GOVERNMENT ORDERS

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT

Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved:

That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-13, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, be now read the second time and concurred in.

The members of the Senate committee had concerns about the word opinion. They felt the word opinion provided the commissioner with too much discretion in the making of the determination on protective services. Instead the committee voted to require the commissioner to have evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the protectee.

(1515 )

The government can support this amendment. The commissioner must base this decision on the facts of the case which would be open to judicial review in any event. In fact under clause 10 of the bill the commissioner must provide his reasons for ending protective services in writing to enable the protectee to understand the basis for this decision.

It was never intended for this serious decision to be made in an arbitrary manner by the government. Using the word evidence instead of the word opinion underlies this objective and therefore is acceptable by our government.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for essentially the same reasons, I believe the Senate has passed a very useful amendment, substituting the word ``evidence'' for the word ``opinion'', a vague term leaving the commissioner unlimited discretion.

When the commissioner terminates protective services under the Witness Protection Program Act, he must base his opinion on material facts that can ultimately be reviewed by the courts. In a country that believes in the rule of law, this is a notable improvement that deserves support.

I would particularly like to thank my friend, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, for all the attention and consideration he gave this issue.

The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and passed.)

* * *

OCEANS ACT

The Speaker: The debate will centre around Group No. 8 which will include Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56 and 73. As per agreement in the House yesterday, these will have been deemed moved and seconded. We will now proceed to debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-98, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 3, on page 16, with the following:

``(a) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, shall develop and implement policies''.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 16, with the following:

``(b) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and coordinate with other ministers,''.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 16, with the following:

``(d) may, with the approval of the standing committee and in consultation with other minis-''.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-26, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 36, on page 16, with the following:

``(d) may, in concert with the provincial governments and in consultation with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, establish, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, marine environmental''.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 17, with the following:

``(b) may enter into agreements with the provincial governments, with any''.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 17, with the following:

``Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a resolution confirming the recommendations of the standing committee approving the making of grants and contributions; and''.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-26, in Clause 33, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 17, with the following:

``(e) may, with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, make recoverable expenditures on''.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-26, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 18, with the following:

``regulations, with the approval of the provinces affected and of the standing committee,''.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing line 43, on page 18, with the following:

``recommendation of the Minister and after obtaining the approval of the provinces affected, may make''.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 19, the following:

``(4) At the request of the standing committee or of a province that is affected by an order made under this section, the Governor in Council shall revoke the order.''

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-26, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 28, with the following:

He said: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to go ahead immediately; the afternoon may be a bit longer.

(1520)

I want to be sure I have understood you correctly. The motions are deemed to have been approved, but does that mean that there will be a vote on each one?

Before beginning my 10-minute speech, I would like to be sure I have understood. Last night, it was agreed with members across the way that it was not necessary to call a vote on each one since it was agreed a recorded division would be called on these motions. According to what was agreed, the vote on the first motion will be applied to the others and we will have to live with it.

The Speaker: Dear colleague, the agreement reached yesterday will apply today. We have the unanimous consent of the House, and that is how we will proceed. Does that answer your question?

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, for those who followed yesterday's proceedings, motions in Group No. 8 have more or less the same purpose as those in Groups Nos. 6 and 7, in that the goal of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is to draw the government's attention to the fact that the integrated ocean management strategy it wants to put in place must be implemented in co-operation with its partners.

This time around, the partners are the provinces that make up Canada. Each of these motions is aimed at reminding legislators that the provinces must be involved.

I even added another notion in these amendments, mainly in Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 40. These three motions revolve around the same idea: allowing the minister or the government to be a little more open. I would like them to get the co-operation of and a form of approval from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Of course, most members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans are from the government party. The opposition is not likely to hijack this bill or to throw a wrench into the process. This would allow the government to become more open, as it tries to establish a partnership through the integrated ocean management strategy.

Most members of the standing committee belong to the government party, but the official opposition and the third party are also

represented. We even have independent and Conservative members; we are very open. The committee is doing its work in the least partisan way possible.

I think that allowing members of this House to first become familiar with the issues in committee would help the government become more open. Second, I always come back to building bridges with the partners, the provinces. This would produce some consistency and everyone would be less surprised.

The main problem in management of things like that is to always ensure that our partners are informed at the same time we are.

(1525)

If we manage to maintain this trust and this communication, my experience as an administrator tells me that 90 per cent of the problems will be solved before they actually surface.

There are also many other motions. For example, Motions Nos. 44 and 45, which deal with part II of the act. We proposed many motions, but these primarily seek to explain the letter and the spirit of the act.

However, since we are discussing several issues, I wish to point out, for the benefit of the members here and the people watching us at home, that Motions Nos. 44 and 45 relate to the minister's powers. The act provides that the minister may enter into agreements and it lists the groups with which the minister can reach such agreements, to implement the management strategy.

When I read this provision, I realized that the main partners, namely the provinces, are not included in the list. So, like a good team player, I am telling the government that it would be a good idea to include, through Motion No. 44, the possibility of entering into agreements with the provinces, since they are the main partners in the process.

As for Motion No. 45, it provides, as regards the minister's powers, that the minister may make grants to organizations and groups, based on the terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board. Again, since this is something which must be done with the greatest possible spirit of co-operation and with the greatest possible transparency, I am adding to the transparency of the process by specifying that it must be done following the committee's recommendations.

This motion gives the government the opportunity to raise awareness among the hon. members of the various parties represented in this House. But once again, it would not stand in the way of the government, since it still has a majority within the standing committee.

As for Motions Nos. 50 and 53, I am coming back to them in the same spirit as earlier. I am asking that the minister seek approval, and the approval of the provinces affected in particular.

When a decision is made to implement an integrated management strategy in a given area or to act in concert, the key stakeholders, that is to say the provinces, should have a say in the matter. These motions reflect this notion. I have tried-and we have worked at it within the standing committee last year-to sell the notion of partnership. I tried to explain the spirit in which this kind of bill ought to be drafted.

I must confess, however, that I apparently did not succeed in getting the idea across. Yet, the former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, made it clear to me in committee-and we could go back to the proceedings if necessary-that he wanted this bill to be implemented in co-operation, in partnership with the provinces. That is why I feel perfectly free to raise all this again today. Every time I hear that the minister may or shall act in co-operation and how he should go about it, I make sure to repeat to this House that the provinces must be identified as key stakeholders.

To wrap up and conclude, the main goal is to enable the federal government to show the transparency necessary to ensure the integrated management strategies that will have to be put in place will work well.

I will call your attention, if I may, to Motion No. 56. If the department, the minister and the governor in council look at it closely, they will see how far they can take this spirit of partnership.

(1530)

There are three paragraphs in this clause of the bill and I would like to add a fourth one. Following consultations with the provinces, or a province, the federal government could revoke an order it issued when factors affecting the environment or the community have not been taken into account, since the provinces are closer to the issues than is the federal government. While we are here in Ottawa, provincial governments are closer to the communities.

Again, the recent crab fishery dispute in New Brunswick and in Quebec is a good example. It is the Quebec and New Brunswick fisheries ministers who took immediate action with plant workers.

I will let the fisheries minister answer in due time but, as you can see, it is necessary to include the provinces when talking about integrated ocean management. The provinces concerned are located right along the coasts; they are aware of the issues and they can react accordingly. In some cases, they can warn the federal fisheries minister, thus saving Canadian and Quebec taxpayers money. In other words, let us call on those who are concerned and involved to make sure the strategy is truly effective.

I am now going to sit down, but I will certainly rise again when we discuss the next group of motions.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of order before we get into debate.

Because these motions are grouped together-and in this group there are nine or ten-I am not clear on how we are going to deal with them when we vote. Are we going to vote on each one separately or are we going to vote on the group? There are some motions here that we would like to support and some that we cannot support.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me on how these will be dealt with?

The Speaker: The voting pattern was agreed on yesterday and it is in front of you now. Is it clear or do you need further clarification?

Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me now. I appreciate your assistance.

The Speaker: The hon. member's 10 minutes will begin at this point.

Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will need to utilize my whole time.

My party will be supporting Motions Nos. 36 through 46 and Motion No. 73 because they seek to give the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans more power to review legislation. They also require the government to report to the standing committee on the effectiveness of the legislation.

The motions also seek to increase the government's obligation to consult with the provinces. Essentially that is a good thing.

We cannot support several motions in this grouping, namely Motion Nos. 50, 53 and 56, simply because their intent is to try to interject provincial jurisdiction where we see a clear federal responsibility.

(1535 )

I mentioned this in my remarks yesterday when we were talking about these motions. The federal government has jurisdiction and sovereignty over Canada's marine waters. I fail to see, and it is difficult for anybody to see, how those marine waters can be divided into provincial jurisdictions.

I come from British Columbia. One of the main reasons I chose to run for office and become involved in federal politics was my feeling that the federal government had become too powerful, that it had interceded and injected itself into many areas where it had no legitimate place.

I can understand the frustrations of many people, including people from Quebec. I understand the motivation of my colleague, the member for Gaspé, who has been working with us on the standing committee and who has moved these motions, as to why he would like to see the federal government back away from many areas where it is currently involved.

When it comes to Canada's marine waters, the federal government has jurisdiction and responsibility. Many aspects of our marine waters are international and interprovincial in nature. There can be only one lead player in this. It must be the federal government.

In summary, Reform members will be supporting the motions in this grouping that seek to increase the obligation of the federal government to consult with the provinces and that seek to require the federal government to report to the standing committee on a regular basis and make the standing committee more relevant.

We cannot support those motions that attempt to increase provincial jurisdiction.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, there are 11 motions under Group No. 8 now before us, all presented by the Bloc Quebecois, and more specifically by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé. Ten concern the part dealing with ocean management strategy and one, the part dealing with the minister's powers. You will see from the motions presented by the member for Gaspé that we are dealing with two very distinct subjects that we would like to see corrected in this bill.

The first is that we find-and we have said so repeatedly in this debate-that the Liberal government has left the provinces out of consultations. Among other things, the provinces are compared to a municipal government, Indian reserves, and other persons and bodies. In the ten amendments to the part dealing with the ocean management strategy, it is extremely important that the government of each province participate.

The final amendment, the eleventh in Group No. 8, focuses specifically on the minister's powers, which we would like to limit as much as possible in order to have considerably more transparence.

So that everyone understands, including hon. members who may not have read or did not bother reading the bill, I add that the act respecting the oceans of Canada is very important and affects many ridings. There are those who might initially think the bill does not affect some ridings, such as my riding of Berthier-Montcalm, at all. But to take the example of my riding, given that the St. Lawrence River flows right through it, there will be an effect on tariffs for pleasure boats and so on. It is therefore a bill that concerns everyone associated in any way with the St. Lawrence and its ports.

(1540)

Starting with Motion No. 36, we find that its intention is to amend clause 32 to read as follows:

``32. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister

(a) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters assigned by law to the Minister;''

The intent of this amendment is to correct a shortcoming, an aberration in the bill. We wish to involve the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I am sure that you recall that one of the Liberal Party's commitments in the famous red book was to improve the perception of MPs, to raise the prestige of what MPs do. How better to do this than to involve the MPs who have accepted parliamentary duties, such as sitting on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans?

The amendment proposed by the member for Gaspé helps the government attain its objectives and meet its campaign promises, which it has had difficulty doing. The hon. member for Gaspé wishes to assist the government in raising the profile of the work of the MPs by empowering the MPs sitting on this committee to approve extremely important elements of the integrated ocean management strategy.

Who can be better placed than the MPs on that standing committee, who receive witnesses and have the opportunity to question specialists, to present positive elements in a bill like this?

That is fine. The minister is advised by officials and bureaucrats in skyscrapers. Sometimes I wonder if they have ever seen such a bill and whether they can tell a panfish from a catfish. These people are advising the minister on a bill as important as this one.

The members who have heard witnesses, done research, studied the ins and outs of such a bill could move the debate along and provide protection to those needing it, that is, those affected by the Oceans Act.

Another extremely important amendment, and I am sure that with all the transparency the Liberal government wants for its administration it will vote in favour of this motion, which is Motion No. 37, introduced by the member for Gaspé. It amends sub-clause (b) of clause 32 to read as follows:

``(b) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and co-ordinate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies-''

Motions Nos. 40 and 41 will change sub-clause (d) of clause 32, which appears in part II entitled ``Oceans Management Strategy'', one of the most important sections of this bill. With the proposed amendments, paragraph (d) would read as follows:

``may, with the approval of the standing committee in concert with the provincial governments and in consultation with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, establish, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria respecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters.''

(1545)

This is the sole purpose of Motions Nos. 40 and 41. MotionNo. 44, which amends clause 33, seeks to do the same by including the provincial governments in the decision making process, since the issues often come under their jurisdiction and directly affect them.

The purpose of Motion No. 45 is exactly the same. This motion, which affects paragraph (d), will certainly be passed, given that it only makes sense and improves the bill. I am convinced that the minister, who is listening carefully to my comments, will ask his government to support this motion.

I will end on that note, since I do not have time to discuss all the motions. However, I wish to point out that, if Motion No. 45 is passed, the provision will read as follows: ``(d) may make grants and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a resolution confirming the recommendations of the standing committee approving the making of grants and contributions''.

As members can see, this motion seeks to ensure the participation of the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and also the members of this House, who were given a mandate by their constituents to represent them and make sure that the legislation passed by this House is as good as can possibly be.

So, the ultimate goal is very simple: it is to promote transparency, to ensure greater provincial government participation, and to take away from the minister some of the powers he is giving himself with this act, something that could eventually be very dangerous.

[English]

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to address the Canada Oceans Act and in particular Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56 and 73.

The act, as members know, is the product of a number of deliberations and consultations, including the standing committee on the subject, which has a special competence and a special expertise in matters having to do with the oceans.

I would stress again that the work of the House on this act and the work of the standing committee should not be turned into a fishing expedition to elaborate casual ideas on structural institutional changes in government or on the separation of powers or federal-provincial relations. Neither the oceans act itself nor

frankly the work of the standing committee is competent to bear that sort of discussion. There are other committees and other arenas. While I admire the enthusiasm with which some of the members opposite have addressed themselves to these issues and the interstices of discussions of the oceans act, it is simply the wrong place and the wrong time.

The motions in this group would serve to fetter the minister's ability to exercise his mandate to act decisively on matters within his general mandate and responsibility for the oceans.

Some of the motions propose to change accepted parliamentary procedure by requiring the approval of the standing committee to conduct ministerial business. That would be an unprecedented step in terms of parliamentary practice. Frankly, while we are prepared as a government to discuss general plans for the improvement of Parliament, it should be done within a committee charged with that purpose. There are several to which I could suggest members of the opposition address themselves.

The leadership role of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is laid out in part II, the oceans management strategy, which describes his role and responsibilities.

Motion No. 36 by the Bloc proposes that the minister receive unanimous approval of a standing committee before developing or implementing policies and programs within his mandate. This is an unprecedented attempt to fetter the minister completely in the exercise of his mandate. It is contrary to accepted parliamentary practice. We would have to change the system. We are prepared to discuss that, but surely not as a footnote to the discussion of the oceans act itself. This is a constitutional issue that deserves another arena and a more specialized expertise on the part of its members. Motion No. 36 should be rejected therefore.

(1550)

Motion No. 37 proposes the minister receive approval from the standing committee before he undertakes the role as co-ordinator within the federal government of policies and programs respecting coastal marine waters. Once again it flies in the face of accepted parliamentary practice. It is an idea that is interesting in itself but there are appropriate organs of Parliament that can consider this on the basis of the expert competence of the members of those committees. Motion No. 37 in this context should be rejected.

Motions Nos. 40 and 41 by the Bloc propose two different amendments to the same line in the bill. We are not really sure what the Bloc wants on this.

Motion No. 40 proposes once again that the minister receive approval from the standing committee to exercise his mandate, this time for the establishment of marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria. This would unduly restrict the minister in exercising his mandate and is contrary to parliamentary practice.

Motion No. 41 proposes the minister obtain agreement from the provinces in establishing marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria. This is something that is within federal purview. While the provinces must and will be part of the collaborative effort, the constitutional responsibility for this is with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It cannot be delegated or transferred in the interstices of the oceans act. It is the wrong arena. Motion No. 41 must be rejected.

Part II of the act also provides a number of other mechanisms for the minister to use in order to perform his duties and functions.

Motion No. 44 by the Bloc asks that one add mention of the provincial governments in the provision for entering into agreements. It is redundant as the clause already provides for the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces. Motion No. 44 should be rejected as redundant.

Motion No. 45 again attempts to fetter the minister's abilities, this time his ability to make grants and contributions. The Bloc proposes the minister, before making a grant or contribution, have the House adopt a resolution concerning a recommendation by the standing committee.

There are already rules developed by Treasury Board governing the making of grants and contributions. It is a huge additional purpose, quite unnecessary, a change in parliamentary practice, and the wrong arena and wrong forum in which to attempt it. We do not make constitutional changes of this sort by indirection without substantial discussion. For these reasons Motion No. 45 should be rejected.

On Motion No. 46, it is the same theme. The minister must have the unanimous approval of the standing committee for making recoverable expenditures on behalf of any ministry, board or agency of the government. This unduly fetters the minister and is contrary to accepted parliamentary practice. I recommend rejection.

During its review, the standing committee greatly strengthened the provisions relating to marine protected areas. To many Canadians these are some of the most important clauses of the Canada Oceans Act. Motions Nos. 50, 53 and 56 relate to clauses dealing with the regulations making powers of the minister with respect to marine protected areas. In a situation where a marine resource or habitat is at risk, the government would be able to take action immediately.

The Bloc in Motions Nos. 50, 53 and 56 seeks to amend clauses 35 and 36 concerning marine protected areas and would require the governor in council to obtain approval from affected provinces and from a standing committee before issuing regulations. This would also apply to emergency marine protected areas. These motions

would negate the whole purpose of this section of the act which is to provide for the implementation of emergency marine protected areas relatively quickly when circumstances warrant it. They would put the marine resources in jeopardy. The Bloc would rather veto the minister's ability to fulfil his mandate and create a very cumbersome administrative process. Why?

Further, in Motion No. 73 the Bloc feels it necessary once again to specify that the minister may work with the provinces. We believe in co-operating with the provinces. We do co-operate with the provinces. It is totally unnecessary however to specify provinces in this section and in fact it is redundant to do so. MotionNo. 73 provides no value added to this bill. It does nothing to clarify the text. It along with Motions Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 53 and 56 should be rejected.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was here last night for the first part of the debate, as was the member for Vancouver Quadra, who had several comments on each group of motions presented by my colleague, the member for Gaspé.

(1555)

I note today that he is no wiser for having slept on it, for he is still singing the same tune.

First, when they talk about co-operation with the provinces, consulting the provinces, the member, whose constitutional expertise is recognized by everyone, takes a very legal approach, while the proposals by the member for Gaspé boil down to this: Why always speak of the Constitution, which was written in 1867, when things have changed, many areas have changed, the fishery has changed? There is something of interest here, which is co-operation by the greatest possible number of partners. Co-operation and consultation.

Approval is not always necessary. It is up to the minister, as recognized by international law, and we accept that. But the member for Gaspé is trying to suggest to the legislators that the minister be placed under a slightly greater obligation to consult, to be more open to those partners wishing to co-operate. Since last night, the member for Gaspé has been holding out his hand in co-operation.

Yesterday, he spoke primarily about the provinces; today, he is adding another aspect. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and people reacted to his speeches. People said: ``Yes, in fact, the member for Gaspé co-operated very closely with other members of the fisheries and oceans committee''. This is recognized by everybody.

But when we get to the House and consider the motions, the reaction is always the same: ``No, no, we cannot do that. We cannot consult the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans because it would take powers away from the minister, it is not supposed to happen that way, it is not consistent with parliamentary practices, it is not part of the parliamentary tradition, it is not provided for under current parliamentary rules''.

When I hear this, I cannot help but remain stunned and surprised. The Chair and its officers ruled that the motions moved by the member for Gaspé were in order, which means they can be debated. But the member for Vancouver Quadra has a different interpretation, saying: ``No, we should not debate these things in here, this is not the right place''.

I am not as experienced as the member for Vancouver Quadra, but I would like him to tell me where the right place would be, if this is not it. We are here in the federal Parliament, in the House of Commons, to pass pieces of legislation. Where are we supposed to debate them?

The member for Chambly said: ``Are we always supposed to debate constitutional issues in the Chateau Laurier, at night?'', thus reminding us of the night of the long knives. Is this the place? If it is not the Chateau Laurier, it might be another hotel, just tell us which one. He never tells us where we can discuss this. Moreover, he tells us that it is not in the standing committee. It is not in the House, it is not in committee, it is not with the provinces. But where on earth can people help the minister carry on his responsibilities, and form partnerships with him?

There has been consultation on the Coast Guard, but we will get back to this later. The minister consults people, but we know full well he only does as he pleases. He can do it, he is the boss.

What we are asking him to do is to mention in the bill that a spirit of consultation and co-operation is needed, but he refuses to do so. I am surprised that such motions do not get more support from the other side of the House.

Then the member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke with his usual eloquence and sincere optimism. And what happened right after his speech? We were told a blunt no, as always, on legal grounds. It is not allowed, it cannot be done here, this is not the proper forum. But we are never told where, when or how.

(1600)

Those with a long experience in this House should help newcomers and say: ``If it cannot be done here, it must be done in this other place''. And when I say other place, I am not talking about the ``other place'', as the Senate is called, because it would seem that is not the place where things are done either. It is not where you find the most dynamic and innovative ideas.

From what I understand, that place is more of an extinguisher, a delaying force. Most of the time, it exercises a power to suspend things. Young and dynamic members, such as the member for Gaspé, make very interesting proposals, but what do they do? They

reply that this is not the right place and these are not the right motions.

In conclusion let me say, as the member for Berthier-Montcalm said earlier, that we will have to think about the meaning of the words written in the Liberal program where they mentioned reforming-maybe not the type of reform the Reform Party wants-the parliamentary system of Canada in order to increase the contribution of members of the federal Parliament, who were duly elected to represent their constituents.

We present motions, considered as admissible by the Chair, but we are told this is not in the Constitution and this is not place to do it. Let me finish with the following thought.

I tried to share the optimism of my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, but the reaction of the member for Vancouver Quadra brings us back to reality; this federalism is stuck in glue. Stand-pattism is threatening us all, in that area as in others.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): As agreed, Motions Nos. 36, 44, 45, 50, 53 and 73 are deemed to have been put and recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.

The first question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 73. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 9 of motions, which includes Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page 19, with the following:

``of the opinion that a fishery resource is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that''.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended

(a) in the English version, by replacing line 2, on page 19, with the following:

``habitat is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that''; and

(b) in the French version, by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page 19, with the following:

``incompatible avec quelque accord sur des revendications territoriales ratifié, mis en vigueur et déclaré valide par une loi fédérale.''

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 27, with the following:

``(c) navigation safety, including the regulation of the construction, inspection, equipment and operation of boats;''.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-26, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 27, with the following:

``ing to fisheries resources;''.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-26, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 49, with the following:

``establish a protected area for fishery resources in any area of''.

I will talk about Motions Nos. 54, 71 and 92. I will deal with them in three separate sections. What I am trying to make the government understand with these motions, the message I am trying to convey, always with the goal of avoiding the problems we may have with this bill in the future, is to determine the areas where there could be problems, where there might be conflicting areas.

This is a good opportunity for doing so, since the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is also the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, had legal or constitutional experience before coming to the House. In fact, he uses it a lot to repeat this may not be the right place to change the things I am trying to change, as the hon. member for Lévis pointed out so brilliantly.

(1605)

I want to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that, of course, according to the first Constitution, fisheries were a federal jurisdiction, but at that time, there was something we did not know much about and that is environmental problems. It was not even part of our vocabulary. When definitions are too all-encompassing, when the words used to describe the things to be managed are a little too vague, it can create problems in some cases.

I am no constitutional expert, but in order to avoid conflicts on environmental matters for instance, I prefer asking the government to use terms such ``fishery resources'', that is the content of the ocean, rather than ``marine resources'', a vaster concept.

Why do I wish to make such a distinction? Well, this is still a new concept and, since I do not think this is the intent of the bill, I would not like to see the federal government grabbing the opportunity to spread its jurisdiction over other spheres of activity, besides the main one which is fisheries management.

Indeed, we are now talking about ocean management. However, I doubt that there has been enough discussions between the main partners-the provinces and the federal government-between ministers, and between provincial and federal officials, to agree on wording. According to the information at my disposal, there are different definitions of those words, different interpretations. It is important to stress this fact.

For those who have just joined us, I also want to remind them that last year, in committee, the former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, recognized that he and Sheila Copps, the then Minister of the Environment, wer like yin and yang. What about it? Surely, this did not mean that there was a clash of personalities between these two people. They had been working together long before I arrived.

Must I conclude that their own officials did not have the same perception of things? This is why I draw the minister's attention to the necessity of being cautious, of choosing a less controversial term. Once there has been agreement on the first term, we can go on to the second.

During the time I have left-and it is a source of concern and frustration to be limited to 10 minutes at report stage-I would like to address the other motions, Motions Nos. 69 and 55.

Motion No. 69 seeks to draw the department's attention to the safety of pleasure craft. Since he is responsible for safety, I would like the minister to extend his definition to include the safety of anything that navigates and not to limit himself to one kind of floating object, that is pleasure craft. I would like safety of commercial vessels to be taken into consideration-something which should have been done when the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were merged. The same minister recently set user fees for commercial vessels. I would like to also see him look after their commercial safety.

(1610)

As for Motion No. 55, this is one presented by the government. I will close with this one just to prove my good faith. I can live with what is proposed in this motion. Its purpose is to ensure that there is no incompatibility with native land claims that have already been ratified, would be ratified, or might be declared valid by a federal statute. That is totally sensible and I can live with that.

In other words, if I am capable of acknowledging that the Liberals across the way are capable of some good things, I would like some non-partisan acknowledgment from time to time that we, too, are capable of good things. And if we are capable of acknowledging that care must be taken with respect to aboriginal treaties, the same spirit ought to be reflected in the letter of the act in view of all that was said in respect of motions in Group No. 8 concerning the provinces.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in speaking to these motions, we in the Reform Party can support the Bloc in its move to have the federal government responsible for safety, including navigation, as outlined by my colleague from Gaspé. We are also in support of the Liberal amendment.

We cannot support Motions Nos. 71 and 92, as they seek to increase the jurisdiction of the provinces in areas where we do not think it is appropriate.

The idea of limiting the minister's powers to marine protected areas, to fisheries alone, is not a move in the right direction. Canada's marine protected areas are about much more than fish. We have very eclectic marine wildlife in all parts of the country. The marine protected areas must be there to ensure not only the protection of fisheries but the protection of other aquatic and marine life found in Canada's marine waters.

We will be supporting the first motion but we cannot support the last two motions in this grouping.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume discussion of the oceans act. I am addressing in particular Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.

I have been impressed with the sincerity and quality of the arguments made by the hon. member for Gaspé. If I have made comments during the course of this very long debate on the choice of arenas for the solution to particular problems, it is because our constitutional system, any good constitutional system, rests on respect for constitutional roles and missions of different organs, including in this case parliamentary committees.

Some of the proposals the hon. member makes in the interstices of discussion of the oceans act go to relations between the different institutions of government. The submission of the minister to decisions of the governor in council following on decisions by standing committees is an interesting proposal. It has memories of the United States congressional committees and their attitude to the presidency, although the nearer model would be la convention, that interesting example of government by assembly one had in the early 1790s. There is nothing to say against this proposal as a pure proposal. I would simply say that neither the fourth nor the fifth French republics have followed it. It is not our system. It may well be that in the discussion of fundamental constitutional change we should get into that. But this is not the proper arena for it.

(1615)

I would suggest to the hon. member that he might ask his party to consider putting him up for the committee on procedure and House affairs, which is a de facto constitutional committee and addresses structural problems of this sort. Having been invited as an expert

witness before this committee recently, I can testify to the very high intellectual quality of all the hon. members from all parties who were represented there.

Some of the other suggestions on federal-provincial relations are interesting and topical. A first ministers conference is coming up. One of the provincial premiers has already raised marine issues as a topic for discussion. These are issues that could be discussed there with some value for us all.

Getting back to the specific issues before us and addressing the points concerned, I note the responsibility of Canada to conserve and protect the vast marine ecosystems off our three coasts for present and future generations. We recognize the increasing stresses on our ocean environments, particularly our coastal areas.

The standing committee of which the member for Gaspé was a valuable and hard working member heard from Canadians from all coasts.

In Bill C-26, marine protected areas are described as areas of the sea designated for the conservation, protection of endangered or threatened marine species and their unique habitats, commercial, non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals and their habitats and any other marine resource or habitat that is necessary to fulfil the mandate.

To many Canadians this is one of the most important clauses of the Canada oceans act. It will be a milestone in Canada's oceans history.

In addition to this clause, Bill C-26 contains regulation making powers with respect to the marine protected areas described above. It prescribes measures for creating these areas in emergency situations.

In a situation where a marine resource or habitat is at risk or likely to be at risk, we will take action immediately. This is part of the precautionary approach described in the preamble to the act, erring on the side of caution.

Government Motion No. 55 seeks to correct the transcription error in this section to allow for the protection of marine resources or habitats that are or likely to be at risk rather than as it is currently written, which does not provide for protection of marine resources or habitats that are at risk. This motion also makes the French and English texts of the bill consistent in this section.

On the other hand, in our view, the Bloc in Motion No. 54 seeks to limit the establishment of emergency marine protected areas to the protection of fisheries resources only. This in our view flies in the face of the ecosystem approach. There is more in Canada's oceans than just those species we consume and many of those species and ecosystems require protection too. Therefore, in our view, Motion No. 54 should be rejected.

The Bloc attempts to impose similar limitations in MotionNo. 92, where it is proposed to amend Environment Canada's Canada Wildlife Act to apply only to fisheries resources.

We find this unacceptable for the obvious reason that the Canada Wildlife Act is legislation to protect the wildlife of this nation, not just fisheries resources. Therefore, we recommend rejection of Motion No. 92.

On a similar theme, Motion No. 71 by the Bloc proposes to restrict the minister's mandate for research to fisheries resources only. The bill commits to an ecosystem approach to managing our oceans. Ocean ecosystems consist of all the fisheries resources. To restrict the minister's mandate for research to only fisheries condemns us to ignorance of natural processes at work in our oceans.

This is not the intent of the legislation. In fact, Motion No. 71 is totally contrary to the ecosystem approach proposed in the legislation and supported by Canadians. We recommend rejection of the motion.

On another matter, Motion No. 69 by the Bloc proposes to expand the powers of the minister to include the regulation of construction, inspection, equipment and operation of all boats. This clause currently only refers to pleasure craft.

(1620)

While I am sure the minister is flattered by the Bloc's confidence, the responsibility for regulation of construction, inspection, equipment and operation of commercial vessels remains within the mandate of another minister, the Minister of Transport. As such, Motion No. 69 should be defeated and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should remain responsible only for pleasure craft.

In summary, I recommend that an effort be continued to protect the marine resources of Canada's three oceans for generations to come. Members of this House should reject the Bloc MotionsNos. 54, 71 and 92 and support the government technical amendments in Motion No. 55.

Furthermore, I urge that Motion No. 69 be rejected. It proposes to expand the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as I already said, for marine safety, to commercial ships which is clearly the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, the motions proposed by the member for Gaspé are particularly relevant in this regard. First, I wanted to check the meaning of halieutic resources-I knew what it meant, but I wanted to be sure. Le Petit Robert says that halieutic resources refers to anything involving fisheries.

We can see the concern of the member for Gaspé is the role formerly played by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that is,

a concern about fishing. I find that entirely reasonable, because we can see with the new Oceans Act that the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now much broader.

We could look for example, at Motion No. 69, which concerns clause 41. This clause is very explicit. It talks about Coast Guard services; services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships; aids to navigation systems and services; marine communications and traffic management services; ice breaking and ice management services; channel maintenance services and the marine component of the federal search and rescue program.

This really gives us a sense of the aim of the law, which is to significantly change the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am not saying we should not try to make changes. As a matter of fact, in my previous speech I was mentioning that I wanted changes and that changes are often a necessity because things evolve.

With regard to the Coast Guard, personally-this is not the Bloc's position as such-I have some trouble seeing how this is going to be transferred from the transport department to the department which, from now on, will be the oceans department, as this will be a new field of jurisdiction.

Speaking of the fields of jurisdiction of various departments, certain colleagues, especially opposite, mentioned environmental concerns, but there is a Department of the Environment, which is called to play a very important role. It seems to me we should have had more time to think this through, more consultation before going ahead with such major changes, because transferring responsibility for the whole thing is like giving responsibility over the ecosystem, the environment; it is giving authority over many fields which used to come under the environment department.

I wonder about this. Of course, I did not follow the committee proceedings as closely as the member for Gaspé, who is on the committee, because I sit on other ones, but the member for Gaspé mentioned them very often and told us about his concerns. Coming from an area where there is a lot of fishing, he has shown on many occasions how well he knows the issue. There is an old saying to the effect that you should not bite more than you can chew.

(1625)

I am concerned about the minister who will have to play a great many different roles which might be interrelated but could sometimes clash, especially if, for example, he becomes responsible for other departments. This is why it is so important to have a mechanism for the consultation of, and the joint action with, not only other federal departments but also the other partners, the provinces. Consider all the resources associated with oceans; the member for Chambly reminded us yesterday that it can mean such things as the flotilla which ran aground at Pointe-aux-Anglais where the shipwreck now has a definite heritage value.

Clearly the issue is not a simple one. Sometimes, when trying to clarify things, we can complicate them by generating contradictions between the operations of different departments.

My purpose is not to officially oppose that aspect of the bill, but rather to remind the government to consider thoroughly all the possible impacts of such changes in transfers, particularly in the case of the Coast Guard.

[English]

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Gaspé. I am not going to support these amendments.

Coming from the same area as the hon. member, it is perfectly right and legitimate that he raise these amendments to this legislation.

The clerks at the table make a judgment on whether these amendments are legal. That is why we have a law clerk. In fact, I was once a law clerk in a provincial legislature. That is why we have an assistant clerk, a chief clerk. They make those decisions.

I can also understand why the hon. member in some of his amendments talks the way he does about the ecosystem and about the great dissatisfaction he and his fishermen have with the way the federal government has treated the ecosystem over the years.

The great Gaspé area puts out a brochure for June that says: ``Fishing from the wharves''. That is for saltwater fish. Just imagine, fishing from the wharves. And under that it says: ``In various sections of the Gaspé for this year''. There is listed which wharves are the best wharves for fishing cod.

We cannot fish cod in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the moratorium. However, the federal government allows fishing from the wharves in the Gaspé for cod, mackerel, sea trout and so on. It is a great fishing area. The best spawning area in the world for mackerel is the Gaspé coast. What has happened over the years?

I can understand the hon. member. Over the years the federal government had given licences to Norway, Sweden and Denmark to fish every year at this time as the mackerel are coming in to spawn in that great spawning area in the gulf. What these vessels did was block the spawning path of the mackerel as it came in in one big line. Believe me, that is not too long ago.

In fact we still have foreign licences inside 200-miles. I am surprised that the opposition has not introduced an amendment to end it for all time.

What happened to the squid that once frequented the Gaspé peninsula and the eastern coast of Canada?

(1630)

The hon. member talks about the ecosystem, the squid that used to go into the gulf, the squid that were the food of the cod, the flatfish and every other type of groundfish. The squid are born around Florida. They come up the coastline of Canada, go into the gulf, go way up around the east coast of Canada, come back down in one year to Florida and die. They know where to go, do they not? They go down to Florida in that one year cycle, reproduce and then die. Ever since I can recall the federal government has judged squid to be underutilized. Therefore it has granted the licences for the great interception of the squid on their way up around the east coast of Canada into the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and around the Gaspé Peninsula.

I can understand what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about the federal government's mismanaging the resource historically. Historically there is certainly a case to be made for the federal government's total and utter mismanagement of the fisheries. There is no doubt about it. However, in the meantime I will not support the hon. member's amendment. I do not want him to get excited.

The unfortunate part of the management of the fishery that sometimes fisheries and oceans does not understand is the fact that fish swim. Fish actually swim.

An hon. member: Politicians talk, the fish swim.

Mr. Baker: No, the politicians make the lines in the ocean. They draw these lines and say here will be the regulation over on this side of the line and here is another regulation over on this side of the line. It is as if there are police officers at the bottom of the ocean who come up with stop signs and the fish are actually stopping somewhere in mid-ocean and turn around.

Therefore I can understand what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about the ecosystem that should apply to the fishery as it is not presently applying. Let me elaborate on the ecosystem and what is considered under these amendments.

If we look at the respect governments in Canada have for the ecosystem and the effects that government action has on the ecosystem we see today that while our fishermen sit at home, just outside the 200 mile zone, on what we call the Flemish Cap, which the hon. member for Gaspé is very familiar with, we have the foreign nations that continue to fish every single resource there.

I can understand the hon. member's point when he says there should be more consultation than there presently is. The only problem, something we have to think about as parliamentarians, is that when one gives the authority to the local area to have an input sometimes what comes out the other end is not desirable. There has been case after case of that.

In other words, when we tell the province of Quebec it can manage a certain part of the fishing resource, as the federal government has done, which has not been so for the other provinces although they have moved over the past 20 years historically, and then we tell Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland the same thing, what we have is a hodge-podge of regulations. We have a non-respect for the very thing the hon. member is promoting, the ecosystem.

An hon. member: And very confused fish.

Mr. Baker: Yes, and even when we go to the fishermen.

Today my phone calls concern fathoms. When fishermen set a net under 400 fathoms in the Atlantic Ocean today for turbot-a familiar word-they must have by regulation a net size of seven and a half inches. Unfortunately our fishermen do not have that size nets. Above 400 fathoms it is five and half inches.

(1635)

Last year the federal government agreed to change that regulation size. There are hundreds of fishermen saying ``how can we continue to fish today, our fish plants will close?'' On checking why the regulation was changed, I discovered the regulation was changed by a conservation committee, set up by the hon. John Crosbie when he was minister of fisheries and oceans, that consulted with the fishermen and the environmentalists and came up with a regulation that cannot work. Now here am I lobbying today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to change the very thing he had used his consultation process to get from the local fisher persons.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie, human rights; the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, lacrosse.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-26. In fact, I think some work has already been done with my colleague from Gaspé at second reading, and we are now dealing with a group of rather important motions.

I will deal in greater detail with the environmental aspect, which is my area of concern, and the effect of this bill on the Department of the Environment. This new bill gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans some powers that already belong to the Minister of the Environment. This is a further example of overlap between departments, and this is not the first time there are tensions between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. Once again, we have the yin and the yang.

The bill seems to create a sectoral Department of the Environment. It is like a Department of the Coastal Environment, if you will. If each department did the same thing, the Department of Transport would include something called Environment Transport, the Department of Industry, something called Environment Industry, and all government departments would have powers over environmental protection and conservation.

If this is the direction the government wants to take, all it needs to do is abolish the Department of the Environment. The government's approach to the environment is to centralize powers in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the globalization of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26 matches this approach.

I will quote a few clauses. Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill are those pertaining to the development of a strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This part does not apply to lakes and rivers. The management of these ecosystems is for the most part under provincial jurisdiction. I think the provinces are well aware of that, and deal with the environment. If there is overlap, not only with the Department of the Environment, but also with areas of provincial jurisdiction, the government is seizing some excessive powers.

It is impossible to control a department in this way. The government cannot meddle in jurisdictions that do not belong to it. Once again, this will simply create confusion between the provinces, which will not be able to reach a consensus, preferring to defend their own particular interests, which is quite normal, while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will never manage to harmonize all this. This is another bill that will be impossible to implement and administer.

(1640)

I now want to move on to clauses 31, 32 and 33, which give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to develop and implement a national strategy for managing the ecosystems in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters. This strategy involves implementing plans for the management of activities, establishing management or consulting organizations, developing various programs, setting environmental standards, collecting and analyzing scientific data on the ecosystems in question. That is quite a lot.

It must be noted that several of the activities I just mentioned are already being carried out by the Department of the Environment. Once again, the government is duplicating existing services, as though it could afford such duplication.

Nowhere in this bill is the minister required to come to an agreement with other federal departments or with the provinces. In most cases, he can, if he so desires, request the co-operation of other authorities. But only if he so desires. Once again, introducing such bills without harmonizing activities with those of other federal departments, the provinces and other levels of government is unacceptable.

The fact that the minister is not required to work in co-operation with officials from Environment Canada in particular and other federal departments in general is incomprehensible and unacceptable. At a time when jobs are being cut and when public spending is supposed to be reduced, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is creating duplication within the federal government.

Moreover, the new powers, duties and functions assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusively his, as they do not affect in any way the existing powers, duties and functions of other ministers and stakeholders. This means that competition and overlap may well develop in terms of applicable standards and amendments, as well as priorities and special measures.

It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that the minister not be required to work together with the provinces, when the provinces are directly affected by marine environment management. Over the years, Environment Canada has had to do so, through bodies such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which is more or less satisfactory. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans contemplating going the same route?

It is a special situation where 10 environment ministers are working together with the aboriginals. Trying to reach an agreement on harmonization with 10 people around the table never works. This has prompted the Minister of the Environment to try to enter into a bilateral agreement with each province, since environmental priorities vary from one province to the next depending on the industries operating in the province. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do the same?

It does not always work well. I can tell you that, sometimes, it takes years just to settle one matter. Take for example greenhouse effect gas. We saw what happened. At the Rio summit, before all the other countries represented, the Canadian government made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but realized, after consulting the provinces, that it would not be possible.

Moreover, it imposed standards unilaterally. The provinces were unable to meet these standards. As a result, come the year 2002, instead of having reduced greenhouse gas emissions, we will be facing another international summit where we will have to admit it did not work. We must watch out.

It is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the provinces to be treated, in this bill, like any other stakeholder, be it interests groups, municipalities, or industries. To do so is to show a glaring lack of respect for the provinces and it just does not make sense. It seems to me that a province has much greater powers than an interest group, a municipality or an industry. Provinces should be

on an equal footing with the federal government, not at a lower level.

The environment is not one of the exclusive jurisdictions assigned to one level of government under the Constitution. It is what is called an ancillary jurisdiction, arising from those jurisdictions specifically mentioned in the Canadian Constitution.

(1645)

Theoretically, the Department of the Environment is responsible for this ancillary jurisdiction, together with each of the departments concerned.

Before 1985, the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a major role with respect to the environment, occupying most of the jurisdictional area. At the time, in accordance with the Constitution, the federal government was content to get involved in areas complementing its jurisdiction.

After 1985, the federal started to get involved in environmental issues. It did so mainly through its spending power and through new powers it received from the courts. From then on, many instances of overlap and duplications appeared. This situation has been steadily growing since the election of the present Liberal government, which is doing its best to centralize the decision making process in Ottawa.

To the Quebec government, Bill C-26 is another step toward centralization. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a four to three decision, divested the provinces of the management of the ocean environment and of its territory and turned it over to the federal government. Under Bill C-26, the federal government is trying to get the maximum out of this decision. Because of this centralizing tendency, Quebec fears that the federal government is attempting, in the middle or long term, to claim management of oceans and their resources.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): According to the agreement, Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69 and 71 are deemed to have been put to a vote and the recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members ha-ving risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 69. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We now move on to Group No. 10, Motion No. 65.

[English]

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 43, on page 25, the following new Clause:

``39.12 (1) In addition to the procedures set out in the Criminal Code for commencing a proceeding, proceedings in respect of any offence prescribed by the regulations may be commenced by an enforcement officer

(a) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion;

(b) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused's latest known address; and

(c) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.

(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must

(a) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission;

(b) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence;

(c) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid;

(d) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused; and

(e) include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.

(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.

(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket,

(a) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and

(b) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to

(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

(5) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing

(a) offences in respect of which this section applies and the manner in which the offences are to be described in tickets; and

(b) the amount of the fine for a prescribed offence, but the amount may not exceed $2,000.''

The fisheries and oceans fleet and that assigned to the coast guard became one during last year's turbot war when the red vessels of the coast guard and the grey vessels of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans performed admirably as a team to enforce Canada's commitment to protect straddling stocks and highly migratory fish from foreign predatory overfishing.

In its March 1995 report on the state of the world fisheries the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, highlighted problems of control and pointed toward solutions.

Renewed international attention is focusing on unauthorized fishing and the role of monitoring, control and surveillance. Fisheries conservation and management are being undermined by unauthorized fishing practices. Together with the lack of effective monitoring, control and surveillance systems, this is threatening the sustainability of fisheries.

Enforcement is an important issue when dealing with ocean management. Poaching, dumping and other illegal activities compromise the future of our oceans and of their resources. Over the years Canadians have been confronted with challenges not only to our jurisdiction but to resource conservation and protection measures we exercise within our maritime areas.

Many witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, including the Pacific Fishermen's Alliance, requested clarification on strengthening of the enforcement provisions of the oceans act with the explicit wording to describe the

role of the enforcement officers and the nature of and punishment for offences.

The enforcement provisions have been strengthened through the legislative process. The original bill text submitted to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans only provided a cross-reference to relevant enforcement and compliance provisions of the Canada Wildlife Act.

To improve the clarity of the bill and to make the act user friendly, the standing committee decided that sections 11 to 11.5 and 13 to 19 of the Canada Wildlife Act should be reproduced in the Canada Oceans Act. Unfortunately I hate to mention that although the king can do no wrong sometimes errors are made in the federal government. The last section was omitted when the sections were transcribed.

(1650)

This section outlines the procedure to be followed in the event of contravention of the act, including the issuance of tickets, notice of forfeiture and payment of fines. This section, which should be clause 39(12), is critical to the application of penalties and fines outlined in the oceans act since it provides authority and guidance for ticketing procedures and authority for the governor in council to make regulations prescribing offences and fines with respect to ticketable offences.

Provision for ticketing provides an efficient and cost effective way of enforcing provisions of the Canada Oceans Act. It allows for speedy disposition of certain offences and avoids lengthy and costly court proceedings.

I therefore recommend that hon. members support MotionNo. 65. It is put forward by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to eliminate ambiguity, to resolve any potential misinterpretation of the enforcement clauses by adding clause 39(12) which was inadvertently omitted from the committee report and for which I offer the apologies of the federal government.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we concur with Motion No. 65. We believe the minister and the enforcement officers need the power under legislation to enforce the act and to ensure that Canada's marine areas are protected to the fullest extent.

The member for Gander-Grand Falls raised an interesting point in his earlier intervention which I will follow up on. It is very counterproductive to have regulations with respect to the requirement of Canadians to obey the law and not to violate the sections of the act we are dealing with.

What happens when Canadians are held to one standard and foreign nationals are held to a completely different standard? I concur with the member's observations with respect to the food fishing that is taking place right now in Atlantic Canada.

For Newfoundlanders it is an offence to go out and catch fish to feed their families. Three miles away in St. Pierre and Miquelon not only is it not an offence, but they are bringing in tourists to catch the same fish. It is ludicrous. If Newfoundlanders have the temerity to go more than three miles off coast and into the waters around St. Pierre and Miquelon, they can catch fish as well without facing the fear of being apprehended, arrested or charged by DFO officers.

We agree with the intent and that there has to be adequate enforcement regulations and legislation within the act. However we question where the government is going when there is one set of standards for people in Newfoundland, another set of standards for people in Gaspé, a different set of standards for people in Nova Scotia, and another one for tourists coming from Europe to fish and to visit St. Pierre and Miquelon.

It is very difficult for Canadians to feel good about the act and to feel that it will do what they would like to see it do when they see this ongoing double standard taking place.

Hopefully with pressure the minister will recognize the failure of the policy he is currently following and will back away from it. Certainly that is the intent we will be pursuing over the next days and weeks.

(1655)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will address Motion No. 65. This motion is rather technical in nature and I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it deals with an issue which may have been overlooked at the time.

Be that as it may, I am not trying to hurt the feelings of the government, but if it cannot agree now on how to establish a partnership, and if the provinces cannot be included in the process from the outset, how could I support it when it says: ``Here is how we will hand out the penalties and fines''? The government should know I will ask my party to vote against Motion No. 65.

I would like to go back to the comments that were just made by the member for Skeena and to those made earlier by the member for Gander-Grand Falls. When he talked about managing the resource, the member for Skeena seemed to say that various applications of the act, or different forms of penalties, would be used, depending on whether an offence is committed on the Gaspé coast, the coast of Newfoundland, or the coast of Nova Scotia.

We must first know what is going on locally. Is a fishery open? If not, why? Earlier, the member for Gander-Grand Falls made a brilliant speech on the migrating ability of the fish found along our coasts. He is right to mention the species that arrive first. There is a

reason for this. For example, squid start south and travel up the coastline, all the way to the gulf, before going back down south to die. Nice place to die, as the member said.

It is the migration of these species that attracts other species. I understand why the member wanted to stress the importance of this fact. This migration process is what attracts other species. The cod will chase these species. This is what is called the food chain. The big ones go after the small ones. In the case of the whale, it really eats much smaller species. It comes into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, around Anticosti Island, in the estuary, to eat shrimp. It is important to realize there is a migration process going on.

Some isolated phenomena also occur as part of that food chain. The member for Gander-Grand Falls is well aware of what I am alluding to. We are talking about two main species. I will talk about the cod in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. There are two main stocks, referred to as 4RS cod and 3Pn cod, that is the one along the north shore in Quebec and the one along the western coast of Newfoundland.

There is cod in the southern part of the gulf. There are mainly two stocks. When indicating that cod sport fishing was still practised over the past few years in the Gaspé Peninsula, the hon. member should mention that it was mainly the stock in that zone, in the southern part of the gulf, that was being caught.

Where he comes from, it is a different stock. What is happening with that stock, how it is faring? As we know, we sometimes see cod of a good size and nice density in a certain bay, but biologists warn us, saying that this is perhaps a reserve and that it should be preserved.

What I am interested in seeing the hon. member do is bring about the disclosure of information for the benefit of the local population. Are the biologists telling the truth? Fishermen and people living in local communities have as much difficulty as we do finding out who is telling the truth on this matter, because it is very difficult to follow.

It even happens at times that biologists do not agree among themselves and that everything they have told us so far-and the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls is right about that-did not turn out as they had predicted. Some things have been left to deteriorate.

(1700)

This is all very important, and that is why I would like the support of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.

People like Mr. Wells, not Mr. Wells, but his predecessor, play a very important role. They created quite an uproar on the issue of foreign fishing. It all started with his predecessor. Mr. Wells also took some measures. Without all this fuss, would the Parliament of Canada have done everything it did to stop or slow down foreign overfishing? I do not think so. My experience in politics may be limited, but I do know that you have to hit the nail over and over again, once you have identified it, in order to drive it in.

The message has to be understood by the people. That explains why it took three premiers of Newfoundland to try, in their legislative assembly, here, in Ottawa, and through the national media, to make the people of Canada understand that there was a problem off Newfoundland. That problem had no impact at all in the prairie provinces. Someone had to drive it in.

The motions I put forward may need to be rewritten or redrafted, but it is important to realize that they stress the need for the provinces to be consulted first. After all, it was the provinces that formed Canada, so they must have a say for Canada to stand tall and proud. Do you not find it funny that these words were spoken by a sovereignist? The message I want to get through is that for Canada to stand tall and proud, it must really accept the partnership concept.

I do not come here with a sledgehammer ready to hit nor do I hide anything. No. Everyone can see that I am empty-handed. I speak clearly of a definite phenomenon.

As we know, there is a migration. Therefore, it is important that we all discuss it and that the province of Newfoundland get the means to act as soon as it gets a signal: Cod is less abundant today? What happened? Because it takes time for the message to get here, in Ottawa. Newfoundland needs to have the means to immediately call a meeting. The minister responsible for the integrated management partnership will have to be made aware of the situation. It will be there in black and white.

That way, Newfoundland will also be able to call Quebec. It will be able to say: ``Let us stop quarrelling about other things, call the Quebec government and tell it we have to do this or that''. The Quebec Minister of Fisheries will answer: ``You are right. I am glad you told me. OK. We will go to Ottawa together. I want to hear what you have to say to the Canadian Minister of Fisheries''. This is real partnership. This is working together.

As I said a while ago, I am aware of the migration process. When Quebec and British Columbia demanded that fisheries management be transferred to the provinces at the Victoria conference in November 1994-and this may be what the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls was afraid of-we never ever asked to manage the fish stocks separately. What we asked for was the right to manage the share of the province, i.e. the right to manage the licences relating to the 25 or 30 per cent of the resources that could be allocated to Quebec or New Brunswick, that could be caught in their own fisheries and that they could themselves share out among their communities, but always in accordance with the basic conservation strategy.

I realize that time flies, and I still have a lot of things to explain. I do not know if we can ask for the House's consent, but I would like to clarify this issue, with the agreement of the House. We could try to examine the kind of true partnership that is required.

Surely, the member for Gander-Grand Falls will stand up in a moment to tell us a bit more. But procedure at report stage does not allow us to look at the issue in greater depth.

In conclusion, you can ask the House if it gives its consent; meanwhile, I will sit down and wait for your ruling.

(1705 )

[English]

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious problem in fisheries management and that is France. It was only a short time ago that France was given control over that great stretch of ocean that goes out about 150 miles in a straight line. It is a big corridor and France controls it. All the migration the hon. member is talking about, because of the control France has, would all be for naught. How could we manage a fishery when we have the entire doorway to the gulf cut off by France? It is an interesting question.

We do not have any control over those things. We should have control over them but we do not. The Canadian government should have done it the right way but it did not. When France was given that territory, the Government of Canada should have apologized to the people of Canada.

What we can control are the spawning grounds. As the hon. member says, there are a lot of mackerel spawning grounds. They are the best in the world. Control over the spawning grounds does not require provincial input or input from anybody else. All it requires is a bit of common sense. As the hon. member knows, the mackerel now in the second week of June are coming in from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to spawn. They usually start at the end of May.

Chasing them are the blue fin tuna. Who has the highest quota for blue fin tuna in eastern Canada?

Mr. Scott (Skeena): The Japanese.

Mr. Baker: The hon. member for Skeena said the Japanese. Could that be correct?

What is the quota for Quebec? Thirty-five tonnes of blue fin. The Japanese have a bycatch of 180 tonnes in Canadian waters. A decent sized blue fin is worth $20,000 or $30,000. That is what is paid for one fish.

Historically we have belonged to the International Tuna Commission which involves three countries: the United States, Japan and Canada. Once a year there is a little get-together. They usually decide that Canada will get the lowest quota of the three. The fattest blue fin tuna are the ones chasing the mackerel into the hon. member's riding.

The Japanese have marvellous boats with helicopters on them. They are incredible vessels. The quotas are given according to the number of vessels. That might run into 10 to 14 vessels. By international agreement they have unlimited quotas for skipjack, albacore, yellow fin and all of the different tuna. We cannot catch them. It would be illegal for someone from Canada to catch them. The Japanese have a bycatch of 180 tonnes and a Canadian province only has a quota of 35 tonnes.

(1710 )

On top of that, the feeder boats come in behind them. They load up on yellow fin, albacore, skipjack, all these tuna, a bit of swordfish is permitted as well, 10 per cent bycatch for these others, and then a bycatch of a 180 tonnes of blue fin, then they go back to Japan. Surely we do not need provincial intervention to see the wisdom of cancelling those quotas.

Also chasing the mackerel is the porbeagle shark. Restaurants in Quebec City or Vancouver sell shark fin soup for $200 and $300 a bowl. Those shark fins come from the porbeagle shark off the coast of Newfoundland. As they head in they follow the continental shelf chasing those very mackerel which are going into the hon. member's riding to spawn. The fins are cut off. Five hundred tonnes for a vessel from Denmark, from the Faroe Islands. In fact the vessel's name is the Bakker.

Far more things can be done that do not require the help or even the suggestion of the provinces, that would maintain the federal government as the manager of the entire fishing resource, as many members have pointed out, as the hon. member for Skeena has just said, as part of the ocean's ecosystem. Members of Parliament should be promoting those things in the House every day.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Gander-Grand Falls and the member for Gaspé who are now having an extremely interesting debate that demonstrates their knowledge of fishery resources. This is a refreshing change from constitutional issues.

One thing concerns me when I read Motion No. 65. This is not in the original bill, it is an addition to it, an addition comprising some twenty paragraphs. In the three years I have been here, I have rarely seen such a technical and precise motion. I would like to draw the House's attention to it.

For example, when the motion says:

(a) completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion;

(b) delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused's latest known address; and

(c) filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.

Subclause (2) then reads:

(2) The summons and information portions of the ticket must

(a) set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission;

(b) include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence.

The motion continues:

(c) set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid;

(d) include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused.

(1715)

I continue:

(e)include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.

Then subclause (3) states:

(3) Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.

(4) Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket,

(a) the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and

(b) notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to (i) Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or

(ii) Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

Why would the federal government want to give so many details in a piece of legislation? It is really unusual in an act, as opposed to a regulation, to be so specific, unless the federal government wants to have fines collected by provincial civil servants.

This is the new role the federal government wants to hand over to provincial governments. The federal government is doing its planning from Ottawa and it is having trouble. I listen to the member for Gander-Grand Falls. People think that Ottawa can predict all the migrations the member described just now, and I saw him get the member for Gaspé going all over again. I was saying to myself they even know the exact time, the very week. He even says that today the bluefin tuna are going after mackerel. Obviously they have this level of knowledge because they are close to the resource.

This is the concrete proof that this resource should be administered as close as possible not just to the people, but to the fish, the bluefin tuna and the mackerel. I am amazed at such knowledge. In Ottawa, they want to plan things from their turf, and when it comes to writing up tickets, they tell us exactly how. I do not see in the bill a level of detail as astonishing as what we have just heard from the member for Gander-Grand Falls.

I say to myself that it makes no sense to look at the administration of fish resources like this, to talk about regulations, and I could go on. This is the point I am trying to make. I ask the question. I wonder if this is why the federal government wants to deal with the provinces and does not include them in policy planning and development consultations. However, it wants them to have the role of collecting fines. But where is the concern with saving fish and fish resources, when the sort of thing the members are telling us about goes on while the resource is disappearing? While the bluefin tuna is devouring the mackerel, we are sitting here worrying about the form used for fines.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): According to the agreement, for Group No. 10, the question on Motion No. 65 is deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more that five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 11, which includes Motions Nos. 67, 68 and 70.

(1720)

[English]

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-26, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15, on page 26, with the following:

``rine resources and the provision of coast guard and hydrographic services to ensure the facilita-''.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20, on page 26, with the following:

``41. (1) As the Minister responsible for coast guard services, the powers, duties and'';

(b) in the French version, by replacing line 7, on page 27, with the following:

``l'intervention environnementale;''; and

(c) in the French version, by replacing line 14, on page 27, with the following:

``à (iv) sont dispensés de la manière la plus économique et la plus judicieuse possible.''

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 12, on page 27, with the following:

``(2) In accordance to the stipulations contained in subsection 47(2), clause 48.1 and subsection 49(2), services under subparagraphs 41(1)(a)(i)to (iv) shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries.''

The amendments proposed in this group of motions pertain to clauses 40 and 41 of part III of the bill. That, as we all know, describes the powers, duties and functions of the minister. These powers, duties and functions are over and above those already ascribed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by other legislation.

The standing committee has done an admirable job in strengthening this bill, as have all hon. members. When clause 41 was modified by the committee to present the coast guard and hydrographic services as two of the many responsibilities of the minister of fisheries, a corresponding change was not made to clause 40, which also refers to these services.

Government Motions Nos. 67 and 68 propose minor technical amendments to clauses 40 and 41 to ensure uniformity of terminology throughout the bill's text and to clarify the language. This is very important.

I know all members will join with me in supporting Motions Nos. 67 and 68, which maintain the quality and strength in this long awaited legislation.

However, Motion No. 70, proposed by the Reform Party, is not a minor amendment. In our view it would result in a significant additional administrative burden and would add substantially to the cost of doing business.

Motion No. 70 seeks to expand on the clause of the bill that commits to delivering coast guard services in a cost effective manner. The Reform Party motion proposes to restrict the application of this clause by referring to a number of additional amendments whereby the level and scope of coast guard services and the method of delivery should be defined in ongoing consultation with all beneficiaries.

Surely that is going a little too far. At a time when are concerned with reducing government spending, increasing the effectiveness of our interactions with Canadians, this amendment seems offensive and meaningless. What could possibly be meant by all beneficiaries of coast guard services? Surely that is cloud concept.

The concept of ongoing consultations on how and why a minister might deliver his mandate is at best onerous. At worst it is a tremendous strain on the treasury. We all know how hard the finance minister is working to reduce the deficit.

Bill C-26 is committed to the consultative approach and the minister will consult. The government must be allowed to get on with the business of governing to do its job as outlined in the legislation.

Motion No. 70 in our view only serves to add another layer of administration and bureaucracy to the cost of delivery of coast guard services.

I should reiterate that this section of the bill lays out the minister's powers, duties and functions within the bill. These are clear. It is also clear that in order for business to be conducted in a reasonably efficient manner we must let those to whom we have assigned responsibility exercise that responsibility.

It is time we let the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans get on with the job of managing the oceans and we should give him the means to do so. Motion No. 70 in our view tries to limit the minister's ability to exercise his mandate and we suggest it should be rejected.

Motions Nos. 67 and 68, in contrast, are minor technical amendments which will improve the clarity and consistency of the bill. We recommend their acceptance by all hon. members.

(1725 )

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in Motion No. 70 we want to ensure that services provided by the minister shall be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. The level and scope of such services as well as the manner of their delivery shall be defined in full ongoing consultation with all beneficiaries.

After listening to the parliamentary secretary's intervention I fail to see how anybody could find this offensive. I think it is offensive to those people who will be required to pay fees for services to be required to do so without consultation. When the coast guard last year announced it was to impose a fee for service that is exactly what happened. We heard a hue and cry from one end of the country to the other as a result.

The coast guard initially maintained it was in consultation with shippers and ports across Canada. I know there are members present today who were sitting on the standing committee, the member for Gaspé and the parliamentary secretary, who heard testimony from witnesses from Halifax, from the port of Montreal, from the port of St. John's, from the port of Vancouver. They told the standing committee they had not been properly consulted.

Let us put this into perspective. We are not talking about a small amount of money. In the current year the coast guard, effective June 1 of this year, is intending to collect $20 million from shippers across Canada and from ports. It intends to escalate that to $40 million in 1997, $40 million in 1998 and $60 million in 1999.

We have with this legislation a window of opportunity. We have the opportunity to ensure the minister and the department cannot unilaterally impose fees for services without consultation and without being able to justify that the services they are providing are actually required by the people who will pay for them, that they are being delivered in a cost effective and that they are being delivered in consultation with those people who will have to pay the bill.

Let me lay out the scenario as it took place in 1995-96. Largely due to the fact that the Treasury Board has told the coast guard its budget is to be reduced, it will have to get by with less money or will have to raise more money on its own, the coast guard decided it would raise an additional $20 million in 1996.

It came up with a plan that would have seen a national rate imposed right across the country. It did not relate the imposition of this user fee to any services it was actually providing. Until very recently we have not been able to get much information out of the coast guard as to how much the services it is providing actually cost because the coast guard has not been able to identify them. It has not been able to identify until very recently what services are actually required.

One good thing that has come out of the round of consultations, which is largely the result of the work of the standing committee its members who have insisted there be a great deal more fairness injected into the equation, is that we now have ports on the west coast which have agreed finally that the coast guard is starting to go in the right direction in terms of how it will impose these fees.

Therefore we view this legislation as a window of opportunity to ensure there is accountability, to ensure the minister and the department cannot impose fees without consultation and without being able to justify they are delivering the services the end users are getting in a cost effective manner.

The only thing I find offensive is the suggestion the minister ought to have this power without any accountability whatsoever.

* * *

COPYRIGHT ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act.

Call in the members.

(Motion agreed to on the following division):

(Division No. 100)

YEAS

Members

Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-190

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1755)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried. This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)

* * *

CRIMINAL LAW IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts.

Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe the House would give its unanimous consent that the vote on the

previous motion be applied to the motion presently before the House, the Liberal members voting yea.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present will be voting no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, all New Democrats in the House this evening will be voting no on this matter.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, all PCs in the House tonight will be voting in favour.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 101)

YEAS

Members

Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-186

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1800)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried.

This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

_____________________________________________