deficit that the government wants
to undertake, not the hack and slash and burn advocated by some
others, who believe that deficit reduction in itself, with no regard to
the importance of providing basic services to Canadians, ought to
be the goal of governing in the 1990s.
The Canada oceans act will give the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans the legal authority to draw together all of Canada's ocean
stakeholders to develop a strategy, as I said, based on sustainable
development and integrated management. The act provides the
authority to develop the actual mechanisms to implement new
strategies. It gives the minister the ability to enter into new
partnership arrangements in order to ensure that the oceans
management strategy meets real regional needs and fulfils real
regional aspirations.
Every Canadian, I suspect without exception, is well aware of
the extraordinary environmental stress placed upon our oceans. We
all know too well and some of us too painfully about resource
depletion, habitat degradation, and marine pollution. We know that
if we destroy the ocean environment we cannot meet the social and
economic goals of coastal Canadians.
This act therefore provides the authority to create for the first
time protected marine areas in order to safeguard ocean
biodiversity and to safeguard endangered species. For the first time
we have set out a legislative framework to declare certain of our
ocean areas protected marine areas.
While it is too early to say that the government has made a
decision or I as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have made a
decision with respect to protected marine areas, I am much
interested in the possibility of declaring protected zones as a means
of ensuring conservation of endangered species. In other words, it
is a management tool. If we want to take the precautionary
approach in fisheries management, one way to do that is to set aside
certain nursery zones, spawning areas, and to hold the areas to be
off limits to any fishing activity to ensure that even as we conduct
fisheries and even as we harvest what appear to be healthy stocks
we give ourselves a measure of insurance by setting aside certain
zones. The government will explore that and will seek advice from
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the weeks and
months ahead.
(1150)
The act gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the ability to
carry out scientific marine research in support of the new strategy. I
cannot overemphasize that this act is about building new
partnerships among Canadians. That is what we will be seeking
with all of the stakeholders in the oceans community and the
scientific community in the weeks and months ahead. Indeed, that
is what we are seeking in referring this bill now to the standing
committee: advice, comment, questions, and yes, criticism where
appropriate. We want the strongest possible bill that can be
provided.
I am counting on the members of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, who have a long and distinguished record,
both the current committee and its predecessors, for being the
conscience and the voice of the oceans and of the living resources
of the oceans, to bring forward a bill that is stronger than the one I
put before the House today. I am confident that Chairman
MacDonald will do just that.
The bill signals renewed federal leadership by consolidating
under one authority the lead responsibility for management of
oceans. It signals the federal government's commitment to a
comprehensive and co-operative approach to oceans policy. It
signals the need for shared information, shared planning, shared
management. It signals that Canada and Canadians are prepared to
act in making the most of our assets.
The act is the last step toward formal jurisdiction over Canada's
oceans territory, but it is the first step-
I will conclude momentarily, Mr. Speaker. I can see you are
edging up on your feet with excitement.
The Deputy Speaker: You have approximately eight minutes to
speak. I would ask that when you refer to members of the House
you refer to them by their riding name rather than by their
surnames.
Mr. Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of that rule. It
was my desire to reflect the full responsibility and authority of the
hon. member for Dartmouth in Hansard when it is recorded for
purposes of householder mailing to refer to him by name. The
Speaker of course would be unfamiliar with such considerations.
We all know that the model of Canada is from sea to sea. The
Canada oceans act recognizes that Canadians from one end of the
country to the other, in every region and in every province, are
owners of our seas. Together Canadians from every part of the
country have unbelievable opportunities to gain and to keep
sustenance and wealth and pleasure from our oceans. Together
Canadians from every part of Canada, from sea to sea to sea, hold
those oceans in trust for the future. The Canada oceans act is one
key move to exercise that trust that has been bestowed upon us with
pride and with care.
In coastal Canada for the last number of years we have suffered
tremendously from economic loss, economic dislocation, real
human suffering. We can find it in every part of coastal Canada. We
can certainly find it along the coastline of Newfoundland, where
300 communities have been displaced from the traditional way of
life because of the groundfish failure, where 30,000 people find
themselves not hauling up their boats and repairing their gear but
are contemplating the end of another year when they have been
absent from the sea.
14865
We can find it in Nova Scotia, in particular the groundfish
failure in northern Nova Scotia but also along the south shore as
well. We can find it in P.E.I., less so in New Brunswick, certainly
in the province of Quebec along the north shore, in the Gaspé and
the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where people have suffered real
hardship.
We can find a sense of fear and concern on the coast of British
Columbia, a concern that the groundfish failures of the Atlantic not
be repeated in the west. There are conflicts between stakeholders
about who has access to resources, who ought to have access to
resources, and what gear types are most resource friendly. These
are ongoing discussions and difficult ones between stakeholders.
(1155)
Whatever our backgrounds, whatever our political stripe,
whatever our ideology, the one thing we all must know in this
place-and notwithstanding the public perception that we never
agree, we have demonstrated it in the past in this place-is that we
understand the tremendous importance and value of the oceans
heritage. We can and we must. I call on colleagues again to work
together to expand and protect and ensure that oceans heritage.
As I am fond of frequently saying, as I think it is a wonderful
piece of advice for all of us, may we be guided by the words of the
Haida people, who say that we do not inherit the land or the sea
from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): 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.
(1200)
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
14866
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.
(1205)
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.
(1210)
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.
An hon. member: Separation.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Some call it that, but I have always said
sovereignty. When you say in Bill C-98 that its purpose is to
strengthen-
14867
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I may remind
the House that comments should be made through the Chair, not
directly from member to member across the House.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): 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.
(1215)
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
14868
necessary to clearly define a strategy for the management of
oceans, but that strategy must be efficient and not lead to conflicts.
(1220)
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): My colleagues, the
amendment by the hon. member for Gaspé is in order.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-98 today. Some of the things in the bill
bring back a lot of memories from watching politics over the years
as to whether the bill will be a success or failure in future years.
One never knows but I trust the minister is going in the right
direction on the issue. We will speak to a few things on that in a
moment. I want to talk about the minister's introductory comments
on the bill in general. I want to spend some time on the fees issue
which he seemed to disregard in this comments.
(1225 )
First there is something amiss about planning in the department
of fisheries over the last two decades particularly. I can recall about
a year and a half ago talking to the previous deputy minister of that
department. It took me so long to get out of this fellow exactly how
many years the department of fisheries undertakes its strategic
planning activities. He really did not want to answer but I badgered
him until he did. The answer was three years of strategic planning
within that department.
The reason I was asking that question was that if there is a
three-year planning cycle in the department of fisheries why then
did the previous Conservative government come out with a
five-year moratorium plan in fisheries and this current government
came out with the five-year TAGS plan?
First of all if there is a three-year strategic planning session, it is
beyond me how the department can come out with a five-year plan
not really knowing what the end results will be. It seems to me the
reason the five-year plan came out was it had a lot to do with when
the next election was and a lot less to do with the planning, the
conservation value and qualities of fish. That is truly unfortunate.
This government, as was the previous government, is intent on
passing money out to unemployed fishermen. That is a subject of
discussion in itself, whether it is good or bad or how indeed it is
going to deal with the conservation of fish. One thing in Bill C-98
that I heard here this morning is the area set aside for conservation.
I think it is good but there is a non-commitment in that aspect of it
which I shall address very shortly.
We have a department with three-year plans. The minister would
be well advised to have that department look at longer term plans
as they do in certain forest industries. The business cycle in some
forest industries is as long as the life of a tree, from start to
productive cutting. Perhaps the length of planning in the
department of fisheries should relate to the cycle of the fish. It
would not be a bad idea.
14869
I want to mention some of the comments from the separatist
member who talked about some convoluted exercise. He mixed
it in somehow with the fact that the minister wants to create a
certain amount of sovereignty over our waters. He has it mixed
up a bit as to what is right and what is wrong about sovereignty
in this country.
The very fact that the government is trying to make the waters
surrounding our country a part of our sovereign nation is certainly
not only for Newfoundland, British Columbia or P.E.I.; it is for all
provinces, including Quebec. Why the member would have a
disagreement with that just baffles me.
As much as the government may complain about comments
from the separatists, as a member of the parliamentary committee
on fisheries I find it hard to understand how government members
can unanimously endorse that committee's vice-chairman from the
Bloc. On the one hand they complain about the comments about
sovereignty and so on but on the other hand they allow that to
happen. Do the Bloc members actually represent interests of
Newfoundlanders, people in P.E.I., people in British Columbia? I
have not heard it in this House if that is the case. What is the mind
set for that kind of move? I suspect it is appeasement, once again,
and that is unfortunate.
(1230)
The minister talked about the pride we have in our forefathers,
the founders of the nation, people like John Cabot who at times had
difficulty steering through the waters off the Grand Banks because
of the amount of cod. I wonder what John Cabot would say today
after 20 to 30 years of government bungling. He would have
probably said: ``It is a darn good thing we do not have government
or an overbureaucratic organization. At least I was allowed over
here. There are lots of fish, but what have you people done?'' The
question on the minds of most Canadians today is: What have
politicians done to the fishery?
I am aware that something like 14 formal reports have gone
through the House of Commons on the east coast fishery, most of
which were ignored. What do we have today? I have family
members on TAGS and they are not proud of it. Their boats are
sitting on the slip, never to go back in the water again. They are
wishing for work. They are hoping some day that there may be
work in the fishery. However it does not look good.
Canadians are wondering what we allow government to present
in the House of Commons. How bad will this hurt them? There are
so many unknowns and so many people out there saying they have
been hurt time and time again and asking if this will help that one
never knows.
The minister talked about several happenings in the recent
affairs of fisheries. In 1958, 1967 and 1993 there were UN
conventions. There was a new binding convention to protect ocean
resources. I wish just for once the government would stop talking
and start doing. I cannot blame the minister. He has to try to
improve operations and bring in organizations, but there is no
confidence left that good will come of the legislation.
The bill will formally assert Canada's jurisdiction over its
coastal waters. However there was no mention about the nose and
the tail of the Grand Banks with respect to fish.
Mr. Tobin: It is called the continental shelf.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The minister tells me now
that it is in there. From what we can determine those two areas are
not included. The area specified is the 200-mile nautical limit. If
they are in there they should be very carefully specified because
those two areas, as he knows, are outside the nautical limit. If the
committee purports to amend things in favour of government
legislation it should carefully take note and carefully include the
nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. Let us not make it as nebulous
as these things usually are.
Apparently there is a consolidation of 14 programs as a result of
the bill, but a bureaucracy still exists in the department and the
minister well knows it. For a department to lose so many clients, if
fishermen can be considered clients of the department, I am at a
loss why there is not a proportionate decrease in staff directly
related to that loss. That is not the case. We lose the fishermen from
the system but we do not lose the bureaucrats.
(1235 )
By the way, I talked with the deputy minister at one point. He is
no longer the deputy minister and that is not a bad thing either, but
the results of the discussion are still the same. I asked how many
people in Ottawa, for instance, had been directly related to the
fishing industries on the east or west coasts. I had difficulty getting
that answer too but finally the answer, if we check the record of that
committee meeting, was negligible.
If that were the case, the minister would be well advised to look
at the potential. If he wants gainful employment for those who have
been put out of work and gainful retraining, he should start
replacing the employees of DFO with those directly affected by the
mismanagement of the department in the first place. It would go a
long way to responding to some of their needs rather than sitting at
home in their chairs waiting for the fish to come back.
The minister stated that the act planned for the future rather than
responded to the crisis of the day. This may be the first time in
recent history that any government actually planned for the future
rather than responded to the crisis of the day. I only have to refer
the House to the moratorium in TAGS, an absolutely disastrous
program. If the government wants to plan for the future, it should
14870
start listening to the people who are involved. That we know, from
British Columbia's point of view, is really not the case.
It is not a bad idea to merge the coast guard with the DFO. That
was done in April. However, I caught the comments of the minister
that are not bound in legislation. The minister said that we would
cross train and consolidate the coast guard, that we would
consolidate offices, duties and so on.
I do not know if the coast guard knows about it yet, but I am sure
those offices are now wondering what the government is up to. It
talks about planning. It should not make announcements in the
House that it is to start a consolidation program, that it will move
them here and there. There are people involved in the exercise. The
minister would be well advised to get some advice first and plan
the exercise rather than make a people kind of announcement in the
House.
The minister commented on the operation of the parliamentary
committee on fisheries and the job of the chairman. Thus far the
government's committee has basically done a tremendous job. It
met and put a separatist as vice-chairman who does not really
represent any of the exercise. Perhaps it is part of the Quebec
border. That is the exercise of the government thus far. The
chairman of the committee has a bigger job. He should go back to
the minister and ask: ``Why don't you plan this exercise a bit
better?''
No mention has been made of fees. I am sure the minister knows
how contentious this exercise is. Sections 49, 50, 51 and 52
indicate that the minister may fix fees for service. I have trouble
with government fee for service exercises when Canadian
taxpayers are paying for government service as it is. They will end
up paying for a service that is supposed to be provided twice: once
through taxes and once through a fee for service. It is typical of
governments at all levels today to say that they are providing us
with a service but if they provide it they will charge a fee. That is
what taxes were supposed to be for.
For the information of the minister, a fee, a licence or a permit is
a tax. The people involved in the fishing industry do not see a fee, a
licence and a permit as just more dollars out of their pockets. They
see it as more taxation and more costs. They wonder what it will be
spent on. It goes into general revenue. Do we get it back? For the
minister's information I have some quotes from fishing
organizations that he would be interested in.
(1240)
It gets back to the philosophy of the government. It does not
understand that we have a spending problem and not a revenue
problem. Successive governments over the last 20 years have been
overspending, overspending and overspending. What is their
answer? Rather than find ways to cut back they go back to people
like fishermen and say they need more money off their backs. That
is the Liberal way.
What kind of fees are involved? They say the overall average
increase in the fees across the board is approximately 400 per cent.
I would like to see how the chairman of the committee will get
around that when we talk about it. Congratulations to the Liberals;
they will ding fishermen across the board 400 per cent in fees. They
say the $30 lobster licence will be $310. That ought to please the
fellows who are trying to eke out a living.
The government currently gets approximately $13 million from
licence fees, and that is going to $63 million. Is there not a way to
look at some efficiencies within DFO to get $50 million rather than
license or tax fishermen? Is there not a way? Have they looked at
that? It is another job for the chairman of the committee that we
will be asking about.
When will it happen? The minister says the government will
decide on that by the end of September. That is pretty soon.
Fishermen can take note that they will get notice of when fees,
licences and permits, these taxes, will be increased.
I am surprised on such a big issue that the minister stood for 40
minutes and told us about John Cabot. That was interesting but the
people out there are really asking who is getting taxed, how much
and when.
What is it for? The minister says they are progressive fees,
progressive taxes; that is the larger the catch, the larger the
percentage increase. They are based on the ability to pay. That is
fair ball, I suppose. They apply to commercial fisheries on both
coasts. The government presumes once again that if there is any
possible way to tax them it will do it. It does not look at perhaps not
spending money here or there.
We only have to look at the minister's own example that he set
for his office furnishings, which we complained about in the
House. We only have to look at some of his expenditures, like
advertising in New York City when he was promoting himself. I
wonder where these folks are coming from.
Why do they want to increase fees? Let us see what they say. The
Liberals want an additional $50 million on top of the $200 million
in current cuts. They say they can get away with cutting $200
million and then go back to the people they will tax and say:
``Look, we cut $200 million; you can pay $50 million''. Why can
they not look for $250 million in cuts? It is there. Starting from the
top it is there.
DFO's budget will apparently be decreased to $500 million from
$700 million.
(1245 )
I wonder if there is not more. Where is it? We only have to ask
the fishermen. They had all kinds of suggestions about where to
cut when I sat down with them. The one thing common with the
east and west coast fishermen is they are not asked. They get the
14871
fees, the licences, the permit costs and the taxes but they are not
asked where the cuts can come from. Does this sound like the
Liberal government? You bet it does.
I talked to employees of DFO who said there are two reasons
behind these fee increases. They want more money and they want
to reduce the number of fishermen. I said: ``If those are your
reasons do you have any other alternatives? Is there something you
can do other than increase taxes to the fishermen?'' I suggested two
things which I will suggest here. The answer was they did not think
of that. There is a priceless answer. That is a pun to the minister.
What is the impact of these fees? The fees must be paid up front
with no instalments. There will be a graduated fee structure. If we
have landings of $25,000 worth of catch, the fee is approximately 3
per cent. If we have landings of over $100,000 the fee is
approximately 5 per cent, and on it goes. It sounds like the tax
structure we are working on today. It is similar to the tax structure
we are working on today, so it is a tax.
What does the P.E.I. fishermen's association say about it? The
money is simply a form of hidden taxation. That is felt right across
the country: ``It will not even be funnelled back into the fishery but
will go into a consolidated revenue fund or general pot that they
will blow away''. That is the feeling out there.
Can we take money as was done in the case of British
Columbia's forestry? Part of the fees from licences and permits
goes toward silviculture. If the government has to take money
could it not possibly think to put it back into rejuvenating fishing
stock?
The government is looking at more fees for service from coast
guard services which now comes under DFO, and for scientific
investigations. One has to wonder what the methodology is here.
This will be another cash cow like most things the government is
involved with. It cannot deal with the fact that it is overspending.
All it can deal with is it does not have enough revenue, and that is
wrong.
There are some alternatives we could provide. DFO should be
managed by fishermen and their dependents, the people in the
indirect fisheries. Start moving them in, start training them. Get
them involved in DFO in Ottawa, on inland waters, on both coasts.
(1250 )
If they get a piece of that administrative action maybe they will
influence ministers to help the industry. Right now there is not that
interlocking or interfacing. There is the DFO and a number of
fishermen, a resource, a tax resource, which is the way they look at
it. Therefore why not have the fishermen manage the resource by
getting them involved?
If there are problems within the industry many come from UI
regulations. Fishermen will tell us that. They understand that. Let
us look at UI regulations. We do not have to license the fishing
industry again.
There has been much talk about what happens to Newfoundland
fishermen and what they do for a future. Many of them suggest the
minister might want to look at inshore fishing again on handlining
and getting perhaps some of the people in the villages along the
shores active again in handlining and reduce the number of larger
ships. They talk about that a lot. Whether it can be done, I do not
know. Really all they want is to get out, get their lines in and get at
it.
If we look at the number of people who could possibly be
employed around the villages as opposed to the number of people
employed on the larger ships there is a drastic difference. Since fish
plants have been shut down on the coast perhaps there could be
regional plants. Perhaps the fish caught by handlining could go to
regional plants and then to larger plants. That is a possibility but I
do not know if it has been looked at.
We are looking at a flat tax system but the tax system has to take
into account that there have to be fewer exemptions. Perhaps if the
government looked at the tax system and UI system it could come
up with better alternatives than to strike larger fees and licences.
The government has to look again at reducing costs. We know
the costs are high there and the government knows it. I do not think
its mandarins are willing to let it have much more money. I guess
the government has to learn to be a little tougher in dealing with the
bureaucracy. As the Liberals are listening and whining about what I
am saying, there are a lot of senior bureaucrats in that department.
There are a lot of expenses. We do get letters outlining where
things should be cut. The fishermen tell us and so the minister
should look at it.
In the final analysis we have to look at where the Liberals are
coming from on bills such as this. Although I compliment the
minister on some of the issues within the bill, particularly the
conservation areas, I continue to worry about traditional
governments. We have thrown out that other party and the country
brought in this party. They are traditional parties intent on looking
at balancing books by way of taxing more as opposed to cost
cutting. They are intent on perpetuating programs like the
Conservative program on the moratorium and the TAGS program
which was Liberal.
We are looking at a government truly looking backwards to a
future. If anything I sincerely wish this committee well because we
will be spending a lot of time on this committee. We will be asking
a lot of questions of this minister. We sincerely hope he keeps the
interests of the fishermen in mind, not the interests of the
bureaucrats in Ottawa.
14872
(1255 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We now enter the next stage
of debate on second reading of Bill C-98. Members will have up to
20 minutes for their interventions, subject to 10 minutes of
questions and comments.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): It goes without
saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am delighted to have the opportunity to
take part in this debate on the Canada Oceans Act. To address
immediately the remarks made by my colleague from the Reform
Party, I can assure you that both the minister and the department
have the best interests of fishermen and the fisheries community at
heart. They have always had and will always do.
This legislation is divided in three very straighforward parts. The
first part definess Canada's maritime zones. The second part
provides legislative authority to foster a new, wider,
forward-looking and more inclusive strategy for Canada's oceans
and their resources.
Part III of the bill authorizes a modern departmental
mandate-including the merger of the Canadians Coast Guard with
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-as a vital means of
carrying through on the Government of Canada's ocean
responsibilities.
Each of the three parts of the bill contains three key structural
elements. In each part, there are regulatory measures, enforcement
measures and operational measures.
And, the legislation has three key objectives. First, the Canada
Oceans Act will stake out Canada's clear legal jurisdiction over our
oceans. Second, the Canada Oceans Act will put in place the legal
framework required to support a new oceans management strategy
based on the principles of sustainable development and integrated
management. Finally, this act will consolidate and clarify federal
responsabilities for managing Canada's oceans.
There are three very simple themes that run throughout the
legislation: cooperation, coordination and, of course, broad-based
community input. And at the very centre of this bill is the
determination of the federal government to lead in a positive,
throughtful direction in promoting the economic and
environmental potential of the waters in our three great ocean
areas-the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic.
Quite simply, this bill seeks to seize the present in order to build
upon the achievements of yesterday so that we are prepared for the
possibilities of tomorrow.
This summer, the National Advisory Board on Science and
Technology issued its major report on Canada's future entitled
``Healthy, Wealthy and Wise''. The Board wrote that
``Sustainability and stewardship must become that watchwords for
economic development.''
The Board called for integrated strategies that ``encourage the
environmentally responsible exploitation of resources, consistent
with long-term sustainability''. That is the very point made by the
World Commission on Environment and Development in its United
Nations Report eight years ago. That is the very point made at the
famous Rio Summit. That is the point made by Canada in our
fisheries disputes and negotiations.
(1300)
That is also the point made in the election Red Book, when we
stated that ``Integrating economic with environmental goals fits in
the Liberal tradition of social investment as sound economic
policy''.
Of course, Canada's oceans belong to all Canadians and it is up
to all Canadians to pull as one to integrate the economic and
environmental viability of our oceans. For many, many years, we
have come to see the need for a comprehensive and integrated
oceans policy. With the introduction of new ocean jurisdiction for
Canada, that need becomes greater than ever. And the bill before us
will indeed dramatically extend Canada's ocean jurisdiction and
rights.
This bill expands Canadian control over nearly five million
square kilometres of ocean under Canadian jurisdiction. That's an
incredible amount of ocean offering Canadians fantastic potential
for new economic development. It is also an incredible amount of
responsibility requiring us to get our act together on ocean policy.
The bill clearly defines Canada's maritime zones and Canada's
rights and jurisdiction in each of those zones. It incorporates
Canada's full jurisdiction over our internal waters and over the
territorial sea stretching twelve nautical miles out from our Arctic,
Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The bill incorporates Canada's
jurisdiction over the continental shelf. I would like to point out that
the hon. member of the Reform Party who spoke earlier indicated
that, as far as he could see, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks did
not seem to be included. This is where Canada's jurisdiction over
this zone is asserted by affirming our jurisdiction over the
continental shelf.
The bill states the right of Canadians to control exploration and
exploitation of minerals and resources of the continental shelf's
seabed and in its subsoil. It also confirms full rights for Canada
over the shelf's living organisms belonging to sedentary species.
This legislation also incorporates Canada's jurisdiction over its
fishing zones in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic including the Bay
of Fundy, near my riding, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, also near my
riding, and Queen Charlotte Sound. We first declared those zones
to be ours 18 years ago-and they will always be part of Canada's
ocean rights.
14873
The Canada Oceans Act will also give Canada a new contiguous
zone. In this zone, Canadian immigration laws, customs laws,
sanitary laws and fiscal laws will apply. Most importantly of all,
the Canada Oceans Act will declare an exclusive economic zone
for Canada stretching our 200 nautical miles from our coastline.
To understand how significant that is, members of Parliament need
only remember that Canada has the world's longest coastline.
In this new exclusive economic zone, Canada will have full
rights over the exploration, exploitation, conservation and
management of the resources of the ocean waters, the ocean floor
and the ocean subsoil. Canadians will have jurisdiction over marine
research and the preservation and protection of the marine
environment.
(1305)
Once this bill becomes law, as I fully hope it will, we will have
established in Canadian law that Canada has grown in size and
jurisdiction. Canadians will become responsible for more than the
care of our ten provinces and two territories. We will become the
custodians of a large part of the world's ocean treasures.
Canadians have fought with diligence to establish the principle
of global fisheries conservation. We have taken some licks along
the way but, thanks to the leadership of the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans, we have come out a winner. We now have the duty to
turn our same principles into action over all the oceans resources
that are coming into Canadian jurisdiction.
Naturally, we will need strong leadership by the federal
government. We will need strong leadership from coastal provinces
and municipalities. We will need complete involvement of all
sectors of ocean stakeholders.
The problem and the possibilities are complex, so much so that
Canadians must work together to solve them. The
interrelationships of ocean species is so complex that we need to
pull together to understand them. The current and potential uses of
our oceans are so numerous that we need to guarantee that we work
together to make the most of them.
Our individual and collective actions as human beings have
important impacts upon the well-being and potential prosperity of
the ocean environment. That is why the Canada Oceans Act calls
for an ocean strategy founded on the twin principles of sustainable
development and integrated management.
The concept of sustainable development is a not a new one but it
meets a need Canadians understand very well. Canadians know that
we need an oceans policy that embraces sustainable development
as one of its guiding principles. The concept of integrated
management of ocean resources is a new one but it too meets a
need that Canadians understand well.
We know what it means when government polices are confusing
or contradictory. We know the opportunities that are lost when the
private sector and governments and labour and local communities
fail to pursue shared goals. Canadians know that we need an oceans
policy that embraces integrated management as one of its guiding
principles.
It is time to start coordinating, consolidating and harmonizing
our oceans strategy. It is time to develop a common focus and plan
of action to promote the quality, abundance and diversity of ocean
resources. It is time to set some goals for ourselves and to set some
limits on ourselves.
Global environmental concerns should lead us to act. The
oceans' economic potential obliges us to act. Canada's new ocean
jurisdiction compels us to act. The bill before Parliament gives us
the legislative tools to act.
The Canada Oceans Act will establish a clearly identifiable lead
federal department accountable for oceans management. The
legislation extends Canada's environmental laws to our new ocean
areas. The bill will permit the establishment of marine protected
areas and the development of marine environmental quality
guidelines. These are essential tools if we are to adopt the
principles of integrated management and sustainable development
in our stewardship of Canada's ocean waters.
(1310)
The Canada Oceans Act will give the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans formal authority to enter into new partnership agreements
in order to pursue Canada's oceans management strategy. That is an
essential tool if we are to face the problems and find the solutions
together. That is an essential tool if we are to set a national strategy
with full local input from coastal provinces and citizens. That is an
essential tool if we are to respect the specific priorities of those
who live along the coasts of our three vastly different oceans.
This legislation follows through on the government's budgetary
promise to ``strengthen Canada's capabilities and effectiveness in
oceans policy-making''. This legislation will set the stage for
developing an oceans management strategy that conserves and
protects the ocean environment and the ecosystems and resources
that our oceans contain.
The Bill demonstrates that the federal government will play its
full role in managing ocean resources on an economically viable
and technologically sustainable basis.
And the legislation demonstrates that the federal government
wants more than a one person show. The bill permits an upsurge in
the sharing of scientific, environmental and management
information relating to our oceans. The bill before Parliament
emphasizes the need for an integrated federal approach to ocean
management, a
14874
need recognized in part through the merger of the Canadian Coast
Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in April.
The new structure will provide stronger coordination of policy
development and stronger, streamlined operations. The coast guard
will form the primary civilian marine component of the federal
government.
By the way, on the subject of oceans management, on all of the
important matters required to build a comprehensive oceans
management strategy, the federal government is determined to
show a spirit of partnership. Marine safety. Oceans understanding
and knowledge. Marine Resources Management. Environmental
Management. Economic Development. International Leadership.
They are all components of an ocean strategy based on an
integrated management approach. They are all components of a
strategy based on a sustainable development approach. They are all
part of the strategy that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
invites all Canadians to help create.
The first action required to build a future of maritime greatness
for Canada is to declare jurisdiction over our ocean areas. Through
this legislation, that is what Parliament will do.
The second action required to buil a future of maritime greatness
for Canada is to show strong federal leadership in establishing the
framework for a new oceans management strategy. Through this
legislation, that is what Parliament will do.
(1315)
The third action required to build a future of maritime greatness
for Canada is for all of us, from every sector and every corner of
the country, to create a new oceans management strategy together.
Through this legislation, that is what Canadians will be in a
position to do.
I urge all members of the house of Commons to join in speedy
passage of the Canada Oceans Act so that Canadians may join in
the urgent task of making Canada an even greater ocean nation.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech by the secretary of state and hon. member
for Beauséjour. I have several questions but I do not know where to
start. I will ask two at the same time and, time permitting, I will ask
another one later on.
Now for his first comment, and I must say I find it hard to follow
the federal government's thinking today. They say they needed this
legislation to make the Coast Guard part of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, although this was already done last spring in
the finance minister's February budget. What is going on? Is the
department trying to rectify an illegal situation? What was or was
not illegal before? I think we could draw quite a few conclusions in
that case.
I remember saying in a speech to the Minister of Fisheries at the
time that he should consolidate the fleets owned by the
Government of Canada. I mentioned the Coast Guard. Their ships
could have been included in the same fleet with the Fisheries and
Oceans vessels. But there are other fleets as well, so why the
piecemeal approach?
Once again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is
doing. As far as the ships of the Department of the Environment are
concerned, why did they not look at the kind of work involved,
since in this bill, for all practical purposes, the minister will have
the authority to set environmental standards for oceans?
What does the Department of the Environment intend to do? I
was told there were a number of ships, so what are they going to do
with them? Why did they not consider integrating all this?
My point is there is still room for improving the bill. The
Department of National Defence has ships as well. Why did the
government not consider some kind of plan or strategy in which
these ships could be used, and I am thinking of the quite
spectacular operations we saw last spring?
In any case, I am glad that was done. However, why does the
government not take advantage of this experience to consider a
system for integrating these ships?
That is one point I wanted to make. As for part III of the bill, I
already mentioned two departments that were not consulted. What
is going on? I wish the secretary of state would tell us. Where are
they headed and do they really intend to merge? Good, I see some
messages coming. Do they really intend to merge or is this just a lot
of smoke and mirrors?
I repeat, the Coast Guard fleet has been under the jurisdiction of
the Minister of Fisheries since the spring budget. I would like to
put a question to the secretary of state, who may be able to remove
this perception I have that the bill is improvised, that the
government is going a little too fast and has not finished its
consultations, starting with the parliamentarians in their own party.
(1320)
I would like to draw the secretary of state's attention back to
clause 54. In formulating this bill, they are already including
conditional amendments in clause 54, which provides: ``If Bill
C-84, introduced during-the thirty-fifth Parliament-is assented
to, then-''. Should I read the whole thing? We are told that this
bill will have consequences, and given that, attention will have to
be paid to this and to that.
Bill C-98 involves regulations, and must be able to
accommodate other existing regulations and legislation. But we
already have C-84, which is in the process of changing it. They
could not even agree among themselves to wait for C-84 to be
drafted.
14875
In connection with this, I would like to mention another doubt.
I will read you subclause 54(3): ``Any fee fixed under this Act
shall stand permanently referred to a committee described in
section 25 of the Regulations Act to be scrutinized as if it were
a regulation''.
I would like to direct a question to the secretary of state to at
least start getting rid of our perception that the thing is improvised.
Can he tell us who will form the committee? Does he already have
the answers this morning? There are a whole bunch of
amendments, but I would at least like to know whether he has had
time to read the bill to the end and ask these questions and whether
he got an answer from an official somewhere. We did not.
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Gaspé for all these questions he would like to see answered like any
self-respecting opposition member or critic. I think that the
minister answered some of his questions in his speech, but he also
urged members, especially those on the standing committee on
fisheries, to which this bill will be referred, to feel free to ask
questions and search for answers.
I am happy to see that the hon. member sees the advisability of
merging the Fisheries and Oceans fleet with that of the coast guard.
He also asked why the Canadian forces fleet was not included and
he referred to last spring's turbot war. The hon. member must know
that the three fleets he mentioned were all called upon at the time
and worked together in a joint operation to make foreign fleets, and
one in particular, realize that Canada is serious about conservation.
I think the hon. member will agree with me that, by pooling our
resources, we succeeded in getting our message across and
convincing the rest of the world, and all fishing nations, that
Canada is serious about conserving ocean resources and focusing
attention on the problem.
(1325)
In this regard, I must say that if we succeeded in conveying to
the world that the minister acted decisively, it is because the
minister represented in an effective way the aspirations of those
who want Canada to focus on conservation. All the political parties
in this House and across Canada gave us the support we needed to
do so.
I take this opportunity to thank all those who supported this
effort. If we are talking about this bill respecting the oceans of
Canada, it is to give the minister of fisheries the authority he needs
to watch over ocean resources by putting in place policies and
programs aimed at protecting these resources for all of Canada.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-98. This morning, the hon. member for
Gaspé explained at length why we will oppose this legislation. I
want to elaborate on the environmental aspects of the bill, that is
the environment minister's responsibilities under the proposed
legislation.
This legislation gives exceptional powers to Fisheries and
Oceans, but these powers already belong to the Department of the
Environment. This is yet another example of overlap between two
departments and it is a real concern to see how there is no true
agreement or harmonization at the federal level. I cannot help but
wonder why the minister did not tell environment critics about this
bill? Why is it that we were not informed of that legislation? How
come we did not even hear about it in committee?
When a bill has such an impact on a department like the
environment department, we have to be able to look at it and make
sure that it does not create more overlap. Let us not forget that the
Department of the Environment lost one third of its personnel and
one third of its budget following the government's drastic cuts.
Consequently, this whole situation is a real source of concern.
The bill seems to establish a sectoral environment department:
the department of coastal environment. If each department did that,
we would end up with an environment transport department, an
environment industry department, and all the government's
ministers would have powers regarding environmental protection
and preservation.
If this is the way this government wants to go, then we should
abolish the environment department, because it will become
useless in Parliament.
We hear a lot of nice rhetoric, speeches and commitments about
the environment, but not much is actually done to protect it. There
is still a lot of work to do. This is a vital issue; our future and that of
our children is at stake. When I see how the government treats this
issue so lightly, seemingly attaching little importance to it, I
become very concerned about the future of Canada, Quebec and in
fact the whole world.
When it comes to the environment, the government's tendency is
to centralize powers in Ottawa for the sake of national interest.
This is also a real concern, considering that environmental
problems are of a global nature.
Let me read you two clauses which are rather preoccupying.
Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill deal with the implementation of a
strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine
ecosystems.
(1330)
This part does not apply to the lakes and rivers. In large part,
management of those ecosystems is a provincial responsibility.
14876
We on this side of the House have one other concern, that this act
could allow the department to again interfere in provincial
jurisdictions, particularly with respect to the environment. It puts
provincial ministers on an equal footing with any other interested
persons or bodies. It is very important for us to know what an
interested person or body is.
This means that an individual might come to express his
personal views. Will importance really be attached to that
individual? God only knows. The environmental groups will be
able to have their say and provincial ministers of the environment
will be considered on the same footing as any individual coming to
make a representation. This makes absolutely no sense. There is
constant talk of partnership, harmonization, sustainable
development, protecting our ecosystem, but I do not consider that
to be a partnership. I would call it a source of conflict.
A situation of conflict will be created with the provinces,
perhaps even with the municipalities. With this bill the interference
could reach as far as the municipal level. In other words, if the
minister decides he is not satisfied with a municipality's waste
water treatment system whose effluents go into a river or a lake,
which in turn release their waters into the ocean, he can say:
``Change all your waste water treatment systems, because they are
not up to our standards and affect the fish in our oceans.''
I think the government is getting into jurisdictions that are
already very much protected and work very well. I fail to see why
the minister should have additional authority over areas we have
been managing for years and that have been managed by the
municipalities which are already supervised by the provinces. We
do not need federal supervision on top of that. It is very disturbing
that this bill gives no indication that the municipalities will be
consulted as well. The government says it has the right to assume
that authority.
We believe it is necessary to clearly identify an oceans
management strategy-this is extremely important-but this
strategy should be effective and not a source of conflict. The
provinces should be made part of the decision-making process
leading up to the formulation of the strategy. The minister should
go back to the drawing board and table a strategy that specifies the
responsibilities of all partners involved, without creating further
overlap between federal and provincial departments. We have said
this repeatedly here in the House, and I do not know whether
anyone is listening, but it tends to be forgotten. Not only forgotten
but ignored.
I would like to say a few words about something that concerns
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the
Environment and the conflict situation we had this summer. If they
cannot avoid a conflict between departments at the federal level,
imagine what it will be like when we get to the provinces and the
municipalities. This makes no sense at all. The government could
never enforce a decent piece of legislation. There is no way.
This summer we had the experience with the Irving Whale. The
environment minister made a decision that we did not support,
which was extremely risky and kept the people of the Magdalen
Islands on edge all summer, and I must say I felt like that myself.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now in charge of the case.
Is it because the minister did not do her job? I wonder.
And now we have a similar situation. In the case of the Irving
Whale last summer, work was suspended because the courts made
that decision. The minister had announced publicly and to the
media that she would decide Monday morning whether she would
stop the work or not.
(1335)
The same day, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was also
telling the media that, definitely, no decision would be made; that
the decision would be made on Friday and the ship would be raised
on Friday. Is this not departmental conflict? Who is not doing their
job?
We do not need situations like this, and, moreover, when they
involve danger, as in the case of the Irving Whale, we cannot make
decisions just so we can be in the limelight or in the news or so we
look good. We have to make logical decisions. We have to make
environmental decisions, even if the cost is greater, because the
risks of environmental dangers are high. We know very well that
PCBs are getting into the ocean and that they will be around for
hundreds and hundreds of years to come. We are destroying our
marine ecosystem. We have to stop this sort of thing in areas that
are as important as the environment.
Throughout the entire process, the minister is under no legal
obligation to agree with other federal or provincial departments. In
most cases, he may, if he wishes, ask for help from other
authorities. It is both unacceptable and inconceivable that the
minister does not have to work with the officials of the Department
of the Environment, in particular, and with other departments, in
general. There must not be any dictatorship. You cannot arrive in a
department and declare that you are going to run the whole show.
This sort of thing has to be done with harmony, but up to now I
have seen no sign of harmonization in this House. I have never seen
any. So imagine what it will be like when we run into conflict.
With positions being cut and some restraint to be exercised in
public spending, the minister is creating duplication right within
the federal government. What is more, the new powers of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusive, because they
are not taking away from powers already in the hands of other
ministers and stakeholders. So we may well see competition and
overlap in connection with the standards and fines to be applied,
priorities and the approaches taken.
14877
Last year, on the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, we worked for a year revising the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. While reviewing
this law, we realized on several occasions that there were many
problems and that it overlapped a lot with the Fisheries Act.
How come the minister, who I think is not yet aware of this fact
otherwise she would have answered us or she would have told us in
committee what she knew about this report, has not read the report
and made a decision yet? How do you explain the fact that the
minister of fisheries has now come up with a bill after the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
worked on this issue for a year and gave the minister constructive
suggestions regarding the environment? Why is the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans doing her job? I do not understand; this is not
clear at all in my head.
I am asking the Minister of the Environment to keep party
politics out of this department, which is, in my opinion, the most
important department here in this Parliament. This department
should not be partisan. It should always focus on the ecosystem, on
sustainable development. It should always make decisions for the
future of our children, of Canada, of Quebec, and not partisan
decisions.
I would like to conclude my remarks by mentioning that a
sovereign Quebec would give priority to the environment. If you
ask Quebecers what importance they give the environment, they
will give it top priority after health because they are aware that, if
the environment is not protected, we will have no future. We will
have no drinking water.
(1340)
Sure, we will always have problems but we must give priority to
environmental issues. In this regard, the minister simply did not do
her homework. She should go back and do her homework. I would
like to see Bill C-98 referred to the environment committee. You
would see that there would be many proposed amendments to this
bill.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's motto is a mari usque ad mare, from sea to sea. It may be
that Bloc members are upset because the title of the bill before us is
an Act respecting ``the'' oceans of Canada. Had we used the
singular, Bloc members might be happier today.
Canada is bordered by the Pacific ocean, which gives us access
to all sorts of foreign markets. It is important that Parliament pass
the act respecting ``the'' oceans as quickly as possible. No, that
legislation should certainly not be postponed to a later date.
As you know, some people always want to postpone everything.
In the last few days, we even heard some say that the referendum
should be postponed. The fact is that the referendum date must not
be postponed, and nor should the review of the Oceans Act. We
must put an end to uncertainty and we must do so in the best
interests of Canada. As the hon. member for Laurentides just
mentioned, we must make the best possible decisions for the future
of both Canada and Quebec. This is why we are here.
Federal-provincial considerations are a major component of this
bill. Earlier, the member for Laurentides said that the proposed
partnership agreements could be a source of conflict. It goes
without saying that if you want to separate, partnership agreements
are indeed very difficult to implement and can lead to conflict.
However, if we want to get along, co-operate and reach
agreements, anything is possible and partnership is definitely the
best option for Canada today.
I want to ask a question to the member for Laurentides,
regarding federal-provincial relations. Does the hon. member know
that the act allows for the implementation of guidelines on the
quality of the marine environment, as well as-and I want to
overlook her comments on the sources of conflict-the reaching of
partnership agreements with other interested persons or groups? Is
the hon. member for Laurentides aware of the importance of
federal-provincial relations in that regard?
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, once again I have a flagrant example
of the member for Brome-Missisquoi's using environmental
issues for reasons of petty partisan politics. Nothing surprising
about that; that is his usual way of doing things.
Yes, there will be a referendum in Quebec, and it has nothing at
all to do with this bill. We are talking about a statute. Here in this
House today the Minister also has made a highly patriotic speech,
and when such questions are asked, do not try to tell me that the
problem of an unworkable bill will be solved. Not in the least.
I have not spoken of the referendum, I have spoken of a bill that
we feel is unworkable. It will not work between departments and it
will cause conflicts between federal departments. Imagine what
will happen when it gets down to the provincial level. What we
have here is a bill that needs to be redone. It has been badly drafted.
(1345)
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has given himself all sorts
of powers not even within his jurisdiction. This should be handled
by Environment.
I strongly believe that the member for Brome-Missisquoi
should study the environment a little more. It could not do any
harm. Second, this is not a matter for partisan politics but truly a
matter in which there are problems, one that is unclear, that has
been dumped on the House and is unfamiliar to us, this Bill C-98. I
reiterate my demand that it be studied in the Department of the
Environment, so that we can find out where it is headed. Let the
Minister of the Environment do her homework for once and let her
14878
ensure that decisions affecting the Department of the Environment
are made in conjunction with her department. When true
environmental decisions are involved, let it be the Minister of the
Environment who makes those decisions, and not the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. It is Environment that possesses the
environmental expertise, not Fisheries and Oceans.
This is totally senseless. Why dump one's duties onto someone
else? This is totally senseless. We are prepared, our consciousness
is raised, very much so I believe, we are prepared to address this
matter, to look at what can be done to ensure that it heads in the
right direction, but not this way.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address some of the concerns of the hon. member.
Some of the points she has made about the environment are very
important. I have made these points in the past about how
important the environment is, how important it is for our future
generations.
I know she is concerned about the environment. I know that
when she has an opportunity to really have a close look at this bill
she will understand that it is very important for the environment. I
know she is concerned about the duties of the Minister of the
Environment. I can assure her that the Minister of the Environment
would be willing to bring forward new ideas if she thought this in
any way would impede upon her work as the Minister of the
Environment.
This bill will in fact create more opportunities for our coastal
communities. Contrary to what the hon. member says, this will
have no effect on provincial rights. In fact this approach is an
integrated approach. The National Advisory Board on Science and
Technology recommended this. It looked at it. We have to heed
some of those recommendations. As we are often told by members
on the opposite side, we as the government have to listen to some
of the advisory boards we have. Should we reject what the National
Advisory Board on Science and Technology said when it said we
need an integrated approach, we need a better approach? I know
she will want to support the idea of putting in protected marine
areas.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might ask the
parliamentary secretary for clarification. Following the
intervention of the hon. member for Laurentides we were on
questions and comments and not on debate. I wonder if he could
clarify if he is engaging in debate or question and comment.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I am going to proceed to my question, Mr.
Speaker.
The hon. member has noted how important the environment is. I
agree with her that the fundamentals of the bill talk about
sustainable environment, about protected marine areas and about
managing our ecosystem. Are they not important for the
environment, as she has said?
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is running out.
The secretary of state for fisheries and oceans said there was no
likelihood of interference with provincial jurisdictions. But I have
here a short text that says that the main source of contamination in
coastal areas is not disposal at sea but urban waste water, urban and
agricultural run-off, industrial waste, urban waste, uncontrolled
dumping and erosion.
This bill will open the door wide to interference in jurisdictions
that are provincial and municipal as well.
(1350)
If the government starts creating conflict situations-and I refer
not only to Quebec, but to provinces like New Brunswick and
British Columbia that are already concerned, want to protect their
coastal areas and their fisheries and say they want more powers in
this area-if the government starts interfering again, the result will
be chaos. The environment does not need that.
I think anyone who, like the parliamentary secretary, is
concerned about the environment should realize that we do not
need further concentration of powers in Ottawa but more powers
for the provinces which are closer to their ecosystems than the
federal government and could play a far more important role than
they do at the present time by assuming all authority over this area.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to support Bill C-98, the Canadian Oceans Act. The
provisions contained in the legislation will be of tremendous
benefit to all Canadians. Most especially, they will bring new
opportunity to those Canadians who live and work in our coastal
regions. It is this economic opportunity I wish to focus on today.
Canada is such a large country that it is easy to overlook the fact
that Canada is one of the world's great maritime nations. Our
shores are bordered by three oceans: the Arctic, the Atlantic, and
the Pacific. Our coastline is the longest in the world. We have the
world's largest archipelago, the world's longest inland waterway,
and the world's second-largest continental shelf.
All this is about to get bigger in terms of doing a lot more out to
the 200-mile limit. Under the terms of the 1992 United Nations
convention on the law of the sea, which came into force in
November last year, Canada can turn its 200-mile fishing zone into
a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. This gives us the right to
extend Canadian economic environmental jurisdiction over almost
14879
five million square kilometres of coastal and ocean territory. The
result is oceans of opportunity: opportunity to better protect our
oceans' fragile resources, opportunity to strengthen our historic
fisheries, and opportunity to channel creative energy towards a new
ocean industry that can enhance the economic potential of our
coastal communities.
This is an opportunity our government recognized as essential
for our future, and it is an opportunity our government intends to
act upon to secure jobs and economic growth for all Canadians.
For centuries the wealth of our oceans has sustained hundreds of
communities, large and small, all along our Pacific, Atlantic, and
Arctic coasts. In each region an entire culture and identity has been
built around the exploitation of our ocean resources and maritime
economy, especially around the three pillars of fishing,
transportation, and tourism. However, in recent years these
traditional activities have been supplemented by an increasing
variety of new ocean-related industries, each with its own success
story.
For instance, with our world demand for protein from fish on the
rise, aquaculture has become one of the fastest growing industries
in Canada. With successful operations on both our east and west
coasts, aquaculture revenues reached $280 million in 1993.
At the same time, firms such as Geo-Resources, International
Submarine Engineering, and others are leading the way in
developing and applying high technology to oceans management
and exploration. In Atlantic, Pacific, and central Canada, firms
specializing in remote sensing, computerized geographic imaging,
cold water technology, offshore and coastal engineering, and new
sectors are creating thriving new enterprises capable of competing
in the changing global marketplace.
(1355)
Furthermore, we are now realizing the promise of ocean energy
exploration and development. After years of patience and
investment, the Cohasset oil field to the southeast of Nova Scotia
came onstream in June 1992. The giant Hibernia oil field off the
coast of Newfoundland is scheduled to go into commercial
production in 1997. Just this year, there have been new discoveries
in Newfoundland itself.
These are all positive developments. What is more, they come
not a moment too soon. Canadians cannot escape the fact that our
oceans are under increasing stress from such factors as overfishing,
marine and land based sources of pollution, and longer term
phenomena such as global warming.
The collapse of our Atlantic groundfish industry has left some
40,000 Canadians out of work. While lobster, crab, and scallop
fisheries are prospering, the Pacific salmon fishery is requiring
closer and more careful management than ever.
Clearly it is time to protect our marine environment and further
diversify our marine economies. Our government has recognized
both of these needs and we are taking action. We have acted in the
international arena to strengthen the protection of straddling and
highly migratory stocks. We have taken strong international action
against overfishing and we are strictly enforcing fishing
moratoriums on commercial fish stocks to give these resources a
chance to rebuild.
These are just first steps. We need to back these up with an
integrated and comprehensive approach to ocean management that
emphasizes environmental conservation as its first priority. We
need to accelerate and develop our ocean industry strategies so that
our coastal economies will be able to diversify and prosper in the
new global economy.
The Speaker: My colleague, it goes without saying that you will
have the floor immediately following question period.
It being 2 p.m., we will go to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
14879
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians we have always prided ourselves
on having three levels of government: federal, provincial and
territorial, and municipal. In my opinion, and I am sure in the
opinion of many members of the House, municipal governments
have not been given the national recognition they deserve. In
Canada we are very fortunate to live in a nation where municipal
governments work toward providing decent standards of every day
life.
Today we welcome the 36 reeves and the staff of Renfrew county
council. They held the first ever county council meeting on
Parliament Hill. I invited them here to hold one of their regular
sessions as a gesture of appreciation for their work and to remind
all Canadian citizens of the importance of their individual
municipal governments.
Let us move ahead with a united Canada and a continued
dedication by all levels of government.
14880
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said yesterday in
Sherbrooke: ``After October 30, we will offer Quebec various
arrangements in many areas''. What kind of arrangements is he
referring to? What miraculous offer would the federal government,
which stubbornly refused to go along with the unanimous
consensus among Quebec stakeholders on the manpower training
issue, extend to us? Why did this government so abruptly shut
down the military college in Saint-Jean last year, if Ottawa is
prepared to offer a compromise solution after October 30?
Is the ax that will fall on the unemployed after October 30
included in these arrangements? The people of Quebec want to
know why the Prime Minister of Canada wants to ``clobber them''
before announcing his proposed compromises. It seems obvious to
me that this government is confusing compromise with revenge.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, equality, democracy and peace were the themes of the
fourth UN conference on women recently held in Beijing. Just what
was advanced by our Canadian delegation? Not equality but gender
equality that put feminist issues above all other considerations in
government policy and direction and called for a social revolution
based on a new definition of gender, affirmative action and sexual
and reproductive rights.
Not equality, but a blatant refusal to speak against the most basic
human rights abuses. That our minister would declare no problem
after counting an equal number of heads in a preschool is an insult
to the sensibilities of Canadians.
Not democracy, as our delegation put forward a token
representation of MPs, senators and academics. Instead Canadians
were represented by bureaucrats with no accountability for policies
that had no public input. Not peace, but division with over 500
actions to be taken by the government. This agenda will drive a
wedge between women and men, families, religion and custom.
Canada's position at this conference was nothing but a sham.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
van line owners are very distressed about a new tendering process
that has been put forward by the Department of National Defence
which will radically change how government contracts out moving
services in Canada.
The present tendering system ensures each local or regional
moving company shares in the winning contracts by matching the
lowest bid, thus everyone gets a piece of the pie. The new proposed
tendering process will allow one bidder to take all, with tenders
open to anyone in any country, thus creating a monopoly.
If allowed to proceed, this new moving tendering process could
destroy much of Canada's moving industry. Atlantic Canada will
lose approximately 2,500 jobs.
Atlantic Canada cannot afford to lose any more. I ask the
government to stop this proposed new tendering process before
jobs are lost and an industry is destroyed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to announce the opening of General Motors
Place, in my riding of Vancouver East.
[English]
Last week international recording superstar Bryan Adams, a
Vancouverite, opened GM Place. Home of the Vancouver Canucks
and the Vancouver Grizzlies, General Motors Place is the most
highly advanced sports and entertainment complex in North
America.
General Motors Place is truly the eighth wonder of the world,
with excellent viewing, luxurious seating for 20,000 and state of
the art sound. GM Place has one of three diamond vision
scoreboards in North America. With four giant video boards, it
offers the highest resolution colour technology in the world.
[Translation]
General Motors Place has already created 250 jobs and will soon
create another 1,000 full and part time jobs. GM Place was
completed in 20 months and immediately became one of
Vancouver's largest and most important buildings.
The people of Vancouver are pleased to be able to count on
entrepreneurs like Arthur Griffiths, John Mcaw and Orca Bay
Sports and Entertainment, who gave them a great building like GM
Place.
Congratulations to all.
14881
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
constituents write to members of the House they do not write
without meaning. They write with passion, with reason and
frequently with pain.
Recently a woman from a Toronto women's centre wrote to an
hon. member of the other place to voice her support for Bill C-68.
In her letter she pointed out gun related violence adds $70 million a
year to Canada's health care bill.
That person responded by saying the firearms industry is worth
more than $1 billion per year to the Canadian economy and that the
GST alone ought to cover the health care costs.
At what level do we value a bullet over an arm or a leg? At what
level do we value a trigger over a breath? At what level do we value
a barrel of a gun over the life of a daughter or a son?
Bill C-68 is not based on economic gain. It is based on the value
of life, the value of Canadians and the value of a country which is
not rooted in a culture of violence or a culture of guns.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth world conference on women has recently
concluded with the ratification of a solid agenda for the equality
and advancement of women within the United Nations.
In a great spirit of co-operation between 180 nations, a general
agreement on the platform for action was reached in an effort to
achieve social, political and economic equality for women around
the world.
(1405 )
This agreement includes the protection of women from violence
in the home and in society, women's rights as human rights,
freedom of expression, equal rights to female children, control over
our health, alleviation of poverty and improvements to education.
Canada was instrumental in the negotiation process and in
bringing about the ratification of a progressive platform for action.
I commend the leadership of the secretary of state responsible
for the status of women and I applaud the work and contributions of
all the women from across Canada who represented our country so
successfully.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these
past few days, Quebecers have had a foretaste of the arrogant and
contemptuous tone the federalist side intends to use throughout the
referendum campaign. When federalist spokespersons are not
calling politicians elected by the people of Quebec traitors, they
believe they have been vested with the mission of crushing once
and for all any resistance from Quebec.
The No side uses a mean and arrogant tone that reveals their
desire to crush and clobber their opponents. They think that, if they
are defeated, the claims, ideas and hopes they represent will
disappear with them.
As Lise Bissonnette wrote this morning in Le Devoir, the real
strategist of the No side, the Prime Minister, has always wanted to
put an end to Quebec's claims, hence the War Measures Act, the
fight against Bill 101, the 1982 Constitution, the opposition to even
the slightest demands of Quebec in the Meech Lake Accord and,
now, the refusal to make any offer to Quebec. For the Prime
Minister, even moderate nationalism, as practised by Robert
Bourassa, Claude Ryan and even Daniel Johnson, is to be knocked
down and crushed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on August 24 the Saskatchewan Chiefs of Police
Association reported that 100 per cent of the chiefs of police in that
province are opposed to the planned gun registry. On August 22, I
released the results of a survey showing that 91 per cent of RCMP
officers in Saskatchewan are also opposed to the registration
system. Last week a similar survey in Alberta showed that 85 per
cent of RCMP officers opposed it.
With such overwhelming opposition from police chiefs and
police on the street how can the justice minister still claim he is
bringing in the firearm registration system because police are
requesting it?
Between December 1994 and July 1995 Environics reported that
support for a law requiring all firearms to be registered had
dropped from 90 per cent to just 60 per cent. Public opinion polls
show support for Bill C-68 dropping like a spent bullet. By the time
the Senate is done reviewing it support will be below 50 per cent.
How far does support for his bogus bill have to drop before the
justice-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
14882
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
appears from a presentation made to the program review
committee on the human resources investment fund by the Minister
of Human Resources Development that the government strategy is
to prepare Canadians for the transition to a low wage economy.
The government is now talking about making targeted earnings
supplements of a few thousand dollars for a year or so to encourage
or coerce, as the case may be, unemployed high wage earners into
accepting lower paid jobs.
The Liberals say they want to help workers adjust financially and
psychologically to the new situation. What the Liberals are really
saying to a lot of Canadians is: ``Welcome to the post-NAFTA low
wage economy where your children, no matter how much
education they receive, should not expect to have the same standard
of living as you''.
Canadian wages are being driven to the bottom as part of the
multinational corporate agenda which the Liberals are capitulating
to at the same time as they attack the social wage of these same
Canadians. This is not what the Liberals promised in 1993. They
lied about free trade and now they are preparing Canadians to
adjust to the way free trade-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: It is always better for us to be prudent in the
language we use. In this context the word ``lied'' was not directed
at any one member. I hope this term will not be used in the House.
The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to share a message
of Canadian unity from a constituent of my riding, Mr. David
Austin St-Amour.
[Translation]
Austin Saint-Amour is a singer-songwriter as well as a pilot in
his own helicopter business. Combining his talents, he conveys the
message of Canadian unity in a song and video entitled
``Envolons-nous ensemble-Let's keep flying together''.
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Austin St-Amour combines Canada's beautiful scenery with
a simple message through a song of pride and love for our country
to create a powerful message of Canadian unity.
[Translation]
Like him, let us be proud to show our love for our country. Long
live our united Canada.
* * *
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Saturday night in Orford, in the beautiful riding of
Brome-Missisquoi, where in a by-election held almost nine
months ago voters said No to separation, the Governor General of
Canada, the Hon. Roméo LeBlanc, became an honourary member
of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the Diocese of Sherbrooke.
In fact, as the Director General of the Société, Marcel Bureau,
told me, ``Our Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste is federalist. The pride
we have always felt as Quebecers never prevented us from being
deeply attached to Canada''.
Members of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Sherbrooke are
proud to be both Canadians and Quebecers. Mr. Bureau, on behalf
of all Canadians represented in this House, I take my hat off to you.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today, most major daily newspapers in Quebec feature
advertisements bought and paid for by the Quebec sovereignty
council about the future of the French language after the
referendum.
As could be expected, the sovereignty council predicts a very
dark future for the French language should the No side win, but
wonderful days ahead should the Yes side win.
Last week, the BQ member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
dispensed the same medicine to francophones outside Quebec, and
I quote: ``You should realize that a No vote in Quebec would spell
the end of French Canada both within and outside Quebec''. The
French language is alive and well within Canada and will remain so
after October 30, because Quebecers will say No to those who have
nothing to offer but fear and threats.
* * *
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, ``You have your pensions and you will keep them''. That
comment was made yesterday to a group of seniors by the Minister
of Foreign Affairs. Should these people rest assured following that
statement? No, Mr. Speaker, because the minister did not dare tell
them the whole truth concerning old age pensions. The minister did
not mention that the last budget contains this statement, and I
14883
quote: ``Later this year, a paper on the changes required in the
public pension system will be released''.
Who can deny that the government intends to bring in changes?
Moreover, the minister refused to tell these seniors whether the
amount of old age pensions and the eligibility levels would be
maintained. Misinformation and manipulation, this is what the
minister's statement is all about. Seniors want to know the truth.
They want to know before the referendum what Ottawa has in store
for them.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a no vote does not mean status quo. A no vote means that
Quebec will co-operate with all the other provinces to give a better
federation to Canadians from every region.
Just like a good chess player plans his moves, we urge Quebecers
to look at their situation before the referendum and to give serious
thought to what will happen after they have voted no.
We give Quebecers the best possible reason to vote no, that is a
combination of all the benefits of Canadian unity, along with a
mandate to reduce the federal government's powers. We believe
that these powers should rest more closely with Canadians and that
Ottawa must stop monopolizing them.
Again, Mr. Speaker, a no vote does not mean the status quo.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bloc members are resorting to the
scaremongering tactics of Quebec's separatists.
Indeed, we learned that the Bloc member for La Prairie began
using such tactics on the elderly as early as last March.
(1415)
In an interview with the weekly Le Reflet régional, the Bloc
member said: ``It is not Quebec's sovereignty which threatens the
income of seniors; the danger for old age pensions comes from the
federal government. Such is the price to be paid if we vote no at the
next referendum''.
These comments by a member of Parliament are both
irresponsible and shameful. They also show the weakness of the
separatists' arguments. Stop using such silly scaremongering
tactics. Quebecers are not interested in separating and they will
vote no on October 30.
14883
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development
tried to play down the existence and importance of a document
from his office dealing with his proposals for unemployment
insurance reform.
This morning, the official opposition released a letter from the
Canadian Labour Congress which shows that Canada's labour
unions are taking very seriously the threat to the unemployment
insurance system represented by the minister's reform. The CLC
sent its members an analysis of the devastating repercussions of the
new cuts in unemployment insurance being prepared by the
minister.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Instead of putting
his tape on replay, would he admit that the new cuts his government
has decided to postpone after the referendum will have the effect of
denying two out of every three unemployed workers access to
unemployment insurance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is not
true. We do not intend to do as he claims.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and the government are playing
down the apprehensions and concerns we are seeing in labour
circles across Canada, not just in Quebec. This time, the alarm was
sounded by the Canadian Labour Congress which represents all
unions in Canada.
I want to ask him whether he would confirm an analysis by the
CLC which says that the new cuts in unemployment insurance will
come down hard on seasonal and part time workers who will have
to work twice as many hours for twice as many weeks to be eligible
for reduced benefits. Does the government want to crush them as
well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, we
have had a chance to discuss this for months. A green paper on the
subject was tabled a year ago. We have consulted with the
committees of the House of Commons, the public, the Canadian
Labour Congress and many other institutions. Representations are
being made, and ultimately we will have a bill that will be tabled in
Parliament. As in the case of every other bill, there will probably be
amendments, and these will be either supported or rejected by hon.
members. And we will know the result at that time.
14884
What we are trying to do? We are trying to make sure that the
reforms we need in Canada will give workers access to jobs.
Everyone wants us to make changes in the unemployment
insurance system. We clearly identified these in the budget, we
have been discussing them for a year and a half here in the House,
and in time reforms will be introduced. The minister is still
working on his bill, and in November or December the Leader of
the Opposition, provided he is still in the House, will have an
opportunity to raise any questions he wants and make any
appropriate suggestions, and the government will consider these
before the final vote on the bill.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, whether or not the Leader of the Opposition
will still be in the House is not up to him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Second, the reason we have these never ending
debates on unemployment insurance reform is that the government
does not have the courage to table its reform proposals, and people
are concerned because of these documents from the minister's
office-and he did not deny that; he admitted it was
true-announcing horrendous cuts.
Would the Prime Minister have the courage to tell us today that
he will table the reform before the Quebec referendum?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will table what should be tabled in Parliament when
the reform is ready. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to scare
everyone. Unemployment insurance reform will apply to all
Canadians, not just to Quebecers.
Now the opposition is trying to scare people. This morning they
said senior citizens were in trouble. They are trying to scare
Quebecers on the language issue. The opposition's scaremongering
continues. We are getting one scare a day. We have 34 days left, so
we can expect 34 more during that time.
I simply want to say that we will keep doing what we have
decided to do, which is to act responsibly as the government of this
country, provide for good government, put the country on a sound
financial footing and create jobs to restore the dignity of workers in
our society. It is by providing good government for the people of
Quebec that we will make them very happy to vote for Canada on
October 30, by voting No to separation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, listening
to the Prime Minister talk of a campaign of terror is a bit like
hearing the bogey man accusing someone else of being scary, or the
pot calling the kettle black.
An hon. member: Something he knows all about.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: To the man who has made the threats of the
bogey man his stock in trade, the Canadian Labour Congress
analysis-not the analysis by the Bloc, although it does reach the
same conclusions-says that ``the main tools are training vouchers,
training loans, wage subsidies, income supplements and daycare
vouchers. These new approaches to program delivery will enable
the federal government to bypass the provinces and deal with
individuals directly''.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he acknowledge that
the Canadian Labour Congress analysis confirms his government's
intentions, the federal government's intentions, to interfere even
more in the areas over which the government of Quebec has
exclusive jurisdiction, in total disregard of the consensus that exists
throughout Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to begin by asking
the hon. member to stop for a moment and ask himself about what
he has been saying. He has taken a piece of paper prepared by the
Canadian Labour Congress speculating on what it thinks might be
some time in the future the proposals of the federal government and
now declares that to be the reform.
I deny totally the kind of conclusions the Canadian Labour
Congress has put forward because frankly it does not know what it
is talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it will be
noted that the Minister has referred to the analysis of a document
originating with his office which he refuses to table before this
House. He ought perhaps to remember that. This report also states
that the objectives of the human resources development fund are
fairly clear, namely to establish a program structure and a system
of implementation which eliminate any need for provincial consent
or participation.
Will he acknowledge that, if he is deliberately putting off tabling
his human resources reform, his unemployment insurance reform,
the reason is that it comes down so terribly hard upon the
unemployed, because it invades as never before the areas over
which the government of Quebec has jurisdiction, and because this
would be the price Quebecers would have to pay for a no in the
referendum, if ever they should vote no and allow the minister to
do as he pleases?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon.
member, there must be
14885
a new slogan for the Bloc Quebecois which is, separation by words
of desperation.
The reality is that once again the hon. member is making a
fundamental fallacy. He is taking conclusions from the Canadian
Labour Congress. It may be that the Canadian Labour Congress
wants to deny co-operation with the provinces. It may be that the
Canadian Labour Congress wants to cut these kinds of programs. It
may be its analysis that this is what should be done with the UI
system but it is not ours.
(1425)
We have worked very hard over this past year. We have met
consistently with the provinces and local communities. The whole
thrust of the reform is to decentralize, to get real programs at the
local level so people can tailor and design employment programs to
fit the needs of those communities. That is what we are trying to
do. That is the real meaning. It is not to turn power over to other
bureaucracies but to give the power back to the people to choose
how they want to get back to work.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for two years the provinces and Ottawa through the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment have been
discussing ways to harmonize environmental management in
Canada. These talks have been progressing toward a framework
agreement to rationalize responsibilities and eliminate costly
overlap and duplication. But recently the federal Minister of the
Environment pulled the plug on this process, refusing to proceed on
an agreement that would have been a significant victory for the
environment and for federal-provincial relations.
Will the Minister of the Environment table the draft
environmental management framework agreement negotiated with
the provinces and let the House and the people of Canada decide
whether or not it should proceed?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party
exhibits his ignorance on environmental issues when he says that.
There were 11 annexes-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the reason I took a few seconds is my
own fault. I was distracted and apologize to the House for that.
After having what was said explained to me, I will go on to the
second question of the member for Calgary Southwest. Once again
colleagues, I would urge you to be very judicious in the use of your
language.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, of course we did not get an answer to the first question but
we could see where it was headed.
There are two sides to this story and it is particularly important
that the side of the provinces be known in the House. The Alberta
government believes the minister deliberately scuttled the
agreement because of an unfounded fear that somehow the federal
government's role in the environment might be weakened, a fear of
decentralization. This was despite the fact that every province was
prepared to recognize in writing the need for a strong federal
presence.
Why does the government consistently reject every provincial
attempt to streamline government services, harmonize regulation
and eliminate costly red tape if those attempts include any
significant element of decentralization?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were 11 annexes in the
environmental management framework agreement. The federal
government is prepared to proceed with 10 of those annexes. The
reason the annexes were not put forward to the public was that the
provincial governments led by the province of Alberta refused to
publish those 10 annexes.
(1430)
I will quote what the minister of the environment said about the
role of the federal government under his vision for Alberta. He
said: ``You can have the national parks and the Indians. We want to
look after all the rest''.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the environmental management fiasco is a symptom of a
deeper problem with the government. There are too many old style
ministers who cling to the obsolete notion that any change in
federal-provincial relations is to be resisted if it includes any
element of decentralization.
The Minister of Health resisted when we talked about
decentralizing the financing of health care. The Minister of Human
Resources Development resisted in his department and now the
Minister of the Environment resists an agreement unless it makes
Ottawa the centre of the universe.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he not send a
clear signal to all Canadians and all provinces that Ottawa is
prepared to accept the principle of decentralization? Why does he
not send it by removing those ministers who consistently obstruct
the implementation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since I became the Minister
of the Environment I have signed environmental agreements with
every province including the province of Alberta.
14886
I would ask whether the public believes there is a national role
to play for a national government. When we are talking, for
example about automobiles, does it make sense to have 10
standards for 10 provinces? Or would it make much more sense
to the Canadian consumer to have one national standard for
vehicle emissions? There is a way of doing things logically, not
through the knee-jerk decentralization being proposed by the
leader of the third party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. While the budget announced
additional cuts of over $1.5 billion on the backs of the unemployed,
the unemployment insurance account was heading toward a surplus
of nearly $5 billion for 1995 alone. We must not forget that the
government has not put a penny in the unemployment insurance
fund since 1991. Worse yet, Ottawa is using the account surplus to
fund new intrusions into training.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that increasing the
unemployment insurance fund surplus by cutting benefits to the
unemployed and using this surplus to fund new federal intrusions
into manpower training is totally disgusting?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an
important question about the application of the UI surplus.
The UI fund is set up over the period of the business cycle to be
self-financing. In those periods when there is a recession or a heavy
draw on the UI fund, the government finances the UI system, as we
had to do during the late eighties and early nineties in the previous
government when the fund went into a deficit of close to $11
billion.
We are now simply paying off that deficit, but the government
had to finance it through its own borrowing during that period of
time. When the economy improves, as it is now doing under this
administration, we begin to build up a surplus-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Did I hear a loud
voice in support of that notion?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): It is clear that over
the life of the business cycle it is important to make sure there is a
reserve in the UI fund so that we will not run into a position as the
previous government did, of which the Leader of the Opposition
was a member, where all of a sudden it dropped premium rates and
then had to jack them way up. As a result, it made the recession
even worse.
I remind the hon. member that she was a member of a committee
of the House of Commons that looked at the whole UI question and
recommended: ``The UI account be permitted to accumulate a
surplus to accommodate changes in premium rates over the
business cycle''. That was a recommendation of a committee in
which the hon. member was a full participant.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should have read the minority report. While there has been
no net job creation in the past eight months, the government has
insisted on repayment of $6 billion in less than two years creating a
surplus this year of $5 billion, which is being used to impose
decisions and guidelines on the provinces that they do not want.
How can the Prime Minister use the money from cuts made to
the unemployed to get round the provinces, going over their heads,
in order to impose its views directly on organizations and
individuals? If he says this is not true, let him table his reform.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts in her
question the idea that there has been no major change in
employment or unemployment rates in the country.
I point out that since the government came into office the
unemployment rate in the constituency of Mercier, which the hon.
member represents, has dropped by 4.5 per cent. What will put in
danger the thousands of jobs we created in the hon. member's
riding is if Quebec decides to separate, which it will not do. The
threat and uncertainty of the separation movement endangers job
creation for Canada and Quebec. If the hon. member really wants to
protect jobs in her riding, she would vote no in the coming
referendum.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
weeks ago the government said that a yes vote was a one-way ticket
to separation. Last week the government refused to say that yes
means yes and accused the Reform Party of being disloyal for
suggesting the government make the consequences of a yes vote
clear.
Today the finance minister said in Quebec that a yes vote would
mean ``the certain destruction of Quebec's economic and political
partnership with Canada''.
14887
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government now
prepared to be clear to Quebecers that this referendum is a yes
or a no to separation and that the no side must win for Quebecers
to enjoy the benefits of Confederation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance was clear in the very good
speech he made today explaining the consequences of a no vote for
the economy of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is also for the Prime Minister.
Did the government explain that its statements regarding a
political and economic union are not a threat but represent the best
interests of the rest of Canada; that Canada will never allow a
foreign country to become involved in this Parliament, in its
monetary policy, in its equalization payments; and that, if Quebec
votes No, it will become a foreign country like any other?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is what we have always maintained. What the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are proposing is Quebec's
separation, except that they are trying to hide this behind all kinds
of words designed to obscure the truth.
They tried to come up with what they said was a winning
question, but look at the confusion they have created. A third of the
people who say they will vote Yes think Quebec will remain a
Canadian province after separation. That is what poll takers are
reporting today.
They should be completely honest and tell Quebecers that they
are separatists. They know full well that Quebecers will vote to stay
in Canada. I know that, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it
too because, as recently as last March, he was saying: ``We must
change the question because if we tell the truth, we cannot win; we
need a winning question''. Quebecers can now see through the
opposition leader's game.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Yesterday in the House the minister stated that he was going to
follow the recommendations of the task force on seasonal work.
(1440)
Now, the key recommendation by that task force is to not create
two classes of unemployed persons through penalty clauses for
seasonal workers such as those in the minister's document which
were made public this past weekend.
Does the minister confirm the Canadian Labour Congress
analysis that he will be coming down heavily on seasonal and part
time workers by requiring ``twice as many weeks and hours of
work before they are eligible for benefits''.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated three or four
months ago, following publication of the report and looking at the
analysis of the seasonal works report, that we would not be
pursuing the notion of a two-tier system.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, seasonal workers are fed up with being treated like ping
pong balls by the federal government.
Is the minister aware that all the proposals for reform originating
within his department include direct attacks on seasonal workers in
Quebec and on what awaits them if they vote no in the referendum?
If you want to clear away this doubt once and for all, well then just
table your reform now.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was truly
in touch with various groups representing seasonal workers, he
would know that we have been consistently and constantly working
with them. We have had meetings with construction workers. We
have been taking a number of recommendations they have been
putting forward. We have worked on the sector councils which
represent agricultural workers. We have been working consistently
with them to get their recommendations.
The difference is that the hon. member takes a piece of paper put
forward by the CSN in Quebec and tries to treat it as the gospel
truth. Whereas our view is to sit down with the people who really
know what is going on, talk with them and get their
recommendations.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the health
minister's January 6 letter to the provinces she stated:
I am convinced that health care facilities providing medically necessary
services that operate outside the public system present a serious threat to
Canada's health care system.
Today reports say that she will allow those very same private
clinics.
Can we get a straight answer from the health minister on private
clinics? Is she for them or agin them?
14888
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member referred to my January 6, 1995 letter. That is
exactly the way I felt then, exactly the way I feel now, and exactly
the way our government feels about these clinics.
One of the beauties of medicare is that it provides equality of
access which is extremely important for all Canadians. We, the
Government of Canada, will continue to protect that access for
Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Health Act is very specific. The provinces must pay for all
medically necessary services. To have this changed, the Canada
Health Act would need to be modified. Is the minister finally
listening?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have always listened and listened very carefully.
However there is a difference between listening and doing things
which would destroy something very good. Medicare was built in
this country one step at a time. Some might even say one
two-by-four at a time.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Marleau: Some of us are builders and some of us seek to
destroy. The government will seek to continue to build.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
By once again limiting the access of the thousands of
unemployed to unemployment insurance, the minister's proposals
will result in more unemployed being pushed toward welfare. The
cuts he has made to unemployment insurance since 1994 have
forced 5,000 Quebec families to seek social assistance.
Will the minister acknowledge that the new proposals for cuts to
unemployment insurance analyzed by the Canadian Labour
Congress will heighten the move of thousands of unemployed from
unemployment insurance to welfare? Is that what awaits Quebec
workers the day after a no vote?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it has already been
made clear that I do not think very much of this document of the
Canadian Labour Congress. It is simply not based on any proper or
realistic analysis.
We have not decided yet exactly what the elements of our
proposal will be, so how they can go about speculating on what the
impacts will be is beyond me. I guess you need to be an economist
for the CLC to figure that out.
I want to make one point very clear to the hon. member about the
impacts. In the month of August, for which we have the most recent
statistics, we know that the welfare caseload in Quebec dropped by
13,000. One of the reasons is because we are making real headway
in getting people back to work. There were over 110,000 new jobs
created in Quebec during that period of time.
We still say that the best way to deal with poverty and the best
way to deal with unemployment is to help people get a job.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let us set the record straight about the number of people on
welfare in Quebec. Statistics provided by the Quebec department of
income security reveal that, in July 1995, there were 799,900
people on welfare; in August 1995, the figure was 799,400, 500
fewer; and, in September 1995, there were 800,100 people on
welfare in Quebec. So either the minister does not know how to
count or he spends his time inventing figures.
The Prime Minister, who always has the word honesty on the tip
of his tongue, should ask his minister to make use of this virtue in
tabling his famous document. What is preventing the minister from
acting honestly and openly?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): I know this might be a little delicate for the
hon. member, but if he is asking about the source of the figures I
would simply like to confirm that on April 27 the prime minister of
Quebec, the Hon. Jacques Parizeau, said that between April of 1994
and April 1995 the number of social assistance recipients in the
province of Quebec declined by 60,000.
If he wants to call into question the figures put forward by the
prime minister of Quebec, certainly he is simply following in the
footsteps of his leader, who seems to be always second guessing the
prime minister of Quebec.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
14889
Moody's has indicated that the credit ratings of Quebec and the
other provinces should be reviewed in the event of a yes vote.
What does the government think of Moody's analysis?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Moody's indicates that, in the event of a yes vote, the
credit ratings of Quebec and the other provinces should be
reviewed, suggesting that the cost of credit would increase in
Quebec and across Canada.
The conclusion is that the best way for Quebec to have a better
credit rating and therefore lower interest rates is for it to remain in
Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that
Melanie Carpenter was viciously raped and murdered by a violent
offender released by way of statutory requirement after serving
only two-thirds of his sentence. This means that government
legislation contributed to her death.
Will the Minister of Justice introduce legislation to amend the
law that allows criminals to be released after serving only
two-thirds of their sentence, as was the case in the Melanie
Carpenter situation?
(1450 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
legislation has been introduced in the House that deals with violent
offenders and with sentencing, and that is Bill C-45. The bill will
be debated at third reading tomorrow. I invite the hon. member to
be here to vote for the bill.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course that
was no answer to my question.
The Canadian Police Association has said that crime prevention
includes the reduction of opportunities to commit crimes. It has
also said that easy parole requirements provide violent offenders a
golden opportunity to reoffend.
Will the Minister of Justice amend the law to allow for the
assessment of violent offenders prior to release to determine their
likelihood of reoffending and allow them to be declared a
dangerous offender at the end of their sentence rather than at the
beginning, as is the case now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is not a Canadian who was
not touched and indeed angered by the tragic death of Melanie
Carpenter and by the other tragic deaths in recent months.
I met this morning with Melanie Carpenter's father. I had the
opportunity to speak directly to him to express my own anger and
as a parent of young children to identify with the sorrow he feels.
This government has been working steadily in its term in office
to strengthen the criminal justice system, to introduce DNA testing,
to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, and to provide mandatory
penitentiary terms for those using guns in the commission of a
crime.
When we introduced Bill C-41, which would encourage uniform
sentences in criminal courts in Canada and send the message that
violent crime must be punished harshly, the Reform Party voted
against it.
Let me simply say that if the hon. member and the members of
his party were genuinely interested in public safety instead of
exploiting personal tragedy for political gain in the short term, they
would work with us on the changes we intend, including changes to
deal with the high risk offenders in this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In his recent budget, the Minister of Finance clearly announced
old age pension reform, and I quote: ``That in turn requires reform
to ensure that the pension system is sustainable in the long term''.
Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly contradicted his
colleague by saying that Ottawa would definitely not touch old age
pensions.
In view of this flagrant contradiction by two senior ministers in
his cabinet, would the Prime Minister confirm clearly that the old
age pension reform is ready but will be put off until after the
referendum so seniors will not know the scope of the cuts that await
them?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made it very clear in the
budget statement that the government will do nothing to jeopardize
the security of our seniors who are on public pension plans.
What we did say was that in order to maintain the sustainability
of the Canada pension plan there has to be a review. As the hon.
member knows, there are substantial changes going on in the
demographics of this country. The CPP does not apply to Quebec,
but it has a relationship because the two pension plans have a
certain compatibility. We do want to have a public review before
the Minister of Finance meets with his provincial colleagues by the
end of the year. That is one reason it is very important that we be
able to get out for public view how the Canada pension plan itself
14890
can be revised and amended to ensure it maintains its
sustainability.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister contend that his government will not
touch old age pensions, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said
yesterday, when this same minister refused to make any
commitment on the amounts of the old age pensions and the
eligibility level, leaving it up to his colleague in finance to do so,
when the budget has clearly stated there will be a reform and cuts?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that
reform is going on constantly.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): May I amend that to
say that modernization is going on constantly? It is terrible how we
have debased the currency of the word ``reform''.
(1455)
I want to point out to the hon. member that we have brought in
legislation in the past in the House that makes it substantially easier
for pensioners to get their pensions without reapplying. We have
changed the delivery system so they can now get half-day service
when service used to take 13 or 14 days previously. All along we
have been making very significant and important changes for
seniors. I announced just today that based on the quarterly review
we have increased the seniors pension by $2.35 beginning today.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night Canadians from coast to coast saw quite clearly how much
the government cares for the victims of crime. This minister and
his government had a chance to vote for financial compensation to
assist victims and their families to recover from the trauma of
violence and sexual assault, but did not.
My question is for the justice minister. How can the minister tell
Canadians he supports efforts to benefit the victims of crime when
the minister and his government refuse to back up their words with
actions?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the question as it is framed I find
to be acceptable. I will permit the minister to answer if he so
wishes.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me just say that had the hon.
member been aware of the provisions of Bill C-41 before speaking
and voting against it, he would have seen-
Mr. Abbott: We are talking about C-45.
Mr. Rock: No. The attention of the hon. member was focused on
two words in one subsection of a 70-page bill. If he had read the bill
in its entirety he would have seen that Bill C-41, which has now
been enacted by the House of Commons, provides in a very
meaningful way for the restitution of victims of crime through the
criminal justice system in ways that are innovative and will be
effective. That is the response of the government toward victims of
crime.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
words. I know how the vote went last night and so do all Canadians.
This minister is willing to spend hundreds of millions of tax
dollars on a registry that frontline police officers and
criminologists say will have little or no impact to reduce crime, but
he is not willing to make criminals pay for their actions by
financial compensation.
Why does the government follow the wishes of special interests
that want to punish law-abiding firearm owners yet will not listen
to grassroots Canadians when they demand compensation to
victims of crime? All they can do now is sue.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is the tradition of the House
usually not to reflect on a vote that has been taken by the House.
Mr. Thompson: Is that public?
The Speaker: My colleagues, when in the preamble we refer to
votes the Speaker is put in a precarious position. Is it the preamble
that leads up to the question? I am trying very hard to listen to the
questions themselves, which may be in order, but I find sometimes
that you push the preamble so far that you seem to want the
Speaker to intervene earlier than he ordinarily would.
I ask you once again, in your preambles you must stay within the
confines of the question you are going to frame. Once again, I will
permit the Minister of Justice to answer the question, but he is
under no obligation to do so.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set
the record straight. The preamble that preceded the hon. member's
question is so filled with errors that time will not permit me to
address them all.
(1500 )
The very purpose of the restitution provisions in Bill C-41 now
passed by the House and which the hon. member opposed was to
14891
permit the court to award restitution and the victims of crime to
collect it without having to sue simply by registering the order.
If the hon. member had a genuine interest in the victims of crime
then he would join with CAVEAT and victims groups across the
country that are calling for him to support gun control.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
the Minister of Foreign Affairs will address the UN General
Assembly on a government study entitled: ``Towards a Rapid
Reaction Capability for the United Nations''. This study began
when the Minister of Foreign Affairs first addressed the UN
General Assembly in September 1994.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell the House how
Canada's report on rapid reaction capability will improve United
Nations peacekeeping operations?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud
to say that my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be
outlining this afternoon the Canadian government's response to
some very tragic situations seen in recent years with respect to
international peacekeeping. That is moving toward an international
rapid reaction force, a standby force which we call the vanguard
principle of up to 5,000 troops. This multinational force will be
ready to intercede in places like Rwanda to ensure that the kind of
horror we saw there last year does not occur again.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Stats Canada reports that in 1993 the median family income with
inflation factored in declined by almost 3 per cent. For single
parent families mainly headed by women their standard of living
dropped by an incredible 8.6 per cent in that one year.
Can the minister tell us by how much more the income of single
parent families will drop when the changes to UI and the new
Canada health and social transfer gets implemented?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my view the statistics the
hon. member cited are the most important and dramatic reflections
of what is taking place in Canada overall and the changing society
we are in.
I would ask the hon. member to look very carefully at the cause
of that circumstance. It is because single parent mothers have
substantially fallen out of the labour market. There has been almost
a 15 per cent decline of single parents in the labour market.
Therefore, the answer to their problem is not more transfer
payments. The answer is helping them get back to jobs, get back
into the labour market, get back to being employed. That is the
most effective way of putting additional income in the hands of our
single parents across Canada.
_____________________________________________
14891
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-98,
an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and on the amendment.
(1505 )
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for giving me this opportunity to speak on Bill C-98, the oceans
act.
What we need is a coherent oceans policy that embodies a full
range of economic environmental issues that pertain to the
management of our oceans and coastal territories. Our government
realizes this is the time for action in this area.
Ocean stakeholders have been calling for a coherent vision for
some time now which is why soon after coming to office the Prime
Minister called on the National Advisory Board on Science and
Technology to study, consult and report on Canada's oceans policy.
It did not give the federal government high marks.
The NABST report criticized the federal government for the
neglect of its ocean responsibilities. It then suggested steps to set
up our oceans policy on a more favourable course. These steps
included an oceans management strategy and new legislation in the
form of an oceans act.
I am proud to say that my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans did not waste any time in responding to these suggestions.
Since the NABST report and the minister's 1994 release of the
vision for oceans management, the minister and his officials have
consulted widely with many stakeholders in the oceans sector.
They have spoken with fishermen, business representatives,
government officials, aboriginal groups, environmental interests
and others. The result is a set of proposals for an ocean
management
14892
strategy to be developed by the federal government in partnership
with other key oceans interests.
The plan as outlined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
to create an integrated oceans management strategy that would
have as its primary goal the sustainable use of our ocean resources.
A second goal would be to help each coastal region bring together
and co-ordinate the elements needed to build a flourishing and
diverse ocean based economy.
The concept has received widespread support throughout the
oceans sector. However, before the government and its partners can
proceed any further with this initiative, we must establish the
legislative framework within which an integrated strategy can
operate. This is what we are doing now by introducing the oceans
act.
It is fundamental that the oceans act is enabling legislation. It
removes barriers and sets the stage for Canadians to begin a new
era in their relationship with the sea.
The oceans act has three main components. There is the
declaration of Canada's jurisdiction over both its exclusive
economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a contiguous zone of 24
nautical miles. Another component is the provision for the
development and implementation of a national oceans management
strategy based on sustainable development and integrated
management of oceans coastal activities and resources and the
consolidation and clarification of federal responsibilities for
managing Canada's oceans. These are all essential steps if
Canadians are going to work together to develop a new, integrated
approach to oceans management.
First, it is absolutely vital that the Canadian government expand
its jurisdiction over the ocean areas within our 200-mile limit,
implementing the sovereign rights to which we know are under the
law of the sea. This is essential both to protect the environmental
integrity of these areas and to ensure that the oceans' precious
resources are available for use by future generations of Canadians.
Second, an integrated approach to oceans management will help
ocean stakeholders to consider a wide range of ocean activities all
in one big picture. This includes everything from shipping,
offshore oil and gas exploration, fisheries management and coastal
development to the creation of special marine protected areas for
fragile ecosystems. An integrated ocean strategy will help decision
makers to consider environmental and developmental issues in
relation to each other rather than in isolation. As was the case in the
past, in this way it will enable Canadians to achieve a better
balance between environmental protection and human activity than
we have ever had before.
(1510)
Third, it is essential that the federal government and its partners
in the oceans sector work together to bring an end to the current ad
hoc fragmented approach to ocean management that has worked for
so long to the detriment of both the environment and many of our
ocean industries.
Ocean and coastal issues cross many jurisdictions. They can be
international, national, regional, provincial and local all at the
same time. In the past, this has given rise to a host of problems,
including conflicts over jurisdiction, duplication and inaction. Yet
marine ecosystems know no artificial boundaries and neither do
trade and business. It is time to work together in a new spirit of
co-operation and to learn to harmonize our efforts.
All of these steps will strengthen our ability to protect the ocean
environment. They will also enhance the potential of the many
ocean based industries that are so important to our coastal
communities. Allow me to take a few minutes to outline some of
the benefits of both the oceans act and the planned oceans
management strategy to industry.
First, extending our economic and environmental jurisdiction
out to 200 nautical miles will provide greater stability to all of our
ocean industries. It will build upon the exclusive fishing zone
which we already have and will expand to include other
opportunities for development. It will further cement our right to
protect the environment.
Second, the clarification of federal roles and ocean
responsibilities will help to simplify the relations between
government and other stakeholders. Business will especially
appreciate both this move and the consolidation of regulations.
Third, the commitment to build partnerships will allow other
levels of government, industry and non-governmental
organizations and other interested stakeholders to develop shared
goals in oceans management. This approach should lead to better
communication, greater co-operation and increasing
harmonization. All these are welcome spinoffs for industry that
should reduce the cost of doing business and stimulate growth.
Fourth, an increased emphasis on the co-ordination and
dissemination of scientific, environmental and management
information should place our ocean policies and practices on a
much firmer scientific footing. In addition, improved
communications between the private sector and federal scientists
should stimulate innovation and technology transfer.
As a package, these benefits will help to generate new
opportunities and improve the business environment for our ocean
industries. An integrated oceans management strategy will place
Canadians at the forefront of ocean management and the
development of related technologies.
Canadians already have many of the needed tools to fill this
ocean vision and to move ahead in the world economy. Both our
west and east coasts have world class research facilities that make
important contributions to an international climate and oceans
research. Both of these regions have clusters of thriving private
sector enterprise that have the know-how to design, apply and
14893
market specialized ocean based technology to clients around the
world.
Allow me to provide a few examples of how the Canadian
oceans industry is selling its products and expertise to clients
around the world.
A good example is New East Technologies of Newfoundland.
New East started out as a ship to shore radio business but a few
years ago started to design and build an improved switch system
that routes radio signals to specific destinations by satellite. Now a
cluster of satellite communication firms, New East companies
track the progress of ocean going ships and provide radio links for
some 40 airlines. In addition, it is exploring the telephone
switching equipment markets of Hong Kong and China.
(1515 )
Another example is AGI, Ariel Geomatics of Nova Scotia.
Formed in 1993, this growing company undertakes airborne
environmental mapping and monitoring surveys using a compact
airborne spectrographic imager, CASI for short. AGI is one of the
few private sector owners of this advanced technology.
AGI has used CASI technology for ocean mapping but is also
marketing its potential application in other areas such as land use
and vegetation studies, urban mapping, agriculture, forestry and
geological work. Already its services have been used by clients in
Italy, Chile and the United Kingdom.
The future of this new industry looks bright and with the oceans
act and the oceans management strategy it will look even brighter.
Countries ratifying the United Nations convention on the law of the
sea will have to map the 200 mile offshore exclusive economic
zones. With Canada's demonstrated leadership in this field, many
of these nations will turn to Canadian companies to assist them in
fulfilling these and other requirements.
The oceans act and the oceans management strategy will help
Canadians to make the most of our ocean expertise and resources.
The benefits will be many and varied. The extension of Canadian
jurisdiction and the adoption of an integrated approach of fisheries
management will better enable our Pacific and Atlantic fisheries to
achieve sustainable harvest levels. The more effective protection of
our marine and coastal environment will make Canada a prime
destination for ecotourism. The application of new technologies
will make Canada a world leader in aquaculture, marine safety in
shipping, resource assessment and offshore petroleum production.
I am very proud of our government's leadership in working with
Canadians to draw up the oceans act and oceans management
strategy. Together they are proof of the government's commitment
to create prosperity and a better quality of life for all Canadians. An
ocean of opportunity lies before us. With careful consultation,
management and sensitivity to the environment all of our ocean
industries can be encouraged to flourish and grow.
I encourage all my colleagues to join me in voting in favour of
this long term oceans vision for Canadians.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I would like
to set him straight on some very important issues in western
Canada, on the coast. The member mentioned we do not have a
problem with shellfish. That is simply untrue.
Shellfish stocks on the west coast are being pillaged. They have
been pillaged for years. Even with abalone, which was banned in
1989, there has been widespread poaching of abalone all over the
coast, in Nanaimo, in Victoria, in Sooke. Stocks of mussels and
various other subspecies of shellfish, geoducks, abalone, are being
pillaged all over the west coast.
DFO officers have been told to look the other way when this is
happening. This is a problem of low level management. They have
been told not to enforce the laws in fisheries.
The ministry cannot even handle two miles out of the country, let
alone 200 miles. I suggest it get its act together now, otherwise we
will not have any fishery left on the west coast.
I ask the hon. member what he and his ministry will do to help
the decimated subspecies of groundfish, of salmon and of shellfish
on the west coast so we can avert an east coast disaster, because we
are close to that.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
All hon. members know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
has taken a lead role in conservation in the international
community. When I was at the recent convention in St. Petersburg,
many people came up to me and said they were glad we have a
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans willing to take a lead role. He has
put conservation on the front lines. He has put sustainability of
fisheries on the front lines. He has made people all over the world
aware of how important our fisheries are and how important it is to
have a sustainable fishery and how important conservations is. The
minister has taken a lead role in terms of assuring we as Canadians
take a lead role.
(1520)
If the hon. member would look at what happened in the United
Nations on the convention on straddling stocks and migratory
stocks, it was Canada that took the lead role. It was the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans who took the lead role to ensure that even
14894
beyond the 200 mile zone we have a dispute mechanism system so
the international community will respect our marine resources.
The minister has admitted we can do a better job. We can
improve the way we are doing things. I talked about the 40,000
Canadians who are not working because of the collapse of the
groundfish. We have to work harder. We have to ensure we do have
a sustainable fishery. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has put
that as his number one priority. He has taken the lead not only in
Canada but he is known as someone who has taken the lead in the
international community in ensuring we preserve our marine
resources and that we have a sustainable fishery for future
generations and that we preserve our coastal communities and their
economies.
The bill will ensure that we look at our oceans on an ecosystem
basis, not manage on a species basis. It ensures we take into
consideration coastal communities and the economy. We have to
treat our oceans as an asset. We have to ensure exploitation of those
resources are done in a way that we have a sustainable fishery to
protect our coastal communities and to ensure they have an
ongoing fishery for the long term.
I assure the member the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will
take a lead. I hope the hon. member will take the opportunity to
study this bill. I know he will support it because of his concern that
we have an ongoing sustainable fishery.
I assure the hon. member we will have strong enforcement. As
he knows, we have increased the enforcement budget on the west
coast to make sure all people comply with the Fisheries Act and we
will make sure we take action when someone does not abide by the
Fisheries Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try to use
the few minutes that are left to make a comment and put a question
to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
First of all, in his answer, he often referred to ``our good minister
of fisheries who did this and that''. I would like him to focus on
Bill C-98, which will become an act of Parliament.
This means that the law will still be in place even after the
current minister of fisheries leaves his post. So he should not cite
the current minister's popularity as the reason why things will stay
the same in the future. He should be aware of that. I know that the
hon. member comes from the west coast while I come from the east
coast. He probably attended the meeting of fisheries ministers in
Victoria last year. Since the parliamentary secretary has invited us
to read the bill carefully, I would like to hear his comments on
clauses 30 and 31, which provide that the provinces will be
consulted only on the same basis as all other parties interested in
ocean management that the department wants to consult with.
I am getting to my question. I understand that, at last year's
meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria, British Columbia was
ready to take on part of the responsibilities for fisheries
management, as were Newfoundland and Quebec. This is the
department's first opportunity to answer publicly, and from what I
understand, there is no link, no consultation hierarchy.
(1525)
Is this the future of Canada, all interested parties on an equal
footing while the provinces must fend for themselves? Is the
parliamentary secretary endorsing this kind of attitude? I would
like him to comment on this.
[English]
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I also thank him for his contribution to the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I was at that meeting and just as in any other government
department if there are areas in which we can improve the way
fisheries and oceans works, if we can eliminate areas of duplication
and if there are areas in which we can create more efficiencies, we
are open to that. The minister is very open to that. He has stated we
always want to look at how we can improve things.
One of the things which was done, of which the hon. member is
aware, was the merger with the coast guard. That was part of a
process to create a synergy in which we can operate more
efficiently and in which there is greater flexibility.
The hon. member should support the bill because it takes a much
broader view of our oceans. The bill does not in any way take away
from provincial rights. It will enable us to work with the provinces.
It will encourage us to all work together. For those reasons I hope
the hon. member will support the bill.
Part of the reason the bill came about was the National Advisory
Board on Science and Technology said as a federal government we
have to do a better job in managing our oceans, that we are not
doing a very good job. We accepted its advice.
We will have to manage in an ecosystem and in broader terms.
We have the longest shoreline in the world and we have to look at it
differently. We have to look at our oceans in terms of an asset we
have to treat with respect. When we exploit that asset we have to
look at what the interdependence is. The bill finally brings together
a strategy on how to deal with our oceans.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a
great deal of interest to the words of my friend across the way. I am
a little surprised at some of the conclusions he is drawing with
respect to Bill C-98.
14895
Bill C-98 at first blush looks like a pretty innocuous bill. It is
a good bill in some respects. It recognizes Canada's jurisdiction
over an exclusive economic zone and a contiguous zone in
accordance with the United Nations convention on the law of the
sea. That is a positive move.
It is also supposed to allow the management of all oceans and
coastal activities to be co-ordinated under the oceans management
strategy and it tries to clarify federal responsibilities in the
management of our oceans. I say it is supposed to and tries because
the bill is an attempt to address the concerns of the oceans and the
fisheries, but it is a failure.
The bill manages to impose a new tax on fishermen. It manages
to retain the duplication in the bureaucracy which exists now. It
also manages to introduce new levels of bureaucracy.
This is not what fishermen want. It is not what Canadians want
or deserve. Canadians want less government, not more. The
minister and members of the Liberal government seem to be the
only people who do not understand that.
The bill represents the Liberal government's complete lack of
understanding of what life is like in Canada as a taxpayer. What
will it take for the government to understand it is impossible for
Canadians to shoulder any more of an already unbearable tax
burden?
What will it take to make the government understand the
fishermen of Canada, already victims of a fisheries crisis on both
coasts, can barely make ends meet right now? It is either a
complete and utter misunderstanding on the part of the minister,
although not surprising since he just awarded himself a generous
pension out of all proportion to what most Canadians could ever
expect, or it is a complete disdain for the plight of the fishermen.
As long as his pockets are full and he does not have to make serious
cuts in his department, he simply does not care. Look at the attitude
he had toward the Canadian taxpayers when he refurbished his
office last year at the cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars.
(1530)
As I said, times are tough for most people involved in the fishery
in Canada, but the fisheries minister proposes a new tax on them
anyway. Clause 49, page 21 of the bill, explains that the fees are for
the service provided by DFO. Would that be the privilege to fish?
This is not a service. It also states that fees may not exceed the cost
of providing the service. Would that be the cost of DFO, TAGS,
unemployment insurance, and other social programs or what?
Where does it end?
A tax would only serve to hurt an industry that is already in
trouble. DFO already collects $13 million in fees from fishermen,
and it wants to increase that to $50 million. That is a 400 per cent
increase paid in one lump sum. The fees are based on the landed
value of the catch but are paid in one lump sum at the beginning of
the season. They will be incremental, not fixed.
The parliamentary secretary said last week in response to
questions that were asked in the House that there had not been an
increase since 1985 and therefore he was condoning the decision. A
400 per cent increase paid in one lump sum is not reasonable.
Imagine if you will your hydro bill going up 400 per cent in one
lump sum, or your phone bill or your mortgage payment. If this
were happening to me I would push my MP to oppose such
attempts. But alas, Atlantic fishermen have no one to turn to.
Reform is the only party here to hear their voice.
This tax is a way for the Liberals to get the fishermen out of the
industry. The minister wants to tax them out of the water. The
minister calls this a user fee, but he is wrong. User fees are in return
for services rendered. There are no services rendered here.
There are 31 Atlantic Canadian Liberal MPs and one from an
extinct party. Where do the fishermen have to go? Reform is their
only voice. We were in Atlantic Canada a couple of weeks ago and
this is what we heard consistently. I feel rather bad for the Liberal
MPs who come from Atlantic Canada who are going to be required
to support the bill, because the people in Atlantic Canada are going
to remember them for it.
The minister enjoys trying to impress the international
community, but what about Canadians? Is the tax supposed to
impress them?
Let us talk about another aspect of the bill; it is called
partnershipping. This means that the minister under the bill will
have the discretion to enter into partnership agreements on the
management of the fishery resource in Canada-at his discretion.
I would like to read an excerpt from a letter I received from
people in Atlantic Canada who are concerned about where this is
going to lead. I quote:
In general, our concerns arise out of a potential that the Bill will permit
delegation of actual resource management authority to anyone whom the
Minister may see fit to nominate for this purpose. This regime has potential to be
even more unpredictable and unchallengeable than the present ``absolute
discretion'' of the Minister for which Section 7 of the Fisheries Act provides.
``Management'' of fisheries resources (including such decisions as access to
and allocation of the resource) are critically important to individual fishermen.
The delegation of such decisions to committees, who are not subject to even the
dubious control of political accountability, would create opportunities for
management by special-interest groups.
Fisheries management in Atlantic Canada has had a dismal history of
inability to ensure that the greatest good accrues to the greatest number of
participants in the industry. See, for example, the third report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Fisheries, dated June 23, 1993. Strong leadership, a fair
and reviewable decision-making process, and clear legislative mandates as to
exactly whom benefits from the fishery are to principally accrue to, are required
to address and to correct the fundamental problems in the industry.
14896
(1535)
The special provision in Bill C-98 which raises the concern
expressed above is in Section 32(c):
32. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans,
the Minister may
(c) on his own or her own or jointly with another person or body or with
another minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada,
(i) establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate, as
appropriate, members of those bodies, and (ii) recognize established
advisory or management bodies;
The scope to which this provision would permit delegation of unfettered and
unreviewable authority to unidentified and unaccountable persons is of great
concern to the independent fishermen whom it is my privilege to represent.
Mr. Speaker, you can see there is a great deal of concern in
Atlantic Canada over these partnership provisions in Bill C-98.
Let us talk for a minute about the bureaucracy. Will the size of
the bureaucracy be affected in any way by Bill C-98? Is this
consolidation of legislation under one umbrella called the Canada
oceans act going to in any way affect the bureaucracy? On paper
the shuffle looks good, but the reality is it is not going to affect the
bureaucracy in any tangible way.
The DFO is already a bloated department and is extremely top
heavy. With the cutbacks we see the minister is talking about
destaffing lighthouses while the offices in Ottawa on Kent Street
remain fully staffed. Nobody has made any concerted effort to
rationalize DFO's bureaucracy from the top down. They are
starting from the bottom up. We see conservation officers being
taken off the beat, we see enforcement officers being taken off the
beat, but we do not see the bureaucracy addressed in any tangible
way.
This bill was obviously drafted by bureaucrats, not
parliamentarians. I guess we cannot expect them to address the
need for cuts by cutting their own department, can we? It is really
unfortunate that with this opportunity the minister and the
government did not seize it and seriously address the size of DFO's
bureaucracy.
Let us talk about ocean protection. Yes, this will be a step toward
ratifying the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but
what else? What about the extension of the 200-mile limit? The
minister crusaded so proudly against the Spanish fleet off our
Grand Banks, and he was supported by a great number of
Canadians for doing so, but what of the protection he so strongly
hinted was on its way? This bill does absolutely nothing to address
the extension of the 200-mile limit to cover the nose and the tail of
the Grand Banks. I understand the minister made such indications
here in the House earlier today. I am here to say that it does nothing
to extend Canada's jurisdiction in those areas. This bill does not
give the governing body any real authority. It has no teeth.
Governing is only possible with authority.
As with gun control, cabinet will iron out the details of this bill
later. We are talking about order in council decisions.
Understandably, the fishermen in the industry do not trust it. After
all, it was the government's mismanagement that got us into this
whole mess in the first place. Why trust them? They have only
shown that their own interests are at heart and not those of their
constituents.
This bill does not invoke thoughts of government accountability
in the minds of Canadians and in particular in the minds of
fishermen. Instead it promotes fears of trickery and backroom
dealings. The Liberal cabinet needs to make the decisions by order
in council because even some of their own members are upset
about this bill. We all know what the Prime Minister does with
members who represent their constituents.
Cabinet could hike fees again next year without parliamentary
scrutiny and without public debate. It is no holds barred for the
Liberals. These are legitimate concerns. If the Liberals were
implementing legislation they knew would better the fishery, why
hide behind cabinet? Why would they be afraid of a public debate
on the matter?
I am concerned that this will mean the special interest groups
will be allowed to control the agenda. The conservation of the
fishery should be in the interest of all Canadians, not just a select
few.
(1540 )
The Reform Party cannot support a bill that would increase taxes
and increase the size of government. Do the minister and this
government not understand that Canadians want less government
and taxes, not more? This bill is nothing more than a cowardly tax
grab to ensure the job security of bloated DFO offices in Ottawa.
The minister could not really have thought that fishermen and
Parliament would ever condone such an act.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very closely to my colleague from the Reform Party.
I know my colleague from the Reform Party has just been to
Atlantic Canada, but there is an old saying that a little bit of
knowledge can be very dangerous. I know they feel they know
Atlantic Canada, but I can assure this House that we have members
who know it very well, are well informed and can advise us on the
issue.
Let me first make a few statements. The member should go back
to the budget, which outlined the cost initiatives. Obviously his
party did not look at the budget very closely, because some of the
14897
issues in terms of cost recovery were already indicated in the 1995
budget. They should go back to that. Obviously they did not read
that part.
In the second part, in terms of the headquarters, that is where the
biggest cuts are coming. Once again they should go back to the
budget, because the headquarters are going to be cut by 26 per cent
when the average cuts in the department are only 16 per cent.
Let me also ask the member a question in terms of his position
on the licensing fee. Our main resources are a public resource. As a
public resource, certain people have beneficial privileges to that
resource. Should the fisherperson who catches or lands $10,000
worth of fish and pays $30 for a licence pay the same fee as those
individuals who have a landing value of $1 million? Should they
pay the same licence fee of $30 when they are taking out of a public
resource that belongs to all Canadians? This government has said
that those who take the most out of the public resource should pay a
little more. This is only common sense.
The Reform Party always talks about user pay. They want to
have user pay for all those people who go to the doctor. All this is
saying is that if you are taking a huge amount of a public resource
then you should pay based on how much you benefit from that
public resource. I think all Canadians and all members from
Atlantic Canada would support that view.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for
Halifax saying she invites me there. She may be aware that I just
came back from there. I talked to a number of fishermen in the
Halifax area, the Dartmouth area and Central Nova. I went down to
the wharfs and talked to the small guys with the small boats, not the
big guys. I heard what they had to say about this fee increase.
It is interesting to see the parliamentary secretary over there
defending what the government is doing when it flies in the face of
what I heard back in Atlantic Canada. I would suggest to the hon.
member for Halifax that maybe she wants to go and spend a little
bit of time talking to some of the fishermen in her riding, because
she might get a different point of view from what she is getting
from the parliamentary secretary.
I ran into one old fellow and asked him how he was making out
in the fishery this year. He said: ``Well, it is pretty tough. My
fingernails are all wore out trying to hang on.'' This is the kind of
attitude the parliamentary secretary displays to these fishermen
who are having a very difficult time surviving from year to year.
The parliamentary secretary defends the increased fees and says
it is a public resource and the fishermen ought to be paying a
suitable fee for access to that resource. I do not think anybody in
Canada would disagree with that, but is a 400 per cent increase in
one lump sum reasonable? Regardless of one's income for the year,
the person pays it up front in one lump sum. Is that reasonable? I
do not think most Canadians would find that reasonable.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. colleague from the
Reform Party had to say. This prompted me to take another look at
my history of Quebec fisheries, and I would like to share with you
these facts that bear a direct relation to the bill.
Between 1922 and 1980, in Quebec, fisheries were managed
under an administrative delegation agreement whereby the federal
government had transferred fisheries management to the
Government of Quebec.
Therefore, during this time frame, we were able to develop a
network now referred to as a sustainable development network,
because small processing plants and refrigerating plants that pretty
well met the needs of shore fishermen sprung up along the coast.
About 1980, following a fight-another one-between the
federal minister, who has now become a senator, and his Quebec
counterpart, this delegation of power was cancelled. After that-a
coincidence perhaps-fish grew scarce and can no longer be found
in our oceans.
I would draw a parallel between this and the remarks made by
the hon. member because we are often told that big is beautiful.
The larger the structure created, the larger the number of people
involved and the better the chances it will work and be successful.
I tend to say that maybe the word is ``small is beautiful'' in this
instance. Perhaps, if we had structures better suited to the people's
needs, we would have a better chance of getting by. Take for
example the fishermen of Rivière-au-Renard, Newport or the
Lower North Shore. They keep running into problems with respect
to fisheries management in Canada.
While fishing is a major economic activity in the Gaspé
Peninsula, the Lower North Shore and the Magdalen Islands,
Quebec fisheries are a very small part of the whole Canadian
picture and we have always sought ways for our fishermen to have
a greater weight in the balance by providing expertise, supporting
them through the work of biologists, so that they can adequately
argue their points.
The cod stocks were depleted in part because the politicians in
charge had frequently given in to pressure. We now find ourselves
with many endangered species because the policies did not reflect
the reality in terms of the market and the fishing of the species.
Some fishermen are forced to stay home because they cannot get
the required service.
I will conclude by asking the Reform member if there is a way to
ensure that fisheries management stays close to the people, in a
concrete and daily fashion, while also taking into account the
14898
opinion of fishermen, instead of having huge structures where the
power ultimately rests with whoever has the largest number of
biologists or provides the biggest report. Such a structure is of no
help to users, namely the fishermen, who do not have enough of a
say in the process.
Does the Reform member feel that this bill is headed the wrong
way since it promotes a ``Big is beautiful'' instead of considering
also a ``Small is beautiful'' approach?
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
intervention. He made a couple of observations and I think he is
right on.
I was not aware that there was a withdrawal of delegated
authority in his province in 1980, but it does not surprise me
because that is the way the federal government has acted over the
last 25 or 30 years. It has tried to consolidate more power for itself
all the time: Ottawa is always bigger, better and more beautiful.
Obviously that is not what Canadians think. Canadians would like
to see decentralization of power such as the member is alluding to.
It certainly is a philosophy and a vision of the party I am
representing in the House today. Our leader was trying to make that
point with the Prime Minister during question period.
(1550)
We believe the federal government ought to look at devolving
powers to provinces, municipalities and communities wherever
possible and get away from the notion that only Ottawa has the
brains and the ability to run the country.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
vice-chairperson of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans I am pleased today to have the opportunity to take part in
the debate on the oceans act.
Further, I make note of the fact that contrary to statements made
earlier today by the member for Fraser Valley West this
vice-chairperson is not a separatist. He neglected to mention that
there were two vice-chairs of the committee, myself and the
member for Gaspé.
Parliament is called upon today to formalize Canadian
jurisdiction over vast new areas of ocean waters and numerous
resources off our coasts. The bill before us challenges all
Canadians to unite in the development of a strategy which will
incorporate the harnessing of the oceans' economic potential and
command respect for the oceans' environmental necessities.
In the red book we stated that Canadians increasingly understand
that the national environmental agenda can no longer be separated
from the national economic agenda. It is long past the time for the
federal government to act on this understanding by adapting
economic and environmental agendas that converge. As a
government we will stand behind our agenda and devote attention
to this important piece of legislation.
The oceans act encompasses the fundamentals which ensure that
Canada's economic and environmental agendas for our oceans are a
priority. It is a pivotal turning point in providing a foundation
which will ensure that ocean resource management is properly
administered. Painfully we have come to discover that the ocean
resources are finite and that human activity can and in fact has
jeopardized fragile ocean ecosystems.
Just as everything that lives exhibits interdependency, we have
seen the environmental health of our oceans connected to the
economic health of our country. As children we were told not to kill
the goose that lays the golden egg. As teenagers we learned the
basic laws of physics which state that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. These laws and proverbs are
represented in the oceans act. It is based on implementing a few
simple lessons. If we destroy the oceans they will not provide us
with the sustenance we enjoy on a daily basis. If we abuse them we
will pay a grave price.
The oceans act provides direction for the Canadian jurisdiction
of over nearly five million square kilometres of ocean. Through the
act we create a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone for
Canada in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. We will have the
right to explore and exploit resources within the 200-mile
exclusive economic zone and at the same time be given the right
and responsibility to conserve and protect the same resources.
It is our duty as Canadians to preserve and to protect the marine
environment not only for ourselves but for generations to come. We
cannot continue to shortchange generations of the future. That is
why the bill before Parliament today goes beyond the simplistics of
one statement of jurisdiction. The bill is a cornerstone, a building
block and a framework for a new ocean management strategy
which consolidates and clarifies federal responsibilities for
implementation of the new strategy.
The key to the future is sustainable development of Canada's
oceans and an integrated approach to management of ocean
resources. Only through this approach will Canadians be able to
make our economic and environmental agenda complete.
It has been 12 years since the United Nations General Assembly
established the World Commission on Environment and
Development, more commonly recognized as the Brundtland
commission. The commission urged the world to embrace the
concept of sustainable development. The Brundtland report was the
cornerstone of all forthcoming legislation. It embraced the concept
of sustainable development where the environment is fully
incorpo-
14899
rated into the economic decision making process as an
aforethought and not as an afterthought.
(1555)
The oceans act is based on that wisdom. The philosophy of the
bill is strengthened in its foundations of sustainable development.
Unfortunately a philosophy is not a plan of action.
The new bill breathes light into the principle of sustainable
development by putting in place the framework necessary for a
Canadian action plan for our oceans. In developing an oceans
management strategy the federal government must show
leadership, and the bill exemplifies leadership.
The oceans act will extend Canadian environmental legislation
to include the new exclusive economic zone. The act will make the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans the focal point for the
co-ordination of federal oceans activities. It will authorize the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to develop marine environmental
quality guidelines and establish marine protected areas.
The act will also give the minister responsibility for conducting
marine research, preparing scientific reports, and operating and
maintaining the necessary federal research facilities. Most
important, the minister will have the authority to lead in the
co-ordination of activities to promote the development of a shared
Canada oceans strategy, in turn uniting all Canadians and
promoting international unity.
The minister will be able to enter into new partnership
agreements, to share ocean information, to share ocean research, to
share ocean planning and to share ocean management. Through the
basic principles of sharing we can reduce duplication and conflict.
Only by working together can we adopt a comprehensive
ecosystem based approach to comprehensive ecosystem problems.
This unified approach to ocean management provides the criteria
necessary for the creation of a legal framework which will enable
provinces and territories, businesses and environmentalists, fisher
people and ocean industries to pull together and to strive toward a
common goal.
We have a common goal. We all want Canada's oceans to be
productive, safe and healthy for all generations. We can only
achieve that goal by making Canada a world leader in oceans and
marine resource management.
On Canada's coasts there are hundreds of fishing communities.
My riding is made up of many such communities, one of which I
was raised in.
The minister has already mentioned that when John Cabot
reached the shores of Newfoundland in 1497 he found the sea:
``swarming with fish which can be taken not only with a net but
with baskets let down with a stone''. This illustration of the former
abundance of fish is now in contrast with the shortage of northern
cod off Canada's east coast.
The oceans act is our management strategy to ensure that the
devastation which has occurred on the coasts off Newfoundland
never happens again. Many fish stocks on the coast of
Newfoundland were severely depleted prior to Canada's
declaration of a 200-mile fishing zone in 1977. Although some
Atlantic codfish stocks have begun to recover somewhat since that
time, many stocks continue to be subject to high fishing pressure,
particularly the stocks that straddle the 200-mile limit where
foreign fleets have ignored internationally negotiated catch limits.
Our fishers on the Atlantic coast and throughout Canada have
suffered. They have lost their livelihood, their pride and their
sustenance. It is not too late to provide legislation countenance. We
must amend the marine conservation policies in the country and
prevent future tragedies from occurring. The oceans act will do just
that.
Canada's fisheries will continue to face a variety of pressures
imposed by an increasing world population. This will produce
more wastes which will impair the natural productivity of oceans
and inland waters. Managing the fisheries in the face of these
pressures will require co-operation on national and international
levels.
The oceans act will ensure that proper management of the ocean
resources both living and non-living will be sustained. Each one of
these communities houses a wealth of accumulated knowledge
about currents, salinity, water depth, temperatures, tides and
navigational routes. We must link this knowledge to a shared ocean
management strategy. We must understand how each of these
regions is unique and independent.
The bill before us today confirms the merger of the Canadian
Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It
ensures boating safety is placed in the highest priority.
(1600)
The legislation makes it possible to form new domestic
agreements to increase prosperity in trade and commerce. Through
basic principles of sustainable development, the transfer of
technology from government and academic researchers to the
private sector will be facilitated. Together we must work to
improve resource assessment and inspection. Harmonized
regulations will guarantee services provided by different levels of
government effectively meet the needs of our sea coast
communities and ports.
The oceans act makes it possible for Canadians to work together
to shape the best national answers and the best local answers for
ocean sustainable development. Better understanding of oceans,
better resource management, better environmental management,
14900
increased safety and increased trade and commerce are all
components of an integrated ocean strategy.
By providing the legislative tools to enable Canadians to get our
act together on these issues the oceans act will help to ensure
Canada is a forceful and effective voice on global ocean issues. By
demonstrating our own responsible attitude to ocean sustainable
development we will be in a strong position to push forward for
greater global responsibility. In effect, Canadians must seek the
same force for good on all ocean issues that we have for our
fisheries conservation.
The Brundtland commission called its report ``Our Common
Future''. That is what this bill is about and that is what we are
really debating. Canada has a special responsibility as a country
which borders the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. Our
common future depends on whether we use those oceans wisely,
whether we actively seek to promote sustainable development and
whether we actively seek to pursue both our environmental
responsibilities and our economic opportunities.
I am happy and proud to support the bill and urge all members to
join me in allowing this legislation to move forward quickly for
study by the standing committee. The oceans act charts a wise
course for the future of ocean policy. It is a course which would
bind our country with a common future, a course we must all sail
together.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, for two years now the Liberal government has presented
legislation it says will make government more streamlined, more
responsive and more responsible to Canadians. Its comments have
been merely smoke and mirrors. I am sad to say Bill C-98, an act
respecting the oceans of Canada, is another example of the
government's saying one thing and doing another.
The government told Canadians its changes to the Young
Offenders Act would raise ultra-violent youth to adult court and
that this action would give 16 and 17-year old cold blooded
murderers sentences equal to their heinous crimes. The
government's statements were not equal to the realities of the bill.
The government has made numerous statements that Bill C-98
will end duplication, bring control of Canada's traditional fishing
grounds on the open sea into Parliament and ensure the success of
fisheries. Again we have statements which do not match the
realities of the legislation.
How can the fisheries be successful when the government
intends to tax them to death? The government tells Canadians we
on this side of the House do not understand the problems of the east
coast. We understand all problems facing Canadians better than the
government.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans bored himself a place at
the trough by accepting his gold plated, self-imposed pension.
Now the minister wants to pay for his pension on the backs of the
fisheries, an area where it is impossible for those Canadians to bear
the brunt of an already unbearable tax burden.
The Liberal government claims the bill will end duplication and
provide efficient operation through the oceans management
strategy. Again we have a catch phrase for media consumption
which has no bearing on the realities of the bill.
Bill C-98 suggests all government bodies co-ordinate their
activities relating to the oceans surrounding Canada. Nowhere in
the bill does it state that all government bodies dealing with oceans
must co-ordinate their functions. There are no penalties,
consequences or even government scrutiny for any departments
which refuse to end duplication.
(1605)
In effect, the bill will create even more bureaucracy. How does
the government intend to pay for this new bureaucratic nightmare?
The government will raise licensing fees for fishermen. That is the
tax I have been talking about. Not only that, it will increase the fees
to such an extent that family oriented fishing boats or small fishing
groups will be put out of business.
It is either absolute and utter ignorance of the reality on the east
coast that the minister does not understand or it is total disregard
for the east coast fishery, large and small.
To the minister it seems as long as his pockets are full and his
future is assured he does not care about those he is supposed to be
helping. The government gives itself all the power to set fees
through orders in council.
Parliament is bypassed once more as the body that decides issues
for Canadians. This proposed new tax will punish those who have
finally achieved a harvest worthy of their effects.
Just as a previous Liberal government crippled the western
Canadian economy by placing punitive taxes in place for the oil
industry, this government now intends to place punitive taxes on
fishermen who do not manage to get a decent catch.
If fishermen obtain a catch large enough to cover their bills,
large enough to give them a decent living once again from the
ocean, those members opposite intend to raise their fees to the
point at which fishermen will be simply taxed out of business.
The east coast fishery has had enough hard luck and has had
enough businesses driven to extinction through failed government
management of the fisheries without having government finally
drive the last nail in the coffin by higher and higher taxes. Of some
14901
of these smaller and medium fishermen the government will
demand tax increases as high as 400 per cent over current levels.
We from the west understand the social disintegration and
punitive taxation imposed by an uncaring federal government and
what that can create. We from the west know how punitive taxation
can cause breakdowns of marriages, losses of homes and an
increase in alcoholism, suicide, bankruptcies and affect many other
social programs. If the bill is passed the east coast will experience
the same.
U-Hauls behind cars driven by grim faced drivers will proceed
like caravans down east coast highways as those forced from their
homes seek employment in other areas of the country.
As Canadians trying desperately to keep their families and
homes together on the east coast know, times are hard enough
without the government making it worse.
I oppose the bill not because of what the government says it does
but because it does not do what it says it will. The bill will give
cabinet dictatorial powers and remove the elected representatives
chosen by the people of Canada from that decision making process.
The bill will continue a policy adopted by the Prime Minister that
elected representatives must not be responsible for their
constituents.
The Prime Minister stated that members of his party who support
their constituents and not decrees from the top will not get their
nomination papers signed or will be punished in other ways.
We have already seen these threats in practice when some
members who followed constituent wishes were removed from
their committee posts. The bill will give the cabinet even more
power to punish the east coast representatives of its party who vote
the wishes of their constituents and not the wishes of the ministers'
inner circle.
The bill will not consolidate the operations of various
government departments related to the fisheries or oceans but
instead will allow another level of bureaucracy to be formed.
It is very clear the government has no desire to reduce the
taxation load on all Canadians by bringing in efficiencies in any
department. The minister is probably the worst offender.
Canadians are tired of larger and larger government taking more
and more money from their pockets. The justice minister recently
appointed 11 supporters, failed candidates and fundraisers to
taxpayer funded posts within his department.
Liberals love larger bureaucracy because that gives them places
to appoint people at taxpayers' expense, while this bill will create
another bureaucracy for the government to fill patronage
appointment positions.
We agree fisheries and oceans should have jurisdiction over the
coast guard and marine science but only if it will save money by
ending duplication. The bill simply will not do that.
(1610 )
We agree that small and medium size fisheries are the lifeblood
of many east coast families. The bill will create punitive taxation
that will destroy their very livelihood which the government states
it will defend.
Under those circumstances the members opposite elected to
represent constituents dependant on the fishery to survive
absolutely must vote no. All decisions on future actions, be they fee
increases or regulation, will be enacted by special interest
participation with cabinet and not Parliament.
Special interests will dominate environment discussions relating
to fisheries or oceans and paralyse realistic growth or use of fishery
or development of ocean related industry. Just as they have with
issues relating to realistic and safe development within Canada's
borders, special interests will again have the ear of the minister.
Here is an example of how special interests have held up needed
expansion in the country. I am thinking of the TransCanada
highway through Banff that had been planned and put off for years
even though study after study said the twinning of the highway
could be done with more than adequate concern for large animals
ranging throughout Banff. Thankfully this type of process has
come to an end and that twinning will commence. However, many
serious injuries and possibly needless deaths of motorists have
occurred because government would not listen to the voice of
reason and preferred to hear the voices of special interest groups.
Even a study by Parks Canada officials said the improvements
could be done on this stretch of road without harm to the
environment. However, it was not until the government lost two
frivolous court cases that were only instituted to appeal the special
interests having the government's ear did the harassment stop.
How long will needed projects, realistic economic development
and opportunities to enhance the lives of those living near the
oceans be delayed? The bill would impose a duty on the minister to
collaborate with all interested persons.
I cannot support the bill. With all honesty I do not see how any
member whose constituents depend on the ocean for their
livelihood can support the bill. I am certain those members
opposite will be told they must vote according to the decree of the
few and not according to the wishes of many. That is the saddest
point of all.
14902
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his speech. I listened very closely.
His speech is very similar to the speech made by the member for
Skeena. I do not want to repeat some of the remarks I have already
made. I once again remind him he should read the budget. He has
put forward concerns about the licensing fees which were budget
items in February 1995. For every $5 in cuts there is only $1 in cost
recovery. This is part of the cost recovery. The hon. member should
also keep in mind there was public consultation right across the
province.
More to the point, hon. members often mention special interest
groups. When special interest groups represent the ideology of
these people they work hand in hand. They are holding hands with
special interest groups. Look at the gun lobby. They are joining
hands with the gun lobby so they should not tell us about special
interest groups. When they represent their view, they are happy to
work with them.
The licence fee was $30. For those who use the resource, it does
not matter if they have a landing value $12,000 or a landing value
of $1 million. The fee was an insignificant amount of $30. Now
those people who take the most from the resource will pay a higher
amount. It is a public resource. They have a beneficial access to
that resource that not everybody has only because they have to pay
that licensing fee. Should we charge the same amount?
(1615 )
Should we not charge those people who take more out of the
resource? The figure of 400 per cent was used. Some fisherpersons
make $1 million in a six to eight-week fishing season. Their fee is
only going to be 1.6 per cent of their landed value. Do you think
that is a huge burden on those people? Obviously, this amount is
going to be rated depending on how much the landing value is. If
there is a higher landing value then more will be paid. I do not think
1.6 per cent is very much. I am wondering if the member thinks
that is too high.
Mr. Kerpan: Madam Speaker, this government always amazes
me. I remember very well right after the 1993 election one of the
highlights mentioned throughout the media was that this
government would be more open to consulting people involved in
any particular industry when it was building policy.
There is case after case. For example when agriculture policy is
made no farmers are consulted. When justice policy is made no
policemen are consulted. The Minister of Justice talks well and
long about how he consulted with the chiefs of police. That is a
very small group. I am wondering why this government which
talked a good game at the beginning of 1994 has suddenly gone
back on those initial words.
I see the very same thing in this department. The parliamentary
secretary talks about consulting the people. I have just come back
from a trip to St. John's, Newfoundland. I had the opportunity to
speak to some fisher people, as the politically correct term would
be. I asked them exactly those questions. I found during my visit
that the two biggest concerns the fish industry has are that there is
far too much government, far too much bureaucracy, far too much
red tape and that the ordinary common every day fisherperson is
not consulted on policy making.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about not
consulting. In fact, if we look at every one of our policies whether
it is human resources or the gun control bill, there has been more
consultation done by this government than by any other
government. There has been more consultation done by this
government on this issue itself.
First, the government consulted the National Advisory Board on
Science and Technology. Should we ignore its advice? Should we
say it does not know what it is talking about? Then the members
across would say we are not listening to these advisory boards.
They are the ones who started it.
The minister continued with a vision for oceans management. In
November 1994, 600 people and 200 responses were received.
Consultation was done. In April 1995 the coastal provinces, the
Northwest Territories and Ottawa were consulted. There were
meetings in November and December 1994. The list goes on. The
people consulted were academics, scientists and others in the
fishery, people in the oceans industry, environmentalists, First
Nations people and people involved in community development.
How much more consultation do Reformers want?
We have heard one of the Reform members say many times that
we were consulting too much. He has told the Minister of Justice to
stop consulting and get to it. Members of the Reform Party should
make up their minds.
One thing is for sure: this government takes its responsibilities
seriously. We do the consulting and then we make the decisions.
The problem is that Reform members do not always like the
decisions and then they complain and say we did not consult. There
has been ample consultation on this bill. The Reform Party member
who is a member of the standing committee will have an
opportunity to work further and put forward recommendations as
they come before the committee before this bill goes to third
reading.
Mr. Kerpan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite
and his remarks. The question I would have for him if I were
allowed to give one would be: What about the issue of MPs
pensions? Were the people consulted on that?
14903
(1620 )
When I look at things such as this bill we are talking about today
and the gun registration bill which was mentioned earlier today, I
would ask the member opposite if he really, truly and sincerely
believes that full consultation went on throughout all departments
with this government. Perhaps he should go out on the street-and
I would be happy to accompany him-and ask the people if they
have been consulted on Bill C-98, on Bill C-68 and on Bill C-85. I
rest my case.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will
begin by commenting on some of the statements made earlier by
the opposition parties, particularly the third party.
We on this side of the House are concerned with the issue of
access fees and the future of the inshore fishery. We are concerned
with coastal communities and the effect that changes in the fishery
will have on our coastal communities.
My province is the largest fishing province in the country in
terms of landed value in tonnes. My riding of South Shore is the
largest individual fishing riding in Canada. Therefore, we are
concerned about these issues and I am particularly concerned.
The third party talks about the concerns of Atlantic fishermen
and fisherwomen. This is the same party whose policy it is to
relocate Atlantic Canadians out of the area. This is the party that
would cancel the TAGS program which so many Atlantic fishers
rely on. This is the party whose leader told Atlantic Canadians,
particularly Atlantic fishers, last weekend to take 15 seconds and
tell themselves the fisheries are dead. This is the party that purports
to speak for Atlantic fishermen. Reform members go to Atlantic
Canada for a weekend and become instant experts.
I want to tell members opposite that I have been meeting with
these fishers all of my life. I have lived in coastal communities in
different parts of Atlantic Canada all of my life.
I also ask the members opposite to read the bill because what
they are speaking of is not what this bill is about. This bill is not
about access fees. This bill is not needed to increase, if that is the
government's wish, access fees. Some of the information being
circulated is incorrect because those decisions have not been
completely made. They are issues to be debated at another time.
I invite members opposite to come to the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans when it takes this bill after second reading
and begins reviewing it. At that point, after they get an
understanding of what the legislation is about, then they can raise
some of these issues.
I am pleased to take the opportunity to express my support for
Bill C-98, the oceans act. This legislation takes an important first
step toward the creation of a comprehensive, integrated oceans
management strategy based on the principles of sustainable
development. It provides the legal framework by which the various
players in the ocean sector will be able to work together under the
leadership of the federal government to protect the marine
environment.
For the first time the bill gives statutory recognition to the
tremendous importance of Canada's ocean territories. For this
reason the oceans act is pioneering legislation. It is a bold step
toward a new era in oceans management. It turns good intentions
into concrete deeds and actions. It places Canada at the forefront of
nations striving to implement the commitments of agenda 21 made
at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and
Development in 1992.
Canada's ocean regions are vast. The richness and variety of the
resources almost defy the imagination. Imagine them and
comprehend them we must. The future of many of our coastal
communities and indeed of humanity itself depends on all of us
building a deeper understanding of the incredible magnitude and
fragility of this great ecosystem. It is for this reason that I want to
take the time today to remind my colleagues of just how important
the oceans are to the lives of all Canadians and why the passage of
the oceans act will be of such benefit to us all.
(1625 )
I said that Canada's ocean territories are vast. This hardly does
justice to the facts. Canada's coastline stretches from the Pacific
through the icy waters of the Arctic to the Atlantic Ocean. At
almost 250,000 kilometres it is the longest coastline in the world.
This is just the beginning. Our continental shelf spans more than
6.5 million square kilometres making it the second largest in the
world.
Together these great bodies of water have been pivotal to our
country's evolution. Rich in biodiversity, the oceans have helped
forge our sense of identity and have provided the means for
transport, trading, communications and sustenance for many
generations.
On our east coast especially, an entire culture has been built
around shipping and the fishery. For 400 years or more the daily
rhythms of communities up and down this rugged coast have
centred on the ways of the sea. Nowhere is this more obvious than
in my riding of South Shore where communities such as Shelburne,
Lunenburg, Clark's Harbour and many others line the coast.
Today Canada's ocean industries no longer dominate our
economic profile like they once did. However their importance to
our national accounts and to the economies of our coastal areas
should not be underestimated. Together the ocean sectors of
fishing,
14904
shipping, oil and ocean manufacturing and services account for
almost 3 per cent of Canada's gross national product.
Last year despite troubles in the groundfish industry, Canadian
seafood exports totalled $2.8 billion. Of this total, more than half
came from Atlantic Canada with the crab, shrimp and lobster
fisheries putting in an outstanding performance. Canada's
aquaculture industry continues to grow despite stiff international
competition. This is happening on both the east and west coasts.
Canada's oceans manufacturing and service sector is also
growing, now comprising more than 300 high technology firms.
This sector generates millions of dollars in revenue each year.
In addition Atlantic offshore oil and gas have finally come on
stream. The Cohasset field off Nova Scotia began production in
1992. The giant Hibernia development off the east coast of
Newfoundland is promising to employ some 20,000 workers once
it begins production in 1997.
With growth like this it is easy to see why the oceans sector plays
such an important role in the economies of our coastal regions.
Together these industries have the potential to generate
considerable wealth and prosperity.
The oceans also have a more indirect impact on the lives of
Canadians. The world's oceans are a key part of the ecosphere,
acting as a major environmental sink of carbon dioxide. In
particular the world's oceans play a critical role in determining the
rate of climate change and its regional variations. Globally this has
many implications as it does here at home.
Scientists working with global climate models forecast that with
global warming the oceans will change. According to these
predictions there will be less upswelling which in turn will affect
productivity. Already we have seen some evidence of this with the
frequent reoccurrence of the El Nino effect in the Pacific in recent
years. In fact some scientists believe that the El Nino may be a
common factor contributing to changes in the fish population in
both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
What does all this mean for Canadians? Disruption in the
fishery? Drought on the prairies? Melting sea and land ice in the
Arctic? We do not really know. Our understanding of both the
ocean and the earth's atmosphere is not yet well enough developed.
We can only assume that widespread climate change is likely to
have a dramatic impact on ocean ecosystems around the world as
well as to alter the entire range of human activity.
Clearly the oceans are of tremendous importance to Canada as a
nation. They impact on our environment, our economy, our social
structures and culture as well as on our sovereignty and defence.
Even from this very brief sketch it is obvious that managing our
oceans and their resources is a complex and challenging task. At no
time has this been more true than at the moment. Each region and
each activity within the ocean sector presents its own pressing
challenges to policymakers at all levels of government and
industry.
(1630)
Let me give a few examples. On the east coast several issues
stand out. First, there is an urgent need for scientists and fishermen
to work side by side to improve methods of resource assessment
and to achieve a better understanding of the dynamics which
caused the collapse of the groundfish stocks.
Second, industry and government must continue to work
together to revitalize the fishing industry.
Third, we must continue to build on the potential of the ocean
manufacturing and service sector to act as a catalyst for the
innovative diversified economy in the region.
In the Arctic, as in other parts of Canada, environmental issues
take priority. Northern communities are deeply concerned with
issues of climate change and the contamination of Arctic waters
and resources. These are the issues the bill speaks to.
On the west coast international relations, climate studies and
resource assessment are key. Strong measures are needed to assure
the future of the Pacific salmon fishery. What is more, with the
region's increasing population density, environmental issues are of
growing importance. Issues related to the coastal zone
management, marine environmental quality, ship standards and
pollution prevention demand attention. That is what the bill is
about.
These are not isolated issues. Rather they are interlocking pieces
of one large puzzle. It is time to respond to them in a coherent and
integrated fashion. That is what the legislation does.
The oceans act sets the stage for the development of a long range
comprehensive vision for the management of Canada's ocean
territories and marine resources. Our approach has two phases.
First is the introduction of enabling legislation. This is the
oceans act that we are now considering. With the oceans act we are
extending economic and environmental jurisdiction out to the 200
nautical mile limit permitted by the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea. We are consolidating legislation and clarifying
the federal government's responsibilities for oceans. We are
creating the legal framework for an oceans management strategy
based on both the sustainable development and integrated
management of our oceans and coastal waters. Contrary to what a
Bloc member stated earlier, there is zero impact on powers between
the federal and provincial governments.
The second phase is the development of the ocean management
strategy. The oceans management strategy is currently at the
developmental stage. We are consulting extensively with stake-
14905
holders about what should go into the strategy and we will continue
to do so. So far our proposals have received strong support from
almost everyone involved: fishermen, aboriginal groups,
businesses, provincial and territorial leaders, academics and
non-governmental organizations. Everyone sees the necessity for a
new approach to decision making.
Canada can no longer afford to manage its oceans with partial ad
hoc, short term measures. We can no longer afford to divide our
decision making like so many pieces of the pie, with decisions on
resource management made in isolation from decisions about
shipping or environmental protection. We can no longer afford to
have our experts, whether they be in government labs, universities,
industries or on fishing boats, working in isolation of each other. It
is time to bring all the elements together so that we can make the
best decisions possible.
We must start to look at oceans issues through a wide angle lens
so we can make choices based on the best interests of the entire
ecosystem. Sustainable development is all about integrating
economic, environmental and social considerations together into
one policy framework.
What do we need to make it work? To start with, we need
decision making that is open, transparent and based on sound
science. We need a commitment to change from all parties
involved and we need a new relationship among ocean
stakeholders. I will elaborate.
(1635)
First, we need a more open and more integrated approach to
policy making. The oceans management strategy would see our
approach to marine resource management change. Traditionally the
federal government has carried out its responsibilities for oceans
management on the basis of narrow sectoral approaches, in
consultation with stakeholders but not in partnership with them.
We recognize this must change, so we have begun a new
relationship with other ocean stakeholders.
Second, ecological sustainability and economic viability depend
on good science. To support these goals science needs to be
multi-disciplinary, not limited by organizational structure, and
responsive to changing needs and priorities. The oceans
management strategy will foster partnerships involving
government, academia, the private sector and environmental
groups, ensuring that Canada's oceans science is once again at the
leading edge of world knowledge.
Third, effective management requires a functioning ecosystems
approach. Because ecosystems involve many interdependent
physical and biological elements which cross lines of jurisdiction,
scientific discipline and economic interest, an effectively
functioning management system will have to take these factors into
account.
These suggestions give an idea of the scope of the oceans
management strategy. They also indicate how fundamentally an
integrated management strategy would change oceans management
in Canada.
Work on the oceans management strategy is just beginning. All
the details have yet to be worked out. However I can assure all
members that as the action plan for the oceans management
strategy is put in place it will be developed in full collaboration
among the federal government and ocean stakeholders. The
government is committed to forging a new relationship with our
partners in the ocean sector.
Stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources is a shared
responsibility. Unless all those with an interest in the oceans agree
to collaborate, to share information and to manage these resources
in a careful and conservative manner, we will do irreparable harm
to the environment. Canadians must work together if we are to
protect the integrity and quality of the oceans environment and its
resources for future generations.
The world's oceans have been described as the world's great
heart, beating eternally. Canadians with their long relationship with
the sea recognize this to be true. They understand also that it is time
to make a commitment to their oceans. The oceans act is that
commitment. It is the beginning of a new era of environmental
stewardship and prosperity.
I look forward to reviewing the bill in committee. I invite other
members to join with us in committee when we review the bill. Let
us look at possible amendments that might improve the bill and
bring it back for third reading. At that point it is my hope that we
will have all-party consent. Once a thorough understanding is
achieved by all members of what the bill is meant to do, we will
have all-party consent, and I look forward to that time.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, by
tabling Bill C-98, the oceans act, the government has taken a step
toward the recognition of offshore areas of the sea and protection of
the resources in those areas. I feel this is a very good initiative.
As I see it the bill has three objectives: to recognize in domestic
law Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime zones, to establish the
legislation framework to support Canada's new oceans
management regime, and to consolidate federal responsibilities for
managing Canada's oceans. However there appears to be a great
deal of overlap and duplication.
Can the government member explain to me where the
duplication overlap are being eliminated in the bill? What
measures in the bill reduce the level of bureaucracy? Why are the
departments of environment and natural resources still in charge of
oceans environmental and geological research? Why does the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans still have to receive authority
from the foreign affairs minister for regulations under clause 25?
Why does
14906
the minister have to seek authority from the Minister of Justice to
make regulations under section 26(1)?
(1640)
I feel very strongly that having 14 different ministers overseeing
this matter makes it difficult. We should have one department and
one minister, that is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Could the hon. member tell us exactly how we could make these
changes and eliminate all the duplication?
Mr. Wells: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her
question. I would note that the member for Saint John who asked
the question is an associate member of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans. These are issues that have been raised at the
committee level, and they are good questions.
Concerns have been expressed by various members-she being
one and others on this side of the House-that perhaps there should
be more power consolidated in the hands of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
When I invite the member-and I know she will be there-and
other members to talk about the consolidation of power, we will
have to look at the various areas about which she speaks including
the environmental area. We will have to see if some of the areas
should perhaps be moved to the minister of fisheries. We can find
out the rationale from the officials. Why is certain power still being
left with the minister of heritage as far as marine parks, for
example, are concerned? Why is the Ministry of the Environment
retaining certain authority in certain areas? They are very valid
questions.
As we get into a study of the matter at committee level we will
ask those questions of various officials. It is my hope that at the end
of the day there could perhaps be more consolidation of some of
these powers. I think the committee process has to work. We have
to seek answers and reasons from the various departments on why
some of the consolidation has not taken place.
Without prejudging the process I personally feel that the minister
of fisheries who is given certain authority under the bill should
have more. The hon. member should agree that as a committee we
need to look at that as a possibility.
I thank her for her question. I look forward to working with her
in committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to put a question to the hon. member, who also sits on the standing
committee on fisheries and oceans.
Allow me to disagree with the hon. member. Since I believe he is
a lawyer by training, he is used to reading laws. I also know that he
was rather nit-picking on that issue during the last few meetings of
our committee. As regards Part II of Bill C-98, why do we have to
put in law a plan that will be developed for management purposes?
I would appreciate it if the member, who seems to have a lot of
experience in that field, would tell us why we must pass an act
merely to introduce or announce a strategy. That could have been
done in a press release. The issue would have been well presented.
People would have understood. Instead, the government is sending
invitations all over the place. It wants to consult just about
everybody.
I also ask the member to recognize the fact that there is no
hierarchy in terms of the consultation process. Indeed, the
provinces are put on the same footing as any other group when it
comes to consultations. We, in Quebec, do not think that this is the
way to manage. How does the member, who is from Nova Scotia,
think that this strategy should be managed in his province, which
borders the ocean? Will the provincial minister want to have a say,
at some point in time, regarding this process? This is the sort of
thing we have to look at.
Right now, the government is merely presenting a strategy and
saying that it is willing to consult everyone. I would appreciate it if
the member could tell us which new real powers are included in
this bill.
(1645 )
[English]
Mr. Wells: I think it is fair to say that the hon. member and I see
the legislation differently. As he made clear in his previous
presentation to the House, he sees this as taking away authority
from the provinces and giving it to the federal government. That is
simply not the case. I have seen nothing and he has pointed out
nothing in this legislation which would indicate this is what is
happening.
This is a consolidation. It is not something that just happened
over the last number of weeks or months. This discussion has been
going on for years. As the minister indicated this morning, there
has been an evolution here. We are going back to the 1970s or
maybe before that when various powers and various consolidations
were being discussed. A lot of things have happened internationally
that we have to establish in our own legislation. There is a
recognition in the act of the merger of the coast guard and DFO
which is relatively new.
To suggest there is something in this legislation that is affecting
the powers of the provinces could not be further from the truth.
This legislation does not state that. The hon. member has not been
able to point out to me either here in the House or during any
discussion that this is what the legislation does. That is clearly not
what is in the legislation and it is not the intent of the legislation. I
14907
would suggest his motive is something other than trying to create a
good piece of oceans legislation.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member's intervention.
The member talked about the TAGS program and how wonderful
it was for Atlantic Canada. When Reform Party members were
there talking to people in the constituencies in Nova Scotia, Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick we did not hear people giving
large accolades for the TAGS program. As a matter of fact, what we
heard was talk about corruption and talk about the way the TAGS
program had distorted the marketplace, particularly the job market.
No one I encountered had anything good to say about it.
The member is defending the government's move on licence
fees. I wonder if he would tell the House whether he is going to poll
his constituents because the story we heard in Atlantic Canada is
that Atlantic Canadians are opposed to this. Will he poll his
constituents and if they are found to be in opposition to Bill C-98
will he vote against the bill when it comes up for third reading in
the House?
Mr. Wells: Madam Speaker, my only comment is that I would
suggest the member shows a total lack of understanding of Bill
C-98. Bill C-98 does not deal with access fees. He should read it
and determine what it states. Talking about fishermen, I convene
my own round tables in my riding to speak to fishermen's
organizations on a regular basis. I know what the fishermen's
position is on access fees. This bill is not about access fees.
I invite the member to read and understand the legislation before
he asks questions that are totally irrelevant because that is not the
issue. The question of access fees is certainly relevant but not as
part of this legislation. There is going to be a new fisheries act and
other things that we are going to discuss on this issue. It is a very
real, important and serious issue which I have dealt with not just as
of last weekend, like the hon. member, but is one I have been
dealing with for years.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
for Canadians watching this debate I would like to preface my
remarks by saying that what we are debating is Bill C-98, an act
respecting the oceans of Canada.
The bill essentially deals with two issues relating to oceans.
First, it deals with part of the oceans we designate as the oceans of
Canada. Second, it deals with something called an oceans
management strategy. I would like to direct my remarks on the
oceans management strategy and some of the aspects that are of
concern particularly to fishermen.
(1650)
I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague opposite who
just spoke. It was very interesting to hear the poetry and the talk
about ocean ecology and all those good things. I would like to be
more practical in this debate and talk about how we make sure that
we have fish resources to harvest.
Other speakers have mentioned the enormous value to the
Canadian economy of fisheries both on the east and west coasts and
our inland fisheries. This is not a resource to toy with. It is not a
part of our Canadian workforce that should be treated lightly
because this has really a lot of impact for a great many Canadians.
I would suggest that there has been a bit of a misnomer about our
oceans management strategy to date; it has been more oceans
mismanagement. We see an oceans resource in complete disaster.
So far there has been an unprecedented groundfish crisis on the east
coast and we are minutes from disaster on the west coast
particularly in the Fraser River fisheries.
We also have a population dependent on a resource that can no
longer sustain a very large number of Canadian workers. There is a
real pressure of numbers in the fisheries that is not going to go
away and cannot be supported artificially forever.
We also have a minister who I suggest is not really dealing with
these domestic issues. He is busy playing Captain Canada, talking
about building his media image internationally. Even when his
parliamentary secretary enters this debate it is to talk about the
wonderful international image of the minister. That does not put
food on the table of the fishermen of this country.
I think everyone would welcome a positive change in the way we
are managing the fish resources and our oceans resources because
we have a track record in this area that is not very inspiring to say
the least. We look at the management strategy that is being put into
place as a result of Bill C-98. We are looking for positive change.
We are looking for changes to address some of the mismanagement
of the past.
What do we see in this bill? We see two things that have not
brought any relief, any hope or any positive response from the
fishermen of this country. First, we have a government department
that will become even more bloated but there are no precise lines of
authority or management plan to help this increased government
department do a better job of the mandate it has been given to
manage the fisheries.
Second, the doors are being opened in this bill for increased fees
on fishermen which the fishermen can hardly bear to shoulder. I
quote from clause 50 of this Bill C-98 which states: ``The minister
may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make
for the purposes of this section, fix fees in respect of products,
rights and privileges provided under this act''. That is the section
which has a lot of fishermen quaking in their boots.
14908
The nice name of the oceans management strategy really hides
an increased bureaucracy. The stated purpose of this increased
bureaucracy is to get all government bodies to co-ordinate the
related activities with respect to management and harvesting of
the oceans. That is a good objective. It is an objective I think
everyone in Canada would support. We certainly have a lot of
cases in this country-and my friends from the Bloc often like
to talk about this-of where the right hand does not know what
the left hand is doing. There is duplication and interference
between different levels of government and different government
bodies. That of course leads to a great deal of inefficiency and
an enormous unnecessary cost. Pruning that back, streamlining
and making it more efficient, downsizing, is what needs to be
done. It is of course also what is being done across the board in
the private sector. Organizations are flattening, downsizing,
becoming more efficient and we have been calling for a long time
for government to do the same.
(1655)
We fail to see how this is going to happen by adding more layers
of bureaucracy and more complexity to the workings of the
department. There is no process identified in this bill to ensure
more effective co-ordination. It is simply stated as a nice goal. A
lot of roads are paved with good intentions but we need to see some
real specifics in the way we set out our legislation if we hope to
accomplish the stated aims.
In fact, there are no penalties or even any other consequences to
any of these bodies that are supposedly being co-ordinated for
failing to work in concert. We have more bureaucrats, more
activity, more process being added, but no power to initiate
activities that would get the objectives met or to ensure compliance
by all of the bodies that are to be co-ordinated. There is no concrete
planned agenda at all.
If this government is serious about the management of oceans,
we believe it would give real power to the managing body.
Management is only possible when there is some real authority and
that is simply not happening. In fact, if government would stop
thinking of ways to tinker with the system creating bloated
government departments and instead get on with the job of
protecting a valuable resource, everyone would be a lot better off.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is already a top heavy
organization. Fishermen on both coasts will tell of their frustration
in dealing with a department based in Ottawa which does not
understand what their needs really are. Passing this bill would not
send a positive message to these people who are already very
frustrated.
It is now abundantly clear that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is not committed to downsizing his bloated department. He
would rather try and slip a new level of bureaucracy into his
department under the guise of broad consultation rather than deal
with the harsh realities of downsizing.
Canadians want less government and that is a message which
must be sent over and over. Government members must get that
message: Canadians want less government. They are tired of
supporting and wrestling with and trying to deal with a huge and
inefficient bureaucracy when they are trying to make a living and
trying to live their lives and build their futures.
In Canada there are over 6,000 fisheries officials and they
manage 65,000 licences. We have 6,000 officials and 65,000
licences. The department operates with a budget that exceeds
three-quarters of a billion dollars and that is just for administrative
costs. Clearly, there is room here for a little cost cutting to be taken
at the top of this department, a department with over 6,000 officials
and a budget of three-quarters of a billion dollars.
Madam Speaker, I am sure everyone will be waiting with bated
breath to hear the end of this story after the vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I advise the hon. member
that private members' hour is after the vote and that the next time
the bill comes before the House she will have 10 minutes
remaining.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-94,
an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being five o'clock,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to
the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the hon.
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke at second reading stage
of Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based
substances.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 337)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ringma
14909
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (North Vancouver) -35
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Maclaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Volpe
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-169
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bertrand
Bouchard
Caccia
Cannis
Cauchon
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Discepola
Duceppe
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Jacob
Ménard
Proud
Robillard
St-Laurent
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the amendment
negatived.
[English]
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14909
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to streamline
administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective
to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in
favour of Motion No. 434 which states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move to streamline
administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective
to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.
For an entrepreneur in the energy industry, negotiating the maze
of government regulations is almost as great a challenge as
overcoming the technical and physical problems of a program.
Satisfying the demands of a multiplicity of regulatory boards and
agencies, often at three levels of government, is like walking on fly
paper; no sooner is one bureaucratic condition satisfied than the
applicant's feet become glued to another sticky spot.
14910
This is not unique to the energy sector. All phases of Canadian
activity are mired in regulations and each successive government
seems determined to pass more laws and make more rules. The
old adage that the best government is the one that governs least
has been all but forgotten. We are well on our way to terminal
social and economic constipation.
The passion for filling out forms requiring the approval of
platoons of bureaucrats is not new. This destructive waste of time
and resources contributed mightily to the downfall of the
Hapsburg, Ottoman and Soviet empires and was the leading cause
of the collapse of the Manchu dynasty in which generations of
China's brightest and best wasted away in an atmosphere of useless
paper shuffling; thus the French word chinoiserie.
The curious aspect of energy sector over regulation is that almost
everyone, including senior politicians, recognizes the problem. In
April 1993 the Conservative government commissioned a review
of federal regulations to ``identify those that significantly reduce
the competitiveness of Canadian industry'' or impose needless
costs on the consumers.
A report was released in October 1993 just in time for the
election and some of the panel's recommendations have actually
been acted on. Several sets of redundant regulations have been or
are in the process of being revoked. These, however, were purely
Natural Resources Canada regulations. It does not address the
problem of the overlap of federal and provincial regulations, and
regulatory conflict between various government departments is a
much more serious matter.
Only the federal Minister of the Environment seems to be
oblivious to the problem; witness her unseemly remarks and
confrontational attitude during question period earlier this
afternoon. This overlap, believe it or not, is most pervasive in her
bailiwick in situations in which environmental protection is at
stake. There is also overlap in matters affecting worker health and
safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.
The multi-tiered environmental permit problem has been
recognized by the Minister of Natural Resources. She has stated in
an open letter to the Northern Miner that the government is
committed to addressing this issue: ``The goal is a single window
approach''.
Those words are music to every Canadian petroleum and natural
gas producer and marketer and also to people in the mining,
forestry, agricultural and transportation industries.
The Liberals, through their minister, have expressed a policy.
Now I would truly like to see them act on it. Then we could stand
back and watch the revitalization of our resource based industries.
For a classic example of regulatory overkill, I suggest we look at
the Atomic Energy Control Board. Actually, I would rather not
look at it since it is one of the few federal entities that continue to
grow like a giant fungus in spite of the fact that its workload has
been decreasing for a decade. Be that as it may, it is the major
player in the regulation of the nuclear industry, all the way from
mining to waste disposal.
(1735)
Unfortunately the AECB is overlapped both provincially and
federally. At the extractive level the provincial mining departments
make regulations. The provincial environment departments make
regulations. The federal environment department makes
regulations and throughout the entire nuclear cycle various
provincial occupational health and safety divisions make
regulations.
When all other hurdles have been cleared there are still
municipal zoning laws to contend with. I am aware of one instance
in which a proposed uranium refinery facility in Saskatchewan was
killed by the local government not on technical grounds but for
purely political reasons.
Then we have review panels. They have no authority, no legal
standing but they can delay projects for months simply by being in
session.
In 1993 a joint federal-provincial environment assessment
review board spent several months studying proposals for three
uranium mining developments in Saskatchewan. It made three
recommendations and the Saskatchewan government cheerfully
ignored one of them with the blessing of the federal government.
Why did it spend all that time doing the studies? Who knows.
It is time for the various provincial and federal departments to sit
down together and develop a single window permitting system for
uranium mines. Developers are entitled to know before the first
shovel full of dirt is dug if in terms of economic benefits versus the
social and environmental costs it makes sense to proceed with a
project.
The second major national player in the regulation of the energy
industry is the National Energy Board which controls all
interprovincial movement of oil, gas and electricity. It also controls
international trade in those commodities. Conflict exists to the
extent that provincial interests are often contrary to what the
National Energy Board considers to be the national interest. Who
can ever forget the national energy program?
On the other hand, there is a good example of federal provincial
co-operation in the offshore boards which regulate what goes on
under the sea. These boards could serve as a pattern and a model for
eliminating the problems caused by competing federal and
provincial environmental agencies.
To get back to the environmental agencies, they are not energy
regulators per se but they have a tremendous impact on the
industry. There are instances of projects being environmentally
approved at the provincial level only to have further studies and
14911
interminable delays demanded by a federal department. I am sure
other hon. members will have something to say about that.
The energy industry needs relief, not so much from taxes as from
the ocean of paper it is required to swim through. An industry that
accounts for 7 per cent of our gross domestic product and which
directly or indirectly provides employment for 620,000 people is
entitled to reasonable consideration and rational treatment.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to address the
motion put forward by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia.
My colleague has informed the House about steps the
government is taking to reduce regulatory overlap and duplication
in the Canadian nuclear sector.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to give the House an
overview of the initiative undertaken by the government in other
sectors of the energy industry in order to meet these objectives.
[English]
Before I do, however, I remind hon. members that the very basis
for these efforts is the government's commitment to a market
oriented energy policy. We believe the energy industry must have
the flexibility to adapt to changing market circumstances if it is to
continue to contribute to Canada's economic prosperity. That
means keeping government intervention in the marketplace to a
minimum.
(1740)
Nevertheless, there is a need for regulation in the energy industry
just as there is a need for regulation in other sectors of the
economy. As my colleague noted, the challenge is to achieve a
regulatory framework which protects the public good but does not
unnecessarily inhibit the industry. Achieving this balance requires
the government to be constantly mindful of the impact of its
regulatory activities on the industry.
The agency primarily responsible for regulating Canada's oil,
gas and electricity sectors in the areas of federal jurisdiction is the
National Energy Board, the NEB. The board was established in
1959 under the authority of the National Energy Board Act, and for
the past three and half decades it has done an excellent job in
meeting the needs of both government and industry in
administering a reasonable and balanced regulatory regime.
Under the act the NEB sets tolls and tariffs for oil and gas
pipelines and also approves the construction of pipelines and
designated power lines under federal jurisdiction. The board also
authorizes the export of oil, gas and electricity and the import of
gas.
The National Energy Board is an independent quasi-judicial
body which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural
Resources. It is comprised of nine members, all of whom are
appointed by governor in council.
Matters relating to tolls and tariffs, minor construction and short
term import/export orders are the exclusive jurisdiction of the
board. However, decisions requiring certificates of public
convenience and necessity and export and import licences must be
approved by the governor in council.
The NEB has proven to be an extremely effective regulatory
body. In my view the board will be even better positioned to meet
industry needs in the future as the result of recent initiatives it has
taken to modernize, streamline and simplify its regulatory
processes and requirements. These initiatives are in direct response
to 13 recommendations the board received in October 1993 from
the Minister of Natural Resources advisory panel on regulatory
review.
I am pleased to inform the House the board has moved swiftly
and effectively to address each of these recommendations. For
example, the NEB has revised many of the processes and
requirements for filing information with the board with the overall
objective of easing the administrative burden on industry. Among
other things, the board is implementing an electronic regulatory
filing system for all regulatory filings. As well, it has taken
industry views into account in revising its guidelines for the filing
of information by companies applying for certificates of public
convenience and necessity.
The board's guidelines for preparing a social economic impact
assessment for pipeline projects have also been revised to reflect
new legislative requirements and to avoid overlap and duplication
with other statutory requirements.
The National Energy Board has also demonstrated its ability to
adapt to change in the natural gas market by revising its rules on
how gas can be moved on pipelines. Earlier this year the board
decided to end its ban on selling pipeline transportation rights at
prices above the regulated toll, which will help ensure the available
capacity is allocated in the most efficient manner.
The board also decided against requiring that available pipeline
capacity be posted on electronic bulletin boards since this
secondary transportation market has been working well without
any such regulation.
In August 1994 the National Energy Board issued revised
guidelines which will make it easier for pipeline companies,
producers, shippers, consumers and governments to resolve tolls
and tariff issues through negotiation rather than formal NEB
hearings which are costly to all parties.
14912
In another cost saving measure for the industry, the board
decided to set the cost of capital for group 1 pipeline companies
for multi-year periods rather than on an annual basis. This will
reduce the expense associated with annual hearings for each
pipeline by reducing the length of the hearings.
The National Energy Board is also endeavouring to reduce
overlap and duplication by working more closely with provincial
regulatory bodies.
(1745 )
For example, the NEB and the Alberta Energy and Utilities
Board have signed two memoranda of understanding, the first to
implement a mutual aid agreement for pipeline incidents in Alberta
and the second to establish a common reserve data base.
Under the first MOU, when an incident occurs on an NEB
regulated facility the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board will, at the
request of the National Energy Board, provide emergency response
assistance. If the incident involves a provincially regulated pipeline
the NEB will be available to provide emergency response
investigation assistance. The end result will be a faster, more
effective response by both boards to pipeline incidents in Alberta.
Under the second MOU the NEB and the AEUB will share
geological and reservoir information for natural gas and crude oil
pools. The sharing of information will result in a common reserve
data base for Alberta. The beneficiaries of this most efficient
method of maintaining estimates of reserves will be the oil and gas
industry and the taxpaying public.
[Translation]
I could go on and on about the efforts made by the National
Energy Board to reduce the overlap and duplication and to
streamline the administrative requirements. However, my goal here
is only to give the hon. members an overview of the recent
measures taken by the Board to improve the regulatory framework
for the oil, gas and electricity sector.
[English]
I would urge the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia to seek a full accounting of the NEB's
regulatory reform initiatives directly from the board. I believe he
will be impressed with the progress that has been made to date. The
record will clearly indicate that this government not only endorses
the objective of reducing the regulatory burden on the energy
industry, but it is actively pursuing that objective on a day-to-day
basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion standing in the
name of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia: ``That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should move to streamline administrative and
regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to
minimize unnecessary regulatory burden''.
I think the hon. member's motion is particularly relevant at a
time when one of the items on the government's parliamentary
agenda is Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act, and in fact I
hope members of all parties will work together to find an effective
way to make regulations flexible and refrain from policies that are
counterproductive.
The motion of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia deals indirectly with a set of regulations that
are so rigid they often cause more harm than otherwise in the
energy sector. The hon. member's motion could also apply to other
areas as well and in fact to practically any area of human activity,
since almost everything we do is regulated.
This motion also leads us to question the advisability of having
so many levels of government, each with their own regulations,
federal, provincial and even municipal. All these levels of
government have their various departments, each with the authority
to veto the other's initiatives, which means that obtaining a single
permit may be a very lengthy process. In this respect, the director
of a new mining development, the Troilus project north of
Chibougamau in Quebec, pointed out in an interview with
Radio-Canada that he needed no less than 37 certified permits
before he could start his project.
On the basis of his own experience with the Troilus project, he
also said in the interview that he realized why Canada now ranked
only fifth in the world as a country that was attractive for mining
exploration. It was mainly because of its undue regulatory burden.
Although he made it clear that he was not in favour of more flexible
environmental regulations, he did point out that competition
between various levels of government and various departments
made the work of developers unnecessarily complex and was not
conducive to economic development.
At the federal level, the number of regulations is impressive. It is
enough just to flip through the 14,420 pages of the Consolidated
Regulations of Canada of 1978 and the 4,277 pages of the Canada
Gazette, part II, for 1994 alone.
(1750)
The regulatory process, which is intended among other things to
lighten the legislative process of which it is a part, has had the
opposite effect over the years, adding to the number of standards
without necessarily improving quality.
There are therefore a growing number of increasingly complex
and technical regulations, and this has resulted in a considerably
more complicated administrative burden for Canadian taxpayers. It
would be appropriate to assess the impact of this situation upon the
14913
competitiveness of Canadian businesses and even upon the
Canadian economy as a whole.
I would like to cite one example of a situation in which two
legitimate objectives are at cross-purposes in responding to two
different safety requirements, the example of an infant crib with a
drop side to make it easier for disabled parents to use. Such a crib
cannot meet crib safety standards, which require the sides to be
fixed, when the side needs to be lowered to ensure safe access for
disabled parents. This regulation runs counter to the needs of
disabled parents and presents an enormous obstacle for them.
One could readily imagine some mechanism to reconcile these
two objectives, if a worthwhile instrument for doing so were
created, instead of stupidly allowing the regulations to control the
situation.
As the member for the Abitibi region I have often had to
intervene in order to help speed up the administrative process for
projects held up by the application of outmoded regulations. For
example, the Grevet mining project near Quévillon in the Abitibi
region had to wait 15 months to obtain environmental approval.
In order to get these approvals, authorizations from the
Departments of Environment and Indian Affairs, among others,
also had to be obtained, because the area is close to the James Bay
reserve and the Cree territory. Here again, we can see that the
federal government, by interfering in provincial jurisdictions, is
creating overlap that only makes regulations more cumbersome, so
that processes needed to administer them are more complex and
more confusing.
This is not new, at least for the official opposition, that has spent
a lot of its energy trying to make the federal government
understand that its policy of centralizing everything too often
causes more harm than good.
The oft-requested creation of a single window for permits or any
other activity requiring the cooperation of several governments or
departments has become more than essential and our economy's
viability depends on it.
In the energy sector, the situation is no different. At the national
level, a number of major players are involved in the regulatory
process and somehow competing with each other. The federal
government, through the National Energy Board or Natural
Resources Canada, also adopts regulations, thus adding to the
competition between federal and provincial environmental
agencies.
This undue regulatory burden has a disastrous impact on the
energy sector. My colleague from the Reform Party who showed an
interest in the vitality of Canada's energy sector and the well-being
of his fellow citizens is seeking with his motion to express his
concern that regulations are strangling industry and, in turn, all
Canadians.
As I too am concerned about the mining industry, I can say that
the decline of investments in mining exploration clearly illustrates
the disastrous effects of a double, and even triple layer of
administration, because the excessive number of regulations is
only one of the important factors in the decline of mining
investments.
The mining industry is linked to the energy sector because it
accounts for close to 13 per cent of the total energy demand of
industry in Canada and Quebec, and it is suffering needlessly as a
result of this situation. Why does the federal government let this
situation, that impacts so negatively on our economy, go on?
Any businessman will tell you that a bad organization makes you
lose time and, as you know, time is money, which means that in the
end it could have dire consequences for the company. We are not
talking about a small business here, but about an industry that
accounts for 7 per cent of Canada's and Quebec's GDP or $45
billion each year.
This is far from the single window concept which I talked about
earlier and which would allow for the simplification of the
administrative process. We know of projects that were approved by
the provincial government but rejected by the federal government.
Conflicts arise because each level considers itself to be the only
one that has the power to regulate.
(1755)
To conclude on this motion, I would say that we obviously have
to rationalize without delay the administrative process and its
regulations in the energy sector. Too many agencies, companies
and individuals are paying the price of this duplication and these
useless conflicts.
The federal government should, in the interest of everyone,
simplify its regulations, leave to each level of government its own
regulation-making, even if it has to resort to single windows to
deliver permits when an act applies to a provincial area of
responsibility.
It is a good thing that the rest of Canada has begun to talk about
rationalizing the role of each government. In Quebec, we have been
asking for that for a long time.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today and speak on my colleague's motion.
The streamlining of regulations has certainly for many years
been a popular political topic in Canada. Governments have been
talking for years and in spite of that relatively little has happened in
streamlining and reducing overlap in regulations between federal
and provincial governments.
As far back as 1978, Prime Minister Trudeau entrusted the
Economic Council of Canada with the task of reviewing
government regulations in certain sectors. Among other things, the
study was to focus on the relevance and impact of regulations. The
14914
council proceeded to look at a number of sectors, notably
telecommunications and occupational health and safety. This
seems to show, as my colleague mentioned, that over-regulation is
certainly a problem in many sectors other than the energy sector.
The council generally recommended that routine regulations and
agreements be codified and made public at all levels of
government. The aim of this recommendation was to ensure a
clearer grasp and understanding of the scope of regulations.
In the second recommendation, pertaining to products and
development projects, the council recommended that in instances
when responsibility for a particular sector was shared between the
federal government and the provinces, a single department should
be assigned responsibility for co-ordinating the activities of
participating departments. Of course that is the single-window
approach that the previous speaker mentioned. Businesses would
thus waste less time than they do when they have to deal with all
the departments of government.
In September 1984 Prime Minister Mulroney announced that he
was setting up a ministerial task force to review all federal
government programs with a view to making them simpler and
more accessible. Nineteen study teams composed of public and
private sector individuals were formed and mandated to review 989
programs accounting for expenditures of $92 billion. One of the
study teams focused on regulatory programs.
Not specifically mentioned in the program review appended to
the report is a list of federal programs considered problematic in
terms of provincial relations. Problems identified had to do either
with jurisdiction or overlap or with matters of information, policy,
et cetera. Of the 134 registered programs identified, 86, or 66 per
cent, were categorized as problematic in at least one province or
territory, while 27, or 20 per cent, were found to overlap with
provinces or territories. The task force observed the highest
incidence of overlap in the case of environmental programs.
The study team reviewing regulatory programs concluded
among other things that there was evidence of ongoing significant
overlap and duplication between the two levels of government. It
recommended that initiatives be adopted to improve the regulatory
process. Specifically, it recommended that a study of overlap in the
environmental sector be conducted. Moreover, the task force called
for an immediate review of the overall burden imposed by the
various levels of government. It concluded that Canadians were
over-regulated and that it was important to cut down the number of
regulatory levels.
So members can see that this is certainly not a new subject in
Canada for political debate. It has been ongoing for years and
years. It is the general consensus, I think, with all parties in Canada
that all sectors are over-regulated. As we mentioned, today the
energy sector is certainly one sector that is over-regulated.
In the spring of 1986 the government adopted a federal
regulatory reform strategy. It called for all new regulations to be
subjected to economic and social cost analysis. The public would
henceforth be informed and involved in the regulatory process. For
one thing, the process would not take so long. Furthermore, the
current regulatory process would be streamlined to improve
efficiency. These are very familiar terms, which we have heard
many times.
(1800)
One of the 10 guidelines for reform deals directly with the issue
that interests us here. In the view of existing regulatory burden and
the need to eliminate needless duplication, co-operation with the
provinces was deemed to be a government priority.
To prove how serious it was, the government moved in the
summer of 1986 to create the ministry of state for privatization and
regulatory affairs. Although each department continued to be
responsible for its own regulations, the office of privatization and
regulatory affairs was put in charge of promoting the government's
regulatory objectives.
With respect to program efficiency, considerable progress has
been made since the strategy's adoption. For example, the average
timeframe for regulatory approval has dropped substantially since
the development of this office. According to the office, better
inspection and enforcement mechanisms have been developed and
overlapping regulations have been eliminated, at least to some
degree.
Since 1987 the government has also released an annual federal
regulatory plan. This publication gives an overview of forthcoming
regulations. In each instance the purpose of the regulation is
mentioned, along with the impact it will have.
The federal regulatory plan also includes a regulatory evaluation
plan. In 1988 the office published a paper listing all of the
regulatory reviews and reforms undertaken by different
departments. In all, 77 initiatives were identified. In 1991 the
office was disbanded and responsibility for regulatory affairs was
assigned to the Treasury Board.
After this general history and overview, we are still left with the
same problem in the energy sector as well as in many other sectors.
The reality of the 1990s is that we do not want complex and
bureaucratic solutions to the problem of over-regulation. We need
to adopt a different philosophy. Our primary focus has to be to
simplify and eliminate regulations wherever possible. For those
that remain we need to share the administrative responsibility with
other partners. While quality and service have to remain a primary
objective, we expect there will have to be a significant shift in the
degree and type of interaction between the federal and provincial
governments that create these regulations, regulatory boards that
oversee them, and the industry that must comply with them and in
some instances be burdened by them.
14915
The best way to examine the effects regulations have on a
company is to look at a specific example of what I have been
talking about up to this point. The National Energy Board was
faced this year with an application by Foothills Pipe Lines Limited
to construct the Wild Horse pipeline, which is an interconnecting
link within Alberta from the Nova System to the proposed
Altamont pipeline at Wild Horse on the Montana border.
The nature of the application and Foothills' approach to the
National Energy Board raises fundamental questions with respect
to the approval process for future pipeline facility expansion.
Foothills' application stretched the limits of conventional National
Energy Board facilities approval requirements in several important
areas.
Under established approval procedures, a pipeline applicant
must demonstrate that the facilities are needed, that there is a
reasonable expectation they will be used for a significant portion of
their useful life, and that tolls will be paid. The requirements are
manifested in the demonstration of five aspects of supporting
evidence: adequate supply in Canada to maintain incremental
deliveries over time; a market assessment of sustainable demand
for incremental gas volume; firm shipper contractual commitments
for the new capacity for an extended term; specific contract market
commitments to purchase the incremental gas; and specific
dedicated supply to service these market commitments. The last
two have been subject to some relaxation in other recent
applications as long as a binding, firm shipper contract for the new
capacity was in place. Where the application represents an
expansion to existing facilities, rolled in tolling treatment has
almost universally applied.
That is what Foothills was facing in the regulatory process in
getting approval for this rather insignificant pipeline extension.
What Foothills was seeking was pre-approval and certification to
build facilities without demonstrable market support. As an
alternative to outright approval, Foothills indicated that it would
accept a conditional certificate that would require some further
demonstration of shipper contractual commitments prior to
construction.
As time is short, I will not go into more detail on that specific
proposal. The point is that when the gas market was hot and
Foothills wanted to build the extension on the pipeline to service
that market the regulatory procedure was so complex and
cumbersome that the market in reality was dried up before the
regulatory approval system could be put into effect.
Therefore, in effect what we are talking about today is the
streamlining of this regulatory process.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
It being 6.06 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.06 p.m.)