Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 20, 1995

.1535

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, we're all set.

We are continuing with our examination of Bill C-98, the Canada Oceans Act, and we have a special witness here today, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin.

As the minister probably knows, we've had a couple of weeks of hearings and there have been some issues raised. I'm sure his officials have kept him abreast of some of the comments concerning the bill. I think it's fair to say that the general comment has been in support of the initiative.

There has been some comment with regard to language that could be stronger. There has been some comment with regard to what is not in the act, specifically some other acts. We want to find out, when we get the appropriate ministers or their officials here from other departments, why some of those acts or parts of legislation have not been transferred over so that the Canada Oceans Act is a stronger act.

We've heard some comment about the consultative process. As I've said in the past, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. At some point consultation has to end and proposals have to go forward.

I'm sure the minister will be able to shed some light on some of those issues that have been raised. With that, I want to welcome him to the committee.

It's the first piece of legislation we've had from your department, Minister.

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): It's the second.

The Chairman: No, it's the first. The second one went through the Committee of the Whole of the House. Right?

Mr. Tobin: True.

The Chairman: So this is the first time we've had a piece of legislation from the department. The departmental officials have been developing hides as thick as rhinoceroses because we're sometimes tough with them, but I have to say they're always here. When I call them to the table, they do come forward and give us the best they have at that particular time, and they always come back.

That being said, welcome to your officials as well. It's your nickel.

Mr. Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to pass along my appreciation to you and to all the members of the committee, who have diligently and energetically and, may I say, very effectively worked very hard over the last number of weeks to explore all the parameters of this bill, to hear from a wide range of witnesses from coast to coast to coast in Canada, and to focus your attention and the attention of the department and other interested parties on a variety of areas in which the bill may be improved. We've been paying attention. Certainly I've been paying attention; I've been briefed by my staff as to the testimony you've heard.

I understand the list of witnesses includes the Pacific Fishermen's Alliance, the Inuit Tapirisat, the Newfoundland and Labrador chapter of the Canadian Oceans Caucus, and many other groups in between. I think it goes to show how important oceans are to Canadians, given that we have oceans on three coasts and that the Canada Oceans Act itself is a long awaited piece of legislation.

As you will have heard from Admiral Crickard of the Naval Officers' Association, the vision that began the Canada Oceans Act has been interrupted several times now since the first statement on an oceans policy was released in 1973. Given the current timetable of the House as we approach that time of year, we'll soon be up to our elbows, thankfully, in jingle bells. I would just note that this exercise has begun and has been interrupted several times. I would hope that we can see it through to an effective conclusion this time around.

A second oceans policy statement was not released until 1987, following the first policy document being released in 1973. Both of these original statements focused on economic development. The Canada Oceans Act, as you have noted, Mr. Chairman, is different. It focuses on oceans management. Of course, we're talking about nearly 5 million kilometres of ocean area stretching out from our 244,000 kilometres of coastline around the country.

.1540

I hope that this time, unlike the previous two occasions, we collectively will be able to deliver to this country a piece of legislation to deal with the entire oceans area, an area that represents almost two-thirds of our territorial land mass, an area that includes the second-largest continental shelf in the world and spans more than 6.5 million square kilometres.

The people who recognize the importance of oceans management, the witnesses who have corresponded with the department on the act, have made some excellent points.

I've followed the work of the committee and the representations that have been made by witnesses who have appeared before you.

The government is prepared to support proposals that will strengthen the bill, and I look forward to the full range of the committee's suggestions.

It's important to recognize that, in coming forward with this bill, the government has taken the advice of the country's leading experts. I'm talking about the report of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. In its report to the Prime Minister last year, NABST called for a Canada Oceans Act containing the very key points found in the legislation before this committee.

In its report to the Prime Minister, the board made the point that sustainability and stewardship must become the watchwords for economic development. This was a point made also by the World Commission on Environment and Development in the UN report that came forward eight years ago. The same point was made at the Rio summit. Indeed, we collectively as a country made that point last spring on the high seas during the so-called turbot dispute.

Throughout the committee stage you've heard from NGOs, fishermen, industry reps, governments, scientists and environmental groups. The message is clear that this bill is not only needed, but also important. It's a bill that has been a long time in coming.

The Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association, as an example, said that the Oceans Act:

The bill recognizes this approach in part II, clause 30, in which we set out the government's intention to develop an oceans management strategy - a strategy that will be founded upon the principles of sustainable development and integrated management of all activities.

You've heard discussion regarding the precautionary approach to oceans management, which ought to be like a ribbon that runs through all of the efforts of this government, indeed of governments around the world, to ensure the proper conservation of marine life.

The precautionary principle is not a new concept to this government. We've demonstrated our commitment to this principle in our recent international negotiations on the UN convention on straddling stocks and highly migratory species.

This agreement, which we shall be signing on December 12, takes a precautionary approach to the management of the fishery resource. Indeed, it was a key element, an important element, in successfully concluding an agreement in New York with a variety of nations from around the world, both distant-waters fishing states and coastal states.

The Government of Canada subscribes to this approach, and to reinforce our commitment the government shall be proposing an amendment to the preamble and to clause 30 to incorporate explicitly into the text our commitment to the precautionary principle in the management of all living resources, marine and otherwise.

Too often in the past, governments have erred on the side of social or economic need in managing the ocean resources. Indeed, it's understandable that governments would want to reflect social or economic needs. But the reality is that in trying to reflect those needs we too often paid not enough attention to the needs of the resource. We must now err on the side of conservation. This is a prerequisite if we are to keep our commitment to a holistic and collaborative approach to the management of this vast and diverse coastal resource base.

In my concluding remarks, let me say that in my mind it's unfortunate that some witnesses before this committee have misunderstood the intent of the Oceans Act. Indeed, some might have been misled about the intent of the Oceans Act. I know that you and all members of the committee have heard it before, but perhaps it bears repeating during my presentation before this committee. The Canada Oceans Act simply does not deal with licensing and allocation issues. It does not deal with partnering issues for fisheries management. It does not deal with quota setting or privatization. It does not deal with licence fees. This is not a fisheries management act; it is an oceans management act.

.1545

Fisheries management issues are dealt with under the Fisheries Act. The proposed new licence fees I announced last week are one of a series of components that together will provide the necessary framework to build an economically viable and ecologically sustainable fishery of the future. But - and I can't stress this enough because it's a crucial point when examining this act - fisheries management issues are not what we are talking about today. We are talking about oceans management.

Mr. Chairman, you and I and the witnesses know what will happen if we don't get our act together in oceans management policy. We all know we need to secure both integrated management and sustainable development of our ocean resources and, at the same time, on another day, in another place, get on with the business of modernizing the way in which we manage the fishery resource itself.

The Canada Oceans Act is a big step toward this goal. It calls for an integrated approach, an ecosystems approach, and a cooperative approach to oceans policy. The legislation creates a sensible framework for future action. It sets the stage for the development of a long-range comprehensive vision for Canada's ocean territories and marine resources. It's time to make a commitment to the future of our oceans.

During the debates in the House in September I called this standing committee the conscience and the voice of the oceans. I meant what I said then, and I very much seek a partnership with the committee in order to come forward with a better, improved bill.

With those brief comments, Mr. Chairman - this no doubt shows my great confidence in you and in members of the committee - I place myself in your hands.

The Chairman: You're a very brave soul, Mr. Minister. I want to thank you for your presentation.

Before we go to questions I have two very quick ones. They deal with the powers of the minister, insofar as I believe the act has to have very clear lines of authority in it.

In many cases witnesses have raised questions about ``the minister shall'' or ``the minister may''. In most cases - not in every case - I would like to see stronger language there so that it's very clear what the minister's responsibilities are. In clause 41 dealing with coast guards and in clause 42 dealing with the dominion hydrographer, it's not really clear who's in charge.

If we're going to have an oceans act that means anything, it must have some teeth. It cannot be fuzzy on issues like that. The buck stops at somebody's desk.

The bill as drafted seems to be fairly weak in those two areas. I'm not sure who's in charge. Is that intentional? I think we're going to be looking at some amendments that would put a little more fire to your feet as minister and make sure that under the act you are clearly the one who is responsible for both the hydrographer and the coast guard, and not the commissioner. To me it's a little fuzzy. Has it been written that way intentionally?

Mr. Tobin: I understand this is a point that has come up during the committee process. It's certainly a point that a few have raised. Having looked at the clauses in question myself, I've come to the same conclusion that it ought to be clear. There ought to be direct accountability on the part of the minister. It shouldn't be filtered through the dominion hydrographer or the commissioner of the coast guard. Both of these positions exist, but in law the authority, and more importantly the accountability, ought to lie directly with the minister in charge of the department.

Since this is an opportunity to reflect on the merger of the coast guard and DFO, as we have in the Oceans Act, I've asked the department to either prepare or consider - if submitted by the committee - amendments to clearly reflect the direct role, responsibility and accountability of the minister for these services. So we're quite open to those amendments.

.1550

The Chairman: Good.

There are tons of questions on this bill. The second one deals with things that aren't in the act. I've raised this concern with you personally and I know that it has been raised almost every day at committee. There are a couple of things, such as CEPA, part IV, dealing with ocean disposal, and we have put a request in to the Minister of the Environment for either the minister or senior officials to appear before the committee. Some people believe that, in order to have this act as strong as it has to be, the direct responsibility should be transferred over to the minister responsible for the Oceans Act, which would be you, as well as the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which comes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They are two particular pieces of legislation about which the committee and some witnesses have expressed some concern. They believe that perhaps some provisions or the entire act should be transferred over.

Can you give us any reasons why you don't think they should, or should the committee continue to pursue those questions with the appropriate ministers and departments?

Mr. Tobin: With respect to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, one of the criteria that should drive our considerations in looking at what is or is not in the bill is asking ourselves the question of where the expertise to do a particular job is found.

The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is currently being administered by three departments - Transport Canada, DIAND and NRCan - and it focuses on pollution prevention for the Arctic Ocean, which is a marine environment unique from the other oceans. The technical expertise today to be able to undertake and fulfil that function in an effective manner resides throughout the other departments in question.

At this stage of the game, while I can see somewhere down the road coming back and revisiting this particular power, this act, and seeing whether or not at an appropriate time it could be consolidated, for the purpose of efficiency, within one federal department, for the moment that expertise resides somewhere else. Given that the mission ought to take more importance than where the authority resides, I personally have no concern about that act residing where it does today.

The second act you mentioned is the ocean dumping provision. This is an area where we should take another look. This is an area where at an appropriate time we could, and perhaps should, see a consolidation within the Canada Oceans Act.

For the moment, a rather complex set of negotiations and discussions is going on between the Minister of the Environment federally, on behalf of Canada, and provincial ministers of environment in which the whole CEAA or CEPA process is under review, and there is a discussion and a dialogue about what the relationship between the federal government and provincial governments is going to be in the future.

My view is that until that larger debate is resolved - and it has been a long and, as you know, sometimes difficult debate between my colleague Ms Copps and her provincial colleagues - a lot of these kinds of discussions, including, for example, what would happen with the ocean dumping, are being held in abeyance. Frankly, I understand that, because you don't want to start dealing piecemeal with these pieces of responsibility.

The other point I would make to you is that another committee of the House has also commented on the ocean dumping responsibility, and in fact recommended that it should stay with the Department of the Environment and that, if anything, the role or authority should be strengthened.

So we have to try to reconcile the work of two standing committees before we come to a conclusion. I don't see it as being a major piece at this stage for this bill, but it's something we should look at as soon as possible for the future.

Let me deal with a third area that has been raised in the past, which is the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I can confirm for the committee that we would be happy to entertain - indeed, we would be ready to submit ourselves on behalf of the government side - an amendment to this bill to include the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the Canada Oceans Act. I have the concurrence and agreement of my colleague Doug Young, the Minister of Transport, that that should occur at this stage.

The Chairman: So you will be proposing an amendment?

Mr. Tobin: You can see that we're just full of all kinds of amendments.

The Chairman: Here we go.

Mr. Tobin: We've listened to you.

The Chairman: The last witnesses we heard represented the Nunavut. They talked about the land claims, and there was some concern about uncertainty in this bill with respect to who has authority in inland waters, waters as far as the ice coverage goes in the Nunavut territories. They were concerned that this bill confers powers on the minister that they feel may be in conflict with...or at least it clouds some of the issues dealing with the new Nunavut territorial act of 1994. It may be unfair to ask the question, because I know you were gone last week, but I know last week your officials initiated some discussion on Nunavut to deal with some of these issues. I was just wondering if somebody could tell us if those discussions are continuing and whether there has been any resolution.

.1555

Mr. Tobin: I think those discussions are continuing. The Nunavut final agreement, and indeed the legislation by which it is implemented - because it is an agreement - contain, in essence, non-derogation clauses.

Ms Claire Beckton (General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Actually, there is a clause in the Nunavut land claim agreement that provides that in the event of any inconsistency with any other law, that agreement prevails to the extent of that inconsistency.

Mr. Tobin: As a general rule, nothing in this bill - a number of concerns have been raised - in any way, shape, or form alters, affects, or changes jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces or territories, as that jurisdiction is currently constructed.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): First of all, I would like to say how happy I am to see the Minister here today seeking assistance in getting his legislation through. He made a series of statements in the course of his presentation. It is easy to agree on some of what he said. For example, it is easy to agree on sustainable development principles.

I also noted that the Minister pointed out that we are not here today to discuss certain issues and I appreciate his comments. It will be much easier for us to agree if we refrain from talking about fisheries management issues.

However, at some point, we will have to touch on this subject a little, because there is much talk of follow-up initiatives in the area of sustainable development. At some point, this has a certain impact on the biomass.

There are several issues that I would like to discuss with the Minister today. I briefly reviewed existing documentation on this subject, newspapers as well as correspondence, and I note that the Minister leaves himself open to a first problem when he says he wants to forge a partnership with all parties.

I also note that in response to some of his critics, the Minister said that young people have no reason to be concerned, that the aim of the draft legislation is to bring about integrated oceans management, that in this bill, there is no increased devolution of powers to the department and that there is no reason to be concerned about certain provinces or other departments. The Minister simply wants to exercise good leadership and help people understand matters.

The first point he raised is partnership. Will the Minister agree on that? Since he believes that his bill does not aim to take any authority away from other departments, does he intend to accept amendments that would limit its scope, as this would take nothing away from him and perhaps encourage some of his partners to agree to the legislation? That is my first question.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Thank you for the question, Mr. Bernier, and thank you for the constructive tone of your comments and for wanting to assist us in developing a better bill.

I don't think I said in my opening remarks, nor have I said at any time, that this bill, if I've understood you well, does not take power away from other departments. In fact, this bill consolidates into one new department the authorities currently held by some fourteen government departments and agencies, and it accomplishes the merger, in legislative terms, of DFO and the coast guard. So there certainly is a transfer of power or responsibility into one lead, central, focused department. If you've understood me to say differently, I certainly would want to correct that right away.

.1600

What I am saying is that the bill does not take any authority whatsoever from the provinces, for example. It has zero impact on the current powers of the provinces and other jurisdictions. We take nothing away. Concurrently, we don't transfer anything to the provinces either. This is a consolidation of responsibilities, a reordering of responsibilities that are currently within federal jurisdiction so that there is one clear lead department responsible for oceans management.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: While you may not see any problems at this level, I have to tell you that certain provinces, including my own, have a number of concerns.

I know that your office and the Quebec government exchanged correspondence. In your letters, you indicated that there would be no problems and that you would not be transferring any new powers. Is your department prepared to accept amendments that will limit the scope of the oceans legislation? You are seeking to establish a partnership. Don't you think the best way of establishing this partnership is to alleviate the fears or concerns of your future partners? Then, some progress could be made.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Perhaps you could tell me which powers you want me to curtail.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Tobin, I'm not trying to set a trap for you. What I'm seeking is a sound partnership.

Mr. Tobin: On the contrary...

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Tobin, I want to be a good sport about this. Let me tell you about one of my concerns, because I have three in all.

My first concern is provincial territorial integrity. If a new definition of the law of the sea is adopted, the territorial integrity of certain provinces will be altered. If this is not in fact the objective of the bill, perhaps this issue could be clarified.

I'm not a legal scholar and it's not my intention today to... All I'm asking is that you tell me, for the sake of reassuring your partners, that you would be open to amendments not designed to amend the objective of your bill.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: First of all, there's nothing in the bill that intends to circumscribe or define or change in any way the current relationship or powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. I would like someone to point out to me where the bill does otherwise than what I have just said, because there's nothing there that does that.

Secondly, the bill doesn't change any existing definitions in the relationship between the federal government and the provinces. If you think it does, please tell me where.

Thirdly, are you suggesting that we ought to define provincial jurisdiction or powers in some way? If you are, how would you define the powers of the provinces? What are you proposing?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I won't define provincial powers, since you tell me that the objective of your bill is not to disrupt the way things are done. Therefore, it would undoubtedly be easy to adopt amendments which would not alter the scope of the bill.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: I guess what I'm asking is the following. If you have examples in the bill of where the current relationship or the powers between the federal government and the provinces are altered or changed, would you please give me an example? Obviously this is not the intent of the bill, and I will have to deal very firmly with the officials to my right and left should they have snuck such clauses into the bill without my knowledge or consent. Could you point one out?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Tobin, I wouldn't want to keep you from your responsibility of managing your staff as you see fit. I'm not trying to negotiate each separate amendment with you today. I would rather we agree on the principle.

.1605

If I understand correctly, you are telling me that if either Quebec or Newfoundland is uncomfortable with certain clauses and wishes to bring in an amendment specifying that current relations will not change, you would look favourably on such a proposal.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: If you would tell me one or two of the provisions you are referring to that cause uneasiness, I certainly could be more effective in trying to relieve the unease of Quebec. But I need at least some general direction; you need to point me in some direction.

What is it about the bill that causes the problem? Specifically, could you tell me which clauses are causing problems? Which clauses do you believe impinge upon the existing jurisdiction of the provinces in any way, shape or form? I'm not aware of them, but if you would point one out to me, I'd be glad to deal with the problem. Can you point one out to me?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I can see that the Minister is interested in our concerns. However, I don't wish to get into this today because there are at least 20 clauses that give us cause for some concern.

What I would like to discuss with him today are the three themes underlying the various amendments. It is important that we clarify the scope of the bill and that we make it clear that it will in no way alter existing relations, since your objective is to have a team of partners who will oversee the management of oceans.

First of all, provincial territorial integrity must be guaranteed. Do you agree? We won't wait for...

[English]

Mr. Tobin: You have my personal assurance, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I have your word on it? Thank you.

Secondly, we must have some assurances that the bill does not infringe upon the rights and legislative jurisdictions of the provinces. Here again, I have a series of amendments that I will get to a little later on.

[English]

M. Tobin: You have my assurance.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I have your assurance on that as well? Thank you.

Thirdly, you mentioned partnerships. I would like your assurance that partnership doesn't simply mean consultation. I prefer the word co-operation since everyone must feel involved in the decision making process. Will it be more difficult to have your assurance on this final point?

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Bernier, all I can tell you is that I'm a most cooperative person. I'm occasionally grumpy on Mondays, but I'm cooperative generally.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: It's now Monday afternoon.

[English]

We are in the afternoon now.

Mr. Tobin: That's right.

The full measure of cooperation, of course, is found in dialogue, in discussion and the exchange of ideas. All I can say is that the next time there is a federal-provincial meeting of fisheries ministers, if Mr. Landry can't make it perhaps we'll send you an invitation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Tobin, I spoke of co-operation. It's a somewhat stronger word than consultation. We sometimes have the impression of attending a presentation rather than a consultation session.

If you think about it, you will understand Mr. Landry's attitude last week. That's not my role. My job is to ask you if you intend to seek co-operation with your partners. You would then have a much easier time of it. Between you and me, I helped a great deal with Bill C-29. All I want today is to establish the same kind of relationship with you. I want us to depoliticize the issue of fisheries management, and in particular the issue of ocean management. If we can agree to establish a partnership and to take a cooperative approach, this would rid the debate of any hint of partisanship. I would then support your efforts to improve the bill.

Can I count on you? Co-operation is the key word.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: You can count on me for partnership in the preservation of oceans. But I have to say to you, and you will understand when I say to you, that it seems to me that if internationally the world recognizes the need to come together and to spend over two years at the United Nations developing international agreements to manage the oceans, then surely we must come to the conclusion within Canada that provinces and the federal government must come together in dialogue to manage the oceans.

If all the fisheries ministers of the North Atlantic came to Canada to talk about the management of the North Atlantic, as they did a month ago, then surely all the fisheries ministers governing the area of the Gulf of St. Lawrence should come together and discuss common problems in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

.1610

I do feel strongly that even though all of us have strong political objectives, as you do and as I do...let me finish my comment, Mr. Bernier. One thing I respect about you is that whatever your political objective - and I strongly disagree with your political objective - you were able to distinguish between your political agenda and your obligations and responsibilities as a member of Parliament.

What I would say, and I say it through you to Mr. Landry, is I have been more than willing to work with Mr. Landry in the past and I'm more than willing to put aside differences and work with Mr. Landry in the future. But we have to understand that even though we have political objectives we may seek to fulfil in one way or another during the course of a political career, be it through federalism or through separatism, we have an ongoing responsibility to this generation and to future generations to cooperate for the benefit of species in the oceans.

Frankly, the cause of conservation, the cause of sustainable development and the cause of cooperation you so eloquently profess weren't served by the absence of Mr. Landry last week.

That's my message. I say it with good faith and goodwill. I certainly hope Mr. Landry will reconsider this position, and if he does, I'm sure his presence will be welcomed with open arms.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: If I may interrupt you for a moment, earlier on we said we didn't want to get into partisan politics. You devoted an entire page of your preamble to saying that we would set partisanship aside and not discuss fisheries' issues. But now, you're raising a partisan issue.

Getting back to Bill C-98 on oceans, I will clarify my question. You talk of consultation among partners in the formulation of an ocean management strategy. I used another word, namely co-operation. If the two of us cannot agree today on co-operation, perhaps we could agree on the meaning of the word consultation as well as on the level of consultation involved? Are you following me?

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Bernier, I understand you. I understand you -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Your bill is rather vague on that score. Could you clarify this point for me?

[English]

Mr. Tobin: I understand you so well that I'm tempted to say -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Then, your answer...

[English]

Mr. Tobin: As much as your departure would be our loss, I'm tempted to say that I hope you're perhaps one of the crew going back with Mr. Bouchard to take up the fisheries portfolio -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I take it that you don't wish to answer the question.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: - and we can do business together. You'll show up at meetings -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: You're getting political again. I only...

[English]

Mr. Tobin: But, Mr. Bernier -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: ...inquired as to the levels at which consultation would take place.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Bernier, with respect, you began your questions by asking about measures or clauses that took away from the power of the provinces. I asked you to name which clauses you were talking about and you declined.

You then went on to say that partners may have a concern, even though you weren't specific about certain parts of the bill that could take away from provincial authority. I asked you again to name which clauses. You declined.

You then went on to ask me whether I was open to consultation and genuine cooperation and partnership. I said I was. I think it's fair of me, and not partisan and not taking advantage, to point out that dialogue -

Mr. Bernier: The last point -

Mr. Tobin: - is only possible when both players are in the room. You're in the room and doing a very good job of dialoguing on behalf of your fishermen, but Quebec's fisheries minister wasn't. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine a sense of injury when one refuses to come to the meeting.

The Chairman: This is your last question, Mr. Bernier, and then we'll move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: As for specific clauses, I will be proposing amendments in due course.

Regarding my third question on cooperation and consultation, it was mentioned that the department will consult with public and private stakeholders. I can't recall exactly the clause in question, but your officials could give me the exact reference.

I would like some clarification as to the level of consultation. To say that public and private stakeholders will be consulted is a very broad statement indeed! You asked me to list specific clauses. This is the first one that poses a problem. It is extremely broad.

I realize that during the initial drafting stages of a bill, it is impossible to go into all of the details. You're consulting me today as a member of the committee. I'm telling you that this clause poses a problem. I would like the type and level of consultation to be clearly spelled out.

You will agree with me that the provinces have budgets and laws to uphold. While other bodies, notably ecologist groups, are very important in our society, they don't have quite the same community responsibilities.

.1615

I simply would like us to agree in principle today that you will be open to anything that would clarify this point. It's a question of principle.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Bernier, which clause is that?

Mr. Tobin: He's referring to clause 29.

The Chairman: Clause 29.

Mr. Tobin: Yes. It may have been reordered since you first made note of it.

The Chairman: No, that's it; it's clause 29.

Mr. Tobin: I think you're asking a very good question, Mr. Bernier. The current wording says:

Indeed, out of concern that the level of consultation be more clearly spelled out, to make this language clearer and to reflect the very good spirit you are seeking to build within this functioning federation, I've asked to have that clause redrafted, in words to this effect:

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Just before we go to Mr. Scott, since the issue of consultation has come up, I would like the record to show that we have also invited provincial ministers to give us their comments. Indeed, I sent a letter to Madame Beaudoin, intergovernmental affairs minister for the Province of Quebec, with respect to our current deliberations. The clerk tells me the response was that ministers of Quebec rarely attend these parliamentary hearings on legislation and that they decline the invitation to appear.

That's just so everybody is clear. We've done our best as well.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott (Skeena): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'd like to thank the minister for being here today. Since the department has now clarified the fact that this bill does not have anything to do with fisheries management and that the fees being discussed in the bill are not fees being considered for the fishermen of Canada - this is the access fee issue - I'd like to say that the principle of the bill is valid and that it is certainly past time for Canada to adopt such an act.

This bill is a very far-reaching, all-encompassing act that is going to affect, as you pointed out yourself, Mr. Minister, a number of different functions of government. One of the key things we are hearing from witnesses is that there should be more time for consultation. I'm not suggesting that we should drag this out, but I am suggesting this is a very serious bill and there should be adequate time set aside for consultation so that this committee has the opportunity to hear from as many witnesses as possible who have something valid to contribute.

We have heard a lot of valid proposals for amendments to the bill from the witnesses we've heard to date. You can tell by my copy here with all the yellow stickers in it. Each one of those is a suggestion put forward by a witness. From our political perspective, from our party's perspective, we're trying to review what suggestions should and should not be valid amendments.

I understand that there are other issues afoot right now with respect to proroguing Parliament and so on, but this bill is more important than that. I'm not suggesting that we drag this on forever, but I am suggesting that the committee ought to be given the opportunity to hear from the maximum, not the minimum, number of witnesses who have something valid to contribute for the committee to consider when we are putting together our amendments.

Mr. Tobin: First, the committee is clearly its own master and the committee can deliberate through whatever timeframe the committee decides to be appropriate.

I have been a long-standing member of this committee for many years. Of the members of Parliament still in the House today, I am perhaps one of the longest-serving members.

The committee is its own master and can follow its own agenda. I wouldn't propose, Mr. Scott, to tell the committee what to do.

.1620

What I will say in response to the general comment on consultations is that there have been fairly extensive consultations across Canada on this bill. You have to bear in mind that the Oceans Act proposal itself received quite extensive consultation by the NABST committee, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, between 1992 and 1994. It was the advisory board that made the recommendation to the Prime Minister that a bill be proceeded with. The vision document, which gave way to much public discussion, was distributed to over 600 Canadians. Meetings on the document were held in Iqaluit, Inuvik, Newfoundland, Halifax, Moncton, Ottawa, Yellowknife, Quebec City, Vancouver - I can go on and on. Of course, the committee itself has held quite extensive consultations. So I think we have had a fair amount of consultation.

It's up to the committee to decide in its own wisdom how it shall proceed with its business. I've simply reflected the point that there have been several attempts to develop an oceans act. Whenever we speak of trying to develop an oceans act that most disinterested persons approve of, in the sense of jurisdiction or power, and one that means a loss of jurisdiction or a consolidation of jurisdiction within the federal government...on two other occasions the process has not been completed. I only make that comment. My concern is that we get the job done this time around.

Mr. Scott: I certainly concur that we ought to get the job done. I don't think sweeping changes are required, but I do think that from the witnesses we have heard and from the general discussion around the table when we have been sitting in committee, there are certainly a number of amendments that could strengthen this bill. For example, we've heard from some witnesses who suggest that a ``purposes'' clause should be included with the bill. We've heard from other witnesses that the language in the bill could be strengthened. We have heard from witnesses who suggest there should be a reporting requirement within the bill so that there is a requirement to report back to Parliament on a periodic basis. These are all things that I think are valid, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to hear from witnesses who have valid suggestions to strengthen this bill.

Mr. Tobin: If I were to say to you that on all of these issues that you've just raised, and on some others that I've dealt with already earlier in the day - for example, the precautionary approach; the inclusion of the Navigable Waters Protection Act; the specific amendments on consultation that reflect the concerns raised by Mr. Bernier that the provinces and their roles be respected and acknowledged explicitly in the bill; the purposes spelled out in the revised preamble; the strengthening of language; the reporting requirement, which is something we're waiting to hear back on from the committee - we have a series of amendments to the bill that do indeed reflect in large measure the points that have been raised by witnesses, which is the purpose of consultation...why would we want to go on for another long period of time?

As a consequence of the amendments that you will bring forward, that Mr. Bernier will bring forward, that Mr. MacDonald and other members of the committee will bring forward, and indeed amendments that we ourselves are prepared to bring forward, I think you're going to see we have had a good consultative process, and there is going to be substantial amendment to the bill as a consequence of this process.

The process has worked. I would then ask you, Mr. Scott, if upon reflection you can come to the conclusion that we have a much improved bill, would you have any objection to proceeding?

Mr. Scott: In the final analysis, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the principle of the bill is valid and -

Mr. Tobin: As far as I'm concerned, all of the matters you have raised will be dealt with through amendment. If there are others, I'd like to hear them.

Mr. Scott: I don't know if there are others. I'm suggesting to you that if we hear from more witnesses, we may find there are other issues or other critiques that -

Mr. Tobin: I think we've heard from most of the major witnesses - not all of them, but most of them - who have a view. We've certainly noted very carefully what has been said and we're prepared in many cases to act to reflect those concerns.

Mr. Scott: We haven't heard from provincial ministers, yet.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, just as a point of information, every provincial minister of fisheries, and in some cases the ministers of intergovernmental affairs, was invited to participate. I think we received something from B.C. today, but the other ministers have declined to appear.

.1625

Mr. Tobin: I should go further to say that last week in Charlottetown, in the joint communiqué that was released at the end of the two-day meeting of the fisheries ministers of Canada, all of the ministers assembled unanimously endorsed the intent and purpose of the Oceans Act publicly.

The Chairman: I think, Mr. Scott, that what you're saying - I'm taking note of it - is that when we get the amendments together, we should sit down to decide whether or not we might want to consult with some of the interested parties that have appeared, or those that we know of that have an interest, as a committee. It may be by way of having the clerk and the researcher doing it. It may be by getting CARC, which represents a large set of interests and stakeholders in the bill, back to the table, or by pushing some of these back so that we have a better idea of whether or not these amendments alleviate and address some of the concerns. But I think we can deal with that as a committee.

Mr. Scott: But my primary concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we don't try to push this through in the interest of saving time -

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Scott: - and end up with a bill that has flaws in it when we could have avoided them.

The Chairman: Sure, but as the minister correctly points out, that is a decision that belongs to the committee.

Mr. Scott: I have one more question to ask of the minister while he's here, and I'm putting my parochial hat on now.

Mr. Tobin: Please do. I do it all the time with my own hat.

Mr. Scott: There are two subclauses in this bill that really concern me, subclauses 5(3) and 23(1). Subclause 5(3) talks about contentious boundaries, specifically naming the Dixon Entrance. In subclause 23(1) there's a reference to historic claims, and again it talks about Canada having an historic claim to the Dixon Entrance.

I don't know if the committee is familiar with the Dixon Entrance. It's in my riding, along the border between Canada and the United States at Alaska. I don't know if people here would be familiar with the expression ``Fifty-four forty, or fight'', but this is one area over which Canada almost went to war with the United States. There was an historic committee struck, an international boundary commission, to review the claims of both Canada and the United States. In 1903 that committee rendered a decision that was not in Canada's favour but Canada was prepared to live with it, and I suppose it has been doing so. The one area where Canada claimed a minor victory was at the Dixon Entrance portion of that border. On the rest of it, Canada was a loser.

I would suggest to the department and to you, Mr. Minister, that when we refer in our own documents to the Dixon Entrance and the A-B Line as a disputed zone or a disputed line, we weaken our arguments internationally. This is not a contentious zone; this is not disputed. Canada clearly has a border that was established in 1903 by an international tribunal, and I think it is a major faux pas on our part to be referring to it in any other way except as Canada's borders. I feel very uncomfortable with this, and I know that the people in British Columbia - certainly those in northern British Columbia - feel very strongly about this issue.

Mr. Tobin: I think you know Canada's position with respect to the boundary is maintained, is well understood.

By the way, and I don't want to argue with you but I do want to correct you, there is nothing on that in the bill. You're referring to the clause-by-clause analysis document, which has explanatory notes that explain the subclause in question, subclause 5(3). Bill C-98 itself, however, says:

That's all the bill says. Excuse me, Mr. Scott, but the bill doesn't say another thing other than that. What this is, is an explanatory note only, noting for the purposes of the committee doing a study of the bill that there are some areas that are contentious. Would you tell the committee there is no contention over the A-B Line?

Mr. Scott: I would tell the committee there is no contention over the A-B Line.

Mr. Tobin: No, but realistically, given that you have a great degree of expertise on the A-B Line and that members from Newfoundland had a greater degree of expertise about the dispute with France prior to its final resolution just this year, I'm simply noting that it is a historical fact that most people in British Columbia know, and which you've just given us some of the history.

That's all this does; it's an explanatory note. The actual bill itself, if there was any misunderstanding, has no reference other than words I just read in subclause 5(3). There's certainly nothing there that would weaken Canada's position in any way, shape or form.

.1630

I think I can say to you, and I hope with some measure of support, that this government, when it comes to defending the Canadian interest and Canadian jurisdiction, has acted with some decisiveness on both coasts. I don't want to say more than that. I'm not looking for arguments or to start fights with neighbours or friends, but I think we've been fairly decisive in defending the Canadian position. Let me say for the record that we've been able to be fairly decisive in defending the Canadian position on both coasts because we've had from this committee, and from the leadership of this committee, and from all sides of the House as a consequence, unanimous support when we've needed it to act.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Minister, I wouldn't disagree with your contention that your government has acted in a very strong and forthright manner to protect Canada's interest on the east coast. There's no question about that.

Mr. Tobin: I would say we've done the same on the west coast, Mr. Scott, when you bear in mind that last summer we paid a little visit to some several hundred vessels and collected a little licence fee for going up the Inside Passage.

Mr. Scott: That issue remains outstanding, as we both know.

Mr. Tobin: Yes, but last year we also intervened in the the U.S. federal court in an amicus position with the southern tribes and had a ruling in the tribes' and southern states' and Canada's favour to shut down a fishery in Alaska. These are all actions almost without precedent.

Mr. Scott: With respect, Mr. Minister, I'm not suggesting the government is taking a laid-back approach to our international disputes. What I'm suggesting is - and I appreciate and I appreciated before I made the remarks that it's not in the text of the bill but in the explanatory notes. It doesn't matter whether it's in the explanatory.... This document, for all we know, is a public document, or certainly it will fall into the hands of -

Mr. Tobin: If there's any confusion, let me make it clear that the Canadian position on that line remains unchanged, firm, and full of resolve.

I take your concern. I share it tenfold. Canada's position hasn't changed one iota.

Mr. Scott: Then with respect, Mr. Minister, I would just ask that we not refer to it as a ``disputed zone''. It was disputed until 1903. It was resolved by an international tribunal. If the Americans don't like it.... The Americans are our friends, and I have many friends from the United States, but the bottom line is that is not a disputed zone.

The Chairman: He's clarified that. If there's any confusion, if somebody's reading this document, which has no legal weight, they can also read the proceedings.

Mr. Tobin: You wouldn't want anybody to take from your comments that there is any dispute about this in terms of the Canadian position. You wouldn't want, Mr. Scott, your intervention here to be misconstrued as causing some flap where there isn't one, I hope.

Mr. Scott: No.

Mr. Tobin: That wouldn't be in our interest or in the interests of your constituents.

Mr. Scott: I'm suggesting that when we make -

Mr. Tobin: You wouldn't want to turn these explanatory notes into an international incident or anything.

Mr. Scott: Absolutely not.

Mr. Tobin: Okay. Just checking.

The Chairman: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. McGuire (Egmont): Mr. Chairman, I too would like to welcome the minister to our committee.

Mr. Minister, I suppose when you're going to be required over the next four years to raise more than $60 million in fees, the users will take a little closer look at what they're getting, what kind of bang they're going to get for their buck. Of course, they're looking at the services the coast guard is providing, services they will henceforth be paying more for, and they've expressed some concern that there has to be a balance between the cost recovery and cost reductions.

Mr. Minister, are you satisfied at this time, or are we just beginning the process? Are you satisfied the savings that could be made or the services that are provided by the coast guard itself are sufficiently streamlined at this point, or are we just beginning that process to streamline the services the users will be paying for?

Mr. Tobin: Let me deal with both sides of the shop. I'll begin by dealing with the DFO side of the shop.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is putting in place, as you know, a fairly large cost reduction, or reduction in the size of our programs and services. On the DFO side of the house we're going to go from a budget of about $755 million to one of about $350 million over the next three to four fiscal years. That's a pretty big hit: over a third, nearly 40%, of the size of the department disappearing.

.1635

If you look at the total savings of $300 million, $250 million is through reduction in the size of the department. About $50 million, versus the $60 million you inadvertently mentioned - actually, the number is $48 million - will come on the fish side, even though I know we're not discussing that in this bill, will come from fees. So the downsizing is $5 saved in the department for every $1 raised at this stage. That's sort of the formula.

So we're seeing a quite substantial reduction. I, tongue in cheek, would almost ask members of the committee....

By the way, the biggest hit on the fish side is at headquarters, corporate cuts. That will range higher than anywhere else in the system. The biggest hit will be in Ottawa.

I would almost be tempted to say, if there were additional programs or regional offices or regional centres or licensing centres or operational centres or inspection centres or small craft harbours that you think we don't need, then give me the list and I'll consider it. But I wouldn't say that, because I know that you've already given me a very good list of proposals as to where we could save money.

I'll ask Mr. Turner to comment specifically on the coast guard side of the shop, but let me preface his remarks by pointing out that with respect to coast guard fees insofar as fishermen are concerned, Mr. McGuire....

Of course, you wake up in the morning thinking about fishermen and go to sleep at night thinking about fishermen. This is well known and well established in official Ottawa.

On the coast guard side of the house, the fact of the matter is that no new fees are being contemplated. There were some existing fees for radio services - there is nothing new there - and, I think, weather services that are already in place, in some cases larger vessels, but there are no new fees.

Certainly the notion that's out there that fishermen are going to pay for ice-breaking simply isn't on. It's a terrible, shocking, and discouraging rumour that we have to bury here and now.

Mr. M.A.H. Turner (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard): May I add that neither do the coast guard cost-recovery proposals address the question of passenger vessels or ferries. At this stage they deal solely with cost recovery of a portion of the coast guard services in support of commercial shipping, which is to say freight, movement of freight both internationally and domestically.

With regard to the coast guard situation, we are quite similar to the rest of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The amount that we are actually going to be reducing in our budgets through various efficiency initiatives and reductions in overhead - including, as the minister said, in headquarters, throughout corporate services, and so on - is several times that which we are required to raise through these new fees. You will see a similar change in our budget levels overall over the next few years, with the present coast guard budgets of a little over $600 million going down to in the range of $400 million over that timeframe. In other words, there will be roughly a 30% reduction in our costs and roughly a 25% reduction in personnel, which is several times more than the actual fee that we're proposing to put in for commercial shipping.

Mr. Tobin: That's right.

In total, between both sides of the house, we're looking at about a 3,000-person reduction in our total manpower within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the next three to four fiscal years. It's a very substantial reduction. The notion that we're not taking the cuts in the shop simply isn't borne out by the facts. We're looking at a $500-million reduction overall of our total budget and a 3,000-person reduction overall in our manpower, with the biggest portion of the cut coming at headquarters in Ottawa, with the corporate side of the shop taking the biggest hit overall, and then proportionate reductions in our services and programs throughout and across the country.

Mr. Turner: May I add to that that we also have a number of projects under way with the shipping industry to explore opportunities for further cost reductions and efficiencies in partnership with them to ensure that we're running the place as efficiently as possible and providing the services that the commercial shipping industry needs rather than something that we in the coast guard might think they need. We need to work closely with them over the period of the next few years in order to ensure that we're getting our costs down absolutely to the minimum and providing the services efficiently.

Mr. McGuire: There is fear among some groups that they are going to be paying for services they don't utilize. That's not in the works?

.1640

Mr. Turner: Sir, that probably relates more to the various options that have been put in our discussion paper as to what form a fee for commercial shipping might take. Some of those options we've costed out as examples - and I stress this: they are options, they are not proposals of the coast guard - if adopted, would have the effect of some parts of the country or some users of some services paying for things they don't necessarily use themselves. That is where we've had the greatest expression of concern so far during our consultation process. That consultation process continues, of course, and once we have all the input in from the various users across the country we'll be taking a look at all of it to see what is the best way to structure it such that it doesn't duly impact on Canada's competitiveness and is fair and equitable across the country.

Mr. Tobin: Let me make just a general comment on this question, Joe. As a general issue, when you do cost recovery, you try to target the cost recovery for those who are using the service. But if we're going to say, in particular those of us who come from coastal Canada, whether it's Atlantic Canada or Prince Rupert, whether it's Corner Brook or it's Gaspé or the Magdalen Islands...if we're going to begin to adopt the principle - and I know this is not your proposal - that those who pay a dollar in get a dollar out, that cross-subsidy is a principle we abhor and we want to put an end to, that those of us who live in Prince Rupert or those of us who live in Corner Brook should get only those services we pay for in our airports, in our ports, on our highways, in our medical services; if we begin to gravitate to that ground because it appears to be attractive ground - and I don't say this in response to you, because I know what your views are and those aren't your views - we could, in the interest of pursuing a single issue or a single cause in a region such as Atlantic Canada, find ourselves very full of principle but awfully alone and skinny in the middle of winter. I'd prefer to continue to be a Canadian who shares in the wealth, shares in the capacity, and shares in the responsibility of the entire country.

I personally - let me say this beyond my duties as Minister of Fisheries - get a little concerned that this notion is beginning to creep in in a lot of our discussions, in a lot of the debate, a lot of discussions about public policy, that as a Canadian, you put a dollar in and you get a dollar out. Well, if that's the name of the game, those who question the value of a federation, those who question the value of family, those who question the strength that comes with numbers, would have more ammunition than I would like them to have in pursuing their cause.

I happen to believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that the people in the Magdalen Islands, a place I visited and spent time in with my family last summer, can know they have the advantage of being Canadians and they can share in the wealth of the country and the ice is going to get broken whether or not it makes sense economically. The fact is they live there, they are Canadians, and they're not going to be abandoned to six or seven months of winter.

I happen to believe if you live in St. Anthony you're entitled to decent health care. I happen to believe if you're in Prince Rupert, on the beautiful northern coast of British Columbia, the fundamental services you require as a Canadian are available to you whether or not you put in a dollar for every dollar you get. There are some ways in which those of us who live in resource areas contribute and there are some ways in which we receive.

A bit of a homily, and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but as we get into cost-cutting and rationalization and meeting the bottom line and dealing with the deficit and debt, let's not forget there is a partnership in being Canadian and there's reason and value behind it.

Mr. McGuire: I would like to thank the minister for those reassuring remarks, because not only in this case but in many others we're looking at that type of attitude. The remarks the minister has made here today certainly make me feel a lot better and more comfortable about the future as far as dredging and ice-breaking and so on are concerned in his department.

The Chairman: On this subject, Mr. Minister, some concerns have been raised, and I think Joe has touched on them, about whether or not the coast guard is as lean and mean as it must be before some of these costs are passed on. We had the Chamber of Maritime Commerce and the Canadian Shipowners Association do a joint presentation...recognizing they have an interest here, and maybe some self-interest, when they came forward with their proposals. Certainly they said they don't mind paying, but they just want to pay the lowest amount possible for the services they're going to use.

.1645

One of the things they did was to give us a proposal to set up some type of an advisory council when dealing with coast guard and coast guard services and the cost of those services. They said they'd like to see an advisory council that would be modelled along section 660.1 of the Canada Shipping Act. Basically it would be an industry council that would monitor and ensure that the coast guard, because it is a monopoly, is consistently and continuously reinventing itself to make sure that the cost of doing the business of providing the service to Canadian shippers is as cost-effective as possible.

Can you just give us some comments on that?

Mr. Tobin: Let me make two comments. First of all, you should watch those fellows closely because they're after your job, which is to monitor and ensure that the coast guard is doing its job as effectively and as efficiently - if I'm quoting you correctly, Mr. Chairman - as it can and should. I think the role of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is to look after all the services and programs of this department.

There is no doubt that every group that finds itself subjected to fees of any sort will often say open up the books and let us run the department and we'll contemplate paying fees. I have no doubt, for example, that the shipowners would say the coast guard should be charging user fees for fishermen when they break out ice. Is that something the committee would subscribe to? You'd have to think about it, but I don't think you'd think about it very long before you gave me an answer. They might also say we should only provide ice-breaking services in the north if it made sense or could be paid for by somebody.

So there are ways you can make the department very efficient. One is to quit doing a lot of services. Another is to start charging those who literally can't afford to pay for some of those services. A third way is to decide that some of the activities we're engaged in are national in scope and fulfil national policy objectives.

The country is a little bit more than a Monopoly board with us as one of the service providers on it. Rather, it's a notion of a group of people who have arranged themselves and arranged their side in a certain way on the northern part of the North American continent, and there are some pretty basic services.

On the general question of whether we will downsize the department, we will as much as possible. We won't be afraid to make deep cuts and be innovative in delivering services in more efficient ways.

Will we be sensitive to the users, who after all are being asked to pay these user fees? Absolutely.

Am I prepared to turn the department and the departmental authority over to a private sector group? No, I'm not. Am I prepared to see private sector groups supplant the role of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the oversight of the spending authorities given to the department? I'm not, and I don't think you would be.

The Chairman: I'm glad you gave that response, because there are a lot of people in my riding who would not necessarily subscribe to the point of view that was put forward.

I'm also glad that this is about the fourth time since you sat down that you've alluded to a role for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. As a parliamentarian who served with you in the previous session, I know we've often said that in the past. I'm glad that as a minister you've reiterated what you believe to be a very positive, productive, and ongoing role of the committee in ensuring that when pieces of legislation are passed, they actually do hit their targets and meet their goals.

Mr. Tobin: I think standing committees should look very closely at partnerships, because partnerships are in many respects the way of the future. Partnerships and partner arrangements should not and must not interfere with the privileges of members of Parliament nor the responsibilities of standing committees. There is a danger of that if we don't carefully monitor what's going on.

The Chairman: I have a last question and then I'll go over to Mr. Wells.

We deal with fees in this bill as well, specifically with coast guard provisions for services. A member of the opposition raised a question in the House today about some of the proposals for cost recovery. I think there are three different proposals that are being looked at. One of them would see basically a flat fee for things like ice-breaking, aids to navigation, and commercial shipping.

Speaking as a member of Parliament who represents an area of Dartmouth, where we have a concern because that is an ice-free harbour, we're concerned about our competitiveness. I think the port authority there, the port corporation, has made its position very clear to you and to standing committees. I was just wondering if you could tell me what the timetable is for you as minister to decide on what would be the most equitable way to apply those fees. I'm just looking for timetables.

.1650

Mr. Tobin: Consultation, of course, is ongoing. In fact, one of the things that Commissioner John Thomas has been doing in recent days is spending some time in some of the regions to deal with some of the misinformation that's out there. He's providing good, hard, solid information as a public information exercise.

But the Marine Advisory Board will meet in Montreal in December. At that stage, it will take the full range of proposals and debate that is out there. As it is empowered to do, it will try to reconcile all of that diversity of view with some advice to the minister.

That's the purpose of the board. That advice will be forthcoming we hope before Christmas. You're probably looking at a decision, in terms of a timetable, in January, or certainly early February.

The Chairman: Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like everybody, I'd like to thank the minister for being here. I also want to thank him for his answer in the House today.

I support the bill, as the minister knows. I spoke in support of it at second reading. I was concerned at the beginning that the bill could be undermined by those who didn't understand it. I think this process we've been through has gone a long way perhaps toward educating people and providing an understanding. I think it's shown the effectiveness of this process.

I had some specific questions on amendments, but I'm not going to pose them to you. You've answered them by saying you're going to entertain constructive amendments.

I think we're looking forward to putting those constructive amendments together. Now that we have the commitment from you that you're prepared to look at those, and that we will have that opportunity, many of the questions we've reviewed in this act in the last month we've been looking at it...I think we feel much more like the process will be worthwhile now that we're going to have some input. So I thank you for making that statement.

The misinformation that's coming out with respect to the confusion with this and the Fisheries Act leads to the question: Is there a timetable for the new Fisheries Act? A lot of our discussion was on an act that wasn't before us. Can you give us some indication when that might be coming forward?

Mr. Tobin: The department is working. In fact, I had a briefing session this morning, which indicates to me that the department is working very diligently to finish drafting a new Fisheries Act.

Remember that we're talking about the first major rewrite of the Fisheries Act literally since Confederation. So it's a significant piece of work, both in terms of its drafting and its consideration by this committee.

I will have a better sense - this is not to be evasive at all, Mr. Wells - within a matter of days, or certainly within a week, of what kind of timeframe we're looking at. I think it's possible that we'll have a draft bill ready in the next two to three weeks.

Frankly, what then becomes the issue is the agenda of the House and whether or not we're able to get a bill tabled prior to the Christmas break and what the disposition will be of the government with respect to continuing the session, proroguing, or whatever the case might be.

This is very much a matter of open speculation and I'm not in a position to give a sense of what's going to go on. That will be done in due course by the government House leader. Those are the kinds of considerations we'll have to look at, but certainly we'd like to proceed in the department without delay.

There are a variety of things that are very important about a new Fisheries Act, but two areas in particular are quite crucial.

One is the whole issue of partnerships and being able to effectively negotiate and maintain our commitments under them. We need to have legislative authority to do that. Certainly many fishermen's groups have said they were ready to pay an access fee if it's fair and reasonable, but they also want to know there's a partnership arrangement there.

We've had a chance for a brief exchange, but you might comment on the view coming out of the round table you just conducted on the south shore.

I say to Mr. Chair, Mr. Wells, and others that we'd like to bring the act soon for that reason. We would not only have a fee structure, but the ability to make and keep partnerships. These are the primary reasons that we'd like to bring it forward quickly.

Mr. Wells: I guess it's a desire to see the full picture. That's what we're slowly evolving to. The timing is important.

I don't know if this is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. You might tell me if it isn't fair with respect to the timeframe on this particular legislation.

.1655

Is there a reasonable expectation that this might be finished before Christmas?

The Chairman: It depends on what will happen when we have no more witnesses and we sit down as a committee and look at the evidence that has been given to us and some of the amendments. We'll decide as a committee how we'll proceed with it.

Mr. Wells: I assume, Mr. Minister, that it would be your desire that this be completed before Christmas. Is that the agenda?

Mr. Tobin: I'm not subtle about these things. The committee's its own master, but it would be my strong desire that it be finished quickly, for two reasons.

One is so we won't lose it. That's a legislative reality with which, as parliamentarians and legislators, we're all familiar.

Two, we do want to bring forward - and I would give advance notice to the chair in discussions with the chair - a very substantial bill, the Fisheries Act. We want to do it, as I've just said to you, perhaps within a matter of weeks. It is the first major rewriting of this act since 1867. So it's a big piece of business, in terms of both the committee's work and the department's work.

The Chairman: For the committee members, because it has been raised by Mr. Scott as well, our clerk will tell us that we went through one heck of a lot of names of individuals and groups that have an interest. We've dealt with umbrella groups. We've had some tremendous presentations.

I keep mentioning CARC. I wish every committee could get presentations as concise, to the point, and constructive as the one we got from CARC.

We've had a lot of evidence, and we will review it, weigh it, and proceed with the proper course of action afterwards. I think we've heard from pretty well everybody.

We have some outstanding issues dealing with the Nunavut and so on. We will deal with that this week, and at that point the committee will decide how we can get on with it. I don't see a long timetable, though, unless something else comes in.

Mrs. Payne.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Minister, I also am glad to see you here today. Most of the questions I had in my mind have already been posed, because you yourself have done a very good job of explaining the issues that came before us. A lot of the questions I had had to do with user fees and the coast guard, and they've been adequately answered.

I, like my colleagues, support this bill and have spoken on it. I congratulate you and your department on what I consider to be a wonderful piece of legislation.

Mr. Tobin: Let me take this opportunity, as I have with other members on both sides, to thank you for your representations over the last number of months on this issue, Mrs. Payne, and on many others having to do with the health and viability of the fishing industry.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, perhaps you're going to tell us some of the specific amendments there are.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I want to come back to Bill C-98 because in listening to some of my colleague's comments, I felt that we were straying a little from the subject at hand.

Getting back to the partnership question, I note that the bill contains a reference to partnership with our federal colleagues. It also refers to the departments of Justice, Natural Resources and Foreign Affairs. However, there is no mention in the bill of the Department of the Environment.

Why is this?

[English]

Mr. Tobin: It says in the bill.... Let me read it for you. Let me read part of a new clause that we would propose for study by the committee, which would replace the clause about which you had concern earlier. The clause in question you identified as clause 26, but it's actually numbered, in the current draft, as clause 29. It makes references to federal ministers but not to the provincial government.

I refer to what I call the Bernier amendment. But if you're rejecting ownership of it, we'll have to find another name for it.

I have read, but I'll read again, the words that we would propose in the amended clause:

.1700

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Allow me to clarify my question. I am very pleased that you want to define the word consultation more clearly. The bill makes references to specific initiatives of the departments of Justice, Natural Resources and Foreign Affairs in this area. Why is it that the Department of Environment has no specific responsibilities? At one point, the bill mentions that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may establish guidelines for the marine environment.

My question is brief and straightforward. Will you have the authority, yes or no, to establish guidelines and, if so, what about the Department of the Environment?

[English]

Yes or no? A short one.

Mr. Tobin: I think they'll react with pure, unvarnished, unadulterated, immeasurable joy. The answer's yes.

The Chairman: Another question, Mr. Bernier?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Then you will in fact have the authority to establish guidelines. What will be the relationship then between Environment and Fisheries and Oceans? What kind of new partnership do you envisage? How are you going to get along? I look forward to seeing that.

[English]

Mr. Tobin: We'll be like yin and yang.

The Chairman: Another question, Mr. Bernier?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: That confirms my doubts and my fears. I'll be watching developments closely from the sidelines.

I have one final brief question. This is a very important issue and it's a shame... I imagine that the minister is alluding to two individuals who will be like yin and yang.

If he is referring to the yin and yang between two federal colleagues, imagine what will happen when he sits down with his other federal counterparts! Could he clarify that? If he is not prepared to do so today, I would like to know when we will get together again to discuss all of the issues that have been set aside...

[English]

Mr. Tobin: With the federal partners it will be yin and yang. With the provincial partners it will be give and take.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman, not relating specifically to Bill C-98. Since the minister brought it up, I'd like to ask the question.

You're talking about major amendments coming to the Fisheries Act. We're aware of that, but we don't know what those changes are. We have a general idea of what they might be, but we certainly don't know the scope of them and what the clause-by-clause changes will look like. Since these changes will potentially have a major impact on the fisheries on both coasts, I would like to have your commitment that we will have you back in front of this committee to answer questions on the changes in that act, and furthermore, that the people who stand to be affected by that, the fishermen, will have every opportunity to provide their input before the bill is adopted.

Mr. Tobin: I think I can give you both those assurances, because I'm confident the committee...and I repeat, Mr. Scott, the committee's its own master. The committee can determine the nature of the study it will give the bill and the bill will come to this committee. The time required, the nature of the consultation required, the number of witnesses required, the appearance by various witnesses who are requested, or in some cases demanded, and certainly the appearance and cooperation of the minister, will all be determined not in my office but collectively in your office, because the committee is master of its own fate. I certainly would bow to the wisdom and the requirements of this committee in its determination of what is necessary to study the Fisheries Act amendments.

So I'll be back, I'm sure, for more questions and answers.

.1705

The Chairman: To Mr. Scott and to other members of the committee on all sides, when that particular event happens, if the committee decides that the consultations have to be broad and have to be thorough, which means that we have to leave Ottawa, I would hope that all three parties, the government, the Reform Party, as well as the Bloc, would see fit to allow us to do that. We have had trouble in the past when we've tried to go out and do those consultations with fishermen, with fish plant workers and others who are affected by what we do up here on Parliament Hill.

I know times are tough, but sometimes you have to eyeball these guys right down on the wharf in order to really understand what the impact is. I would hope that when that time comes, all three sides of this House will see the importance of allowing us to get unshackled, out of Ottawa, and see the people who really are affected by this legislation.

Mr. McGuire: The statement from the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association on page 5 of the minister's statement caught my eye. I think Minister Bradley might be interested in your answer, too. They say that the Oceans Act, for the first time in Canada's history, takes a ``holistic and collaborative approach to the management of Canada's vast and diversified coastal resource base''.

Did they, by any chance, say in their presentation that they were going to remove the line between the crab line? Did they make that proposal?

Mr. Tobin: I wasn't here. You'll have to ask some of your colleagues.

Mr. Wells: They didn't, no.

The Chairman: That's an issue for another day.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the minister and the minister's officials.

On a personal note, I want to indicate to the committee and for the record that when this bill first came to us, I bitched and complained like everybody else who wanted more time to study it and all that stuff.

I want to acknowledge for the record that the minister's senior staff from the department have been very helpful. I am very pleased to see that rather than saying, here's the bill, no changes, which I saw so many times in the past when I was in opposition, the approach is different. When good arguments are made, you're prepared to look at constructive amendments.

I think that speaks volumes for making this place a little more responsive and a little more respected by the Canadian public, recognizing that people outside of the ministry and outside of senior advisers to ministers - I am talking about members of Parliament - actually have a role to play in ensuring that there's better legislation for it.

On a personal note, I want to thank you for giving us that type of leeway, because in the past, when I was in opposition, we certainly didn't have it.

Mr. Tobin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you, every member of the committee, and all of the parties represented by the committee for what has been an excellent study this far. We await, with anticipation, your deliberation clause by clause and your proposed amendments.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

;