EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 5, 1995

.0952

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please. We are going to start clause-by-clause today. We have some officials from the department who can help us along as questions arise about various whys and why nots and amendments being proposed.

I think everybody on the committee has pretty much all of the information. I don't think there are going to be any major surprises today and I don't think there are going to be any amendments coming out of left field that we haven't been aware of.

As you can tell, we were still negotiating a couple of clauses here on the exact wording, and in particular I'll draw the members' attention to the proposed amendment that had come from Mr. Scott to amend lines 19 and 20 on page 1. We've been dealing with that over the last number of days and I think we have some agreement on new wording. One of our assistants has gone to photocopy that.

When we get down to that perhaps Mr. Scott can give us a little more information on it. I think that was the last big outstanding issue we had, but I think the language we have will probably be satisfactory to everybody. It's an amendment to the amendment.

So while we're waiting for that I guess we'll start. I know that some members here have not done clause-by-clause before. I'm going to ask the clerk if he wants to give any explanations. He's done clause-by-clause more times than anybody sitting around this table has.

Is there anything you want to tell the members so that they have a better understanding of process and of what they can and can't do? That will probably help us get through the day.

The Clerk of the Committee: Okay. Basically, we follow the bill through, clause by clause, line by line. We start at the start and go to the end, except for the preamble and clause 1, which are short titles. By Standing Order we don't take them up until the end.

We can proceed in that order. Everybody has a package of the amendments. They've been put in order for you by the lines. They're proposed in that order.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): Which book are we using? I have about three now.

The Chairman: Which book do you want to use?

.0955

Mr. Wells: I have three, but a couple of them are the same, as they have the same things in them. Were you using the one that came from -

The Chairman: The researchers?

Mr. Wells: Yes. Is that the one we're going to use throughout?

The Chairman: Why don't you tell us which three books you have?

Mr. Wells: I have the green one.

The Chairman: Which one is that, Derek?

Mr. Wells: The Oceans Act.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): That was the first one we received, and this was the second one.

The Chairman: Do you want to tell me what's on them? I don't have them in front of me. What does it say on each of them?

Mr. McGuire (Egmont): It says ``proposed amendments''.

Mrs. Payne: It says the same thing on both the green and the blue, but it is just that this one was issued later than the other.

The Chairman: Which ones are which? Can somebody over there help them, because I don't have those books?

Okay, has everybody got this document? It's been passed around.

These are the proposed amendments that have come in. These include the proposed amendments of the government and both opposition parties. They're in the other books, as well, but this will just help you get through it.

When were these distributed to the committee?

A voice: Last week.

The Chairman: These were distributed last week.

It will help you to get through the amendments. You have all the information you need, in some form, if you have all of your binders. This is just a better way for you to get through it.

Which is the most recent copy, since we have green, yellow, pink, and blue over there? Which is the most recent copy that they have in the binder?

Go ahead, Yvan.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): We have a lot of documents this morning! I apologize for being unable to attend all the working sessions, but I have read all, or virtually all, the documents.

First, I would like to know why the big blue book was made up. It seems well done because it contains things that I don't find in the other one. In any case, I'm going to see if the government party is going to use the work that was done by the researchers.

Second, I would like the Clerk to repeat what he just said because I thought I understood we were not going to discuss clause 1 and the preamble until the end. However, Mr. Chairman, the fact that I talked with you and made a three-point request to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he came before the committee is an open secret.

The committee's working method may not be familiar to me, but I at least know that if I present all my amendments this morning and they are rejected, I will never have the chance to speak publicly about the three principles. So I would feel better if we could include these three principles in the preamble, thus lightening the committee's workload for the rest of the day since the three parties are represented here.

Consequently, my two questions are as follows: why was the blue book made up - I can't wait to see whether it is going to be used - and how can we discuss the principles that I've already mentioned?

[English]

The Chairman: We can do whatever we want here, Yvan. I just don't want to get bogged down in rehashing the principles of the bill. We have very specific amendments. We have the clauses to go through. It's going to take us some time.

If you want to take a few minutes to have a discussion about the preamble - I mean about ten or fifteen minutes - we can do that, but it will be the last order of business in clause-by-clause. According to the Standing Orders, the last order of business is to approve the preamble.

.1000

That doesn't preclude us from having a discussion on it, if the committee wishes, because it is important to Yvan. There are some things which, if he's comfortable with them, and if his party is comfortable with them, may make our task a little easier with proposed changes later on in the day.

If it's the wish of the committee to have five or ten or fifteen minutes on this, I don't have any difficulty. But according to the Standing Orders, that's the last thing we do. If it will facilitate us getting through some of the other issues by having a ten- or fifteen-minute discussion, I don't think there's any harm to that. But it has to be limited. So we'll just hang fire on that for a second.

We'll deal with Yvan's question in a second. Can I go back over to the books? I want to have everybody singing from the same hymnal here. There is a book that came from the clerk; from the committee. That book has the amendments that are proposed and that have resulted from testimony. That will be the main book we're following, as well as the bill itself. That's the one you should be looking at.

The other thing you'll be getting from the clerk.... These are the ones that were sent. These are all the other amendments that have come in from the government, from the Bloc, and from the Reform Party. As we go through, the main body of evidence we have, and proposals, will be the committee book that has been done up. We'll deal with that. There will also be amendments that are in this package. These amendments will probably show up in one of your other binders. For the sake of clarity and continuity and simplicity, this is the one we should use. Agreed?

Mrs. Payne: Are there any extra copies of that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: They're being done as we speak.

If everybody agrees to that, and if we agree on the first point, perhaps.... Do you want to take ten or fifteen minutes here to have a little chat about the preamble? Although we're not going to deal with the preamble, do we want to have a discussion on it? Mr. Bernier seems to think it might help him in his deliberations today.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I don't just want to discuss it; I also want some of these clauses to be put to a vote, even if it means coming back at the end for other amendments. If we have to request a vote in committee in order to have the right to vote on the preamble, then let's request it. What I want is for the committee to give me a clear guideline with respect to the three principles that I argued before the Minister the other day, concerning which I believe I received assurances of his cooperation.

If I may state the three principles underlying the amendments that I'm going to propose, I would then know if I can introduce the rest of my amendments or whether I should hold them back in order to discuss them in another forum.

Do you agree, Mr. Chairman, to our voting on a series of amendments within the preamble if we can then rediscuss them afterwards?

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to be blunt. I don't like beating around the bush. There has been discussion outside of this table about amendments. It's one of the reasons we've had the amendments circulated. Our time is valuable, for all of us. So rather than deal with nonsense....

Mr. Bernier, if we're dealing with the preamble, we have a proposed amendment in the book on the preamble that's come out of testimony. It seems to me, anyway - I'm not going to prejudge the vote around the table - the proposed amendment that has come from the committee, from the clerks and from our researchers, is probably going to carry. I'm not prejudging the vote, but there has been consultation and nobody has called me and said they're opposed to the proposed amendment on the preamble.

.1005

A number of amendments that deal with the preamble have been placed in your name. If we were dealing with the preamble in a substantive manner right now, there would probably be sufficient debate. I went through some of them with you this morning with respect to what I expect would and would not be supported. The reasons for support or non-support would have to be given by either officials or the parliamentary secretary, who is here to represent the minister in these deliberations.

I can't say much more. I can tell you which ones I think will be rejected and accepted. I told you that this morning. From my informal discussions with the government's departmental officials, the parliamentary secretary and the minister, I think some of those amendments will have difficulty carrying today.

I tried to be upfront with you this morning as to which ones I thought would carry and which ones would not. If I was a betting man, I'd bet that I'm pretty close.

Does that further confuse the issue or clarify it?

Mr. Wells: That clarifies it.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, I would suggest that some of those.... I know which amendments you want. There are three or four amendments in the first part. You might want to take the information I gave you this morning as a guide as to the ones you wish to move. You won't have to move them until the end of the day, anyway. I gave you my best guess this morning as to which ones would carry at the committee, and nothing's happened since I walked in the room to indicate that has changed.

If you read the proposed amendment in the researcher's book and put it in the context of our discussion earlier today, you will have a sense of what the preamble will probably look like at the end of the day. I can't make it any clearer than that without becoming a seer and predicting the total outcome of the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: So if I understand you correctly, Mr. Chairman, you are suggesting that we have a brief discussion of the preamble, but without putting it to a vote. Is that correct? You may nod your head if you follow me. He is not following me.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, I'm following you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: So if I understand what you are saying, you are proposing that we discuss the preamble, during which I may present my ideas and hear some of the government's, but that we do not vote on the preamble. Is that correct?

[English]

The Chairman: Does anybody on the government side want to comment on the preamble or the committee's proposed amendment to the preamble? I think this will be quick. My understanding is that the government supports the proposed amendment to the preamble. If that's the case, maybe they can state that.

Mr. Scott, at this point you may be the only one who wants to have input on the preamble, but there may be other people.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, as you suggested, I think we should go clause by clause. The committee's amendments are before us. Any member who wants to add or delete can do that, but I think you said earlier that we quickly go through those amendments that don't require discussion and then come back to those that do. In that way we can speed up the process.

.1010

So I think we should use the normal routine: go clause by clause, look at the amendments put forward by the committee, and then look at any other amendments. We can come back to the ones requiring further discussion, and we can get through the ones that will go quickly.

I'm sure the member will have some general points that we're willing to accept, but if he doesn't have any specific amendments, maybe we can come back to his general comments that don't have specific amendments to each section. As you suggested, Mr. Chairman, if we first go through those amendments that do not require any debate, we can speed up the work of the committee.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

There are some documents coming here. We have some time, Mr. Bernier, so in the interests of clarity why don't you give us some comments on the preamble?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Canada is formed of 10 provinces. That is the first comment I wanted to make. When I spoke with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in committee, he agreed that the purpose of his bill was not to withdraw powers from the provinces, but rather to enable the federal government to work together with them.

However, the amendments that I wanted to make had no other purpose but to set this desire for partnership down on paper.

Take, for example, line 12 of page 1 of the bill, which reads:

WHEREAS Parliament wishes to affirm in Canadian domestic law Canada's sovereign rights, jurisdiction and responsibilities...

I would have liked it to state as well that the Canadian provinces also exercise legislative jurisdiction with respect to oceans and their resources.

There may be other provinces that have certain statutes on this matter, and, if we want to work together, it would be a good idea that this be indicated from the outset. So that was the first item concerning partnership that I wanted to have reflected in the preamble.

If we want to achieve integrated management, which I have never opposed - it has always been my view that the right hand has to know what the left hand is doing - we must also ensure that we recognize that our partners may already have the tools.

In amendment B-2, at line 19, page 1, I return to the concept of the provinces, where I say:

sources in concert with the provinces, taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government;

.1015

Here again, the purpose of my remarks is to have the partnership and the concerted effort that we are seeking recognized because certain provinces already have legislative instruments. However, I'm not an expert on all provincial statutes that would be affected.

I was not in a hurry to have those things accepted. I made sure that we could introduce them long enough in advance for people to be able to read them and so that we could rediscuss them, but this morning, I understood that we had to speed up the process.

At line 20 of page 1 of the bill, we read:

AND WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers...

In my amendment, I propose to add:

with provincial governments...

In adding the provinces, I am introducing the concept of a concerted effort. The provinces are the partners Canada needs. It is they that signed on as members of the federal system. It is therefore important that this state of affairs be respected.

Now do these proposals cause you any difficulty? As members of the government, you may have better ways than the Opposition of obtaining documents or legal opinions that guide you in choosing the words or in telling me that I'm not headed in a desirable direction.

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying not to show any partisanship in these matters because it's my impression that the bill is free of it. So I imagine your position will be based on legal opinions.

As the honourable member for Gaspé, I am arguing on the basis of my little principle. Let it be said that Jacques Cartier arrived at Gaspé and that is why I keep coming back to the notion that Canada is formed of 10 provinces.

Is there a legal opinion enabling you to say that I am wrong? Is the parliamentary secretary prepared to say what he thinks of my remarks or does he prefer to invite departmental officials to give me their opinion on the subject? That would help me a great deal in making my choice regarding the amendments I'm going to introduce today.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, two things first and then we'll get into our deliberations. There is a proposed amendment that seems to have favour with most committee members. It says:

in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments

So the consultative process is clearly established in the proposed amendment that will be dealt with later in the day.

The second issue concerns jurisdiction and the constitutionality of jurisdiction. I think the body of thought that's out there by people as esteemed as Peter Hogg, a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, in a paper he did on constitutional law in Canada.... Is that the book?

A voice: It's a paper.

The Chairman: This issue is dealt with in the third edition, supplemented volume one. It indicates that:

The territorial sea and the high sea...(over the continental shelf) are outside the territory of the province. The coastal provinces therefore lack either ownership of the seabed...or legislative authority over the territorial sea and continental shelf.

You're dealing with a constitutional issue in terms of whether or not the provinces have authority in those areas. The bill reflects what I think is generally accepted in constitutional law, that it is the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is my understanding.

Am I correct there, officials? Is that the understanding?

.1020

Mr. Allan L. Willis (Senior General Counsel, Constitutional and International Law Section, Department of Justice): That is correct.

The Chairman: So it is a constitutional issue.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out to my colleague that one of the proposed amendments states under the preamble:

WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments, with aboriginal organizations

I think that addresses the concerns the member has put forward, and I know he'll support this proposed amendment.

Before we get going, Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate you and your staff on the good work you've done on the committee amendments. The government supports the amendments put forward by the committee, as they reflect the views of the many witnesses who came forward. I will be putting forward some technical amendments in addition to those, but I think it will make your job easier to know that. If there are any areas that have problems or other amendments come forward, we should come back to them. So we're fully supportive of all the amendments put forward by the committee.

The Chairman: That will make our job a lot easier, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Bernier's party, as are most parties, is loath to discuss the Constitution, and since this is probably a constitutional issue, perhaps we should reflect on this until we get into the preamble at the end of the day.

Does everybody have the document that was in question earlier today?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Excuse me, but I find we are speaking a little too quickly this morning. The interpreters are having trouble following and that's why I'm interrupting you two minutes after you began to address another subject.

I don't necessarily want to start a constitutional war this morning, but I haven't heard the department's interpretation. It isn't a constitutional war to comply with the existing Constitution, is it?

[English]

The Chairman: Absolutely, I agree.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: That being so, if I cite one of Quebec's statutes, could the department's representatives - I was told there were lawyers in the room - tell me how this would subsequently cause management problems?

All I want, Mr. Chairman, is for there to be no problem enforcing the act.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's get real here. The reality is that we can't deal with the preamble. We're trying to deal with it in a non-substantial way here. An issue has come up with respect to your amendments. The preamble will be decided at the end of the day, after all the other clauses have been debated, carried, amended or rejected.

I think we all know where everybody is coming from on these issues, so we can start off by introducing the officials. Before the officials say anything, perhaps they can comment on my comment that some of the issues raised by Mr. Bernier deal with constitutional powers over the area in question under the Oceans Act.

Maybe we can just get on with it. We'll have a full day today and there will be plenty of time. I know that you'll be revisiting those clauses and issues.

Mr. Parsons, please introduce everybody at the table.

Mr. Scott L. Parsons (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to be here this morning to help the committee in any way possible.

.1025

With me are Mr. Allan Willis from the Department of Justice, who is an expert in the matters that have been discussed in the last few minutes; Mr. Bob Rochon, who's the director general at Foreign Affairs and International Trade and an expert in the Law of the Sea and other related matters; Camille Majeau from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and Hedy Kirkby, who is working at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the Department of Justice.

The Chairman: Allan, do you want to just make a very quick comment? We're going right into business here. Is the comment I made something the government would agree on?

Mr. Willis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would be our position. The excerpt you read aloud from Professor Hogg's book essentially encapsulates the constitutional position as we understand it.

The Chairman: Okay, then we're all set, folks. There we go.

Go ahead, Mr. Bernier. We're going into clause 2.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I don't want to speak on clause 2, Mr. Chairman, but on the last comment by the gentleman on the left when he spoke of Mr. Hogg. I am not a constitutional expert, but I don't think complying with the constitution means you have "acute constitutionitis".

This gentleman appears to be more informed on constitutional law than I. Perhaps he can tell me then whether the principles that I advanced a moment ago and the manner in which they are worded would cause problems? All I'm saying is that if we don't respect our partners, the provinces, by mentioning them in the preamble, we'll have problems.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, we'll deal with that when those particular clauses come up. We've now had 22 minutes of debate on the preamble. We will have plenty of time at the end of the day.

I think it's inappropriate to ask the officials to comment on things other than your amendments. The amendments come up and the debate revolves around the constitutionality of the amendment, and that's why the officials are here. Today is a different type of committee hearing. We're going through clause by clause and the issues must be related to the clause that is before us at the time.

So with respect, I would ask that as the day goes on, as your amendments come forward, if they deal with constitutionality, we ask the officials to comment at that time. You're asking for a very overarching comment about issues you've raised. We have studied this bill at length in committee and we've had witnesses here, and we're here today to do something other than that. It is specifically to go through the clause-by-clause.

By allowing the debate, I've already broken the rules of most of what you're supposed to do on clause-by-clause, and I would respectfully ask that those questions be put at the appropriate time when the amendments come up.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I thought I understood from your remarks that we had all day for discussion purposes. So I don't understand why we want to hurry to the next stage. Even if you have the impression that I'm taking up time this morning, it's my opinion that these 15 minutes will enable us to save a day.

[English]

The Chairman: Because, Mr. Bernier, under the Standing Orders the preamble is supposed to be at the end of the day. In the spirit of camaraderie around this table, I sought some consensus that we could have some debate. When I looked to my left you agreed and I said we would go till 10:15 a.m. It is now 10:29 a.m. I can only try to keep some order in this committee if people adhere to what we've agreed to.

The committee did not have to allow any discussion or debate at this point in time on the preamble, but we thought it was important so that you could put some of these things in context because of the nature of some of your amendments. We have done that. It is now 10:30 a.m., and it's going to be hard for me to get agreements around this table if the agreements are not held. We said we would do it till 10:15 a.m. and it's now 10:30 a.m., so why don't we get on with it?

We are going to start off, as we should, with a motion to stand clause 1 and the preamble.

.1030

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would have liked you to cite more passages from the document you are referring to in order to enable me to assimilate it all while you continue the sitting. Is it possible to have a copy of the document you're referring to?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: And could you discuss the subject for two minutes? I'll ask no more questions if the committee wishes to proceed immediately. I'm a sovereigntist, not an anarchist!

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, I will discuss it for two minutes, but I'm having some difficulty here. We should not have done it. Maybe we won't do it again. At 10 a.m, because of a request, we agreed to 10:15. It is now 10:30 a.m. We have a large piece of work ahead of us today. This issue is not in the order it should be for the purposes of discussion. We've gone beyond that. I will have to seek some guidance from the committee.

Is it the committee's wish to continue to debate this issue, or is it the committee's wish to get on with the clause-by-clause examination?

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, can we conform with the Standing Orders and get on with the clause-by-clause?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member from the Bloc.... We had lots of time to discuss all these matters. Unfortunately he was busy with other matters, which is understandable. But there has been a lot of opportunity to discuss these. We're here to discuss clause-by-clause. I would ask that we move on and do what we're here to do, which is to go on to clause-by-clause from here on in.

The Chairman: Okay, I think the committee has directed the chairman. Therefore we will start off.

According to the Standing Orders, we stand clause 1 and the preamble.

We've already introduced the officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to thank them for showing up today. I hope it will be a productive day.

I want to thank the officials, because you've been extremely flexible in not just saying no every time our witnesses come up and suggest an amendment to try to improve the legislation, or indeed in discussions on amendments from all parties represented at the table. I want it put on the record that I think that is exactly the type of approach that has to come from other departments as well. It builds better legislation. So I want to thank you for allowing us to have something other than a rubber-stamp role to play in the process. I think at the end of the day most members of the committee will feel pretty good, and so will most witnesses, that this particular process has been responsive instead of static.

That being said and done, we will start off. In the order of consideration we will go clause by clause.

On clause 2 - Definitions

The Chairman: My understanding is there was some evidence here. No amendments have been recommended or suggested on this one.

Clause 2 agreed to

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal, you have an amendment for a new clause, clause 2.1.

Mr. Dhaliwal: That's right, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, a number of aboriginal organizations requested that a non-derogation clause be inserted in the Canadian Oceans Act. I therefore propose that a new clause be inserted after clause 2, to read as follows:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Chairman: That comes directly from testimony, Mr. Dhaliwal, as well as negotiations that went on for a number of days, in particular with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board and the NTI.

Am I correct there, Mr. Parsons?

Mr. Parsons: Yes, you're correct, Mr. Chairman. In the original draft of the bill, and you'll come to it later, there was a subclause 24(2), I think, which had something similar to this. It applied only to that part of the bill. After discussion, and after other legislation was looked at, it was concluded that indeed this was the more appropriate course of action.

The Chairman: So this proposed amendment will have the effect of applying the non-derogation clause to the entire bill?

Mr. Parsons: Yes.

.1035

The Chairman: And the individuals you were negotiating with saw this as one of the amendments that would address their concerns with respect to the Nunavut land claims?

Mr. Parsons: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. In addition to that, as I said, this clause as stated by Mr. Dhaliwal exists in a number of other pieces of legislation at the moment.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Just one word was left out. It should read ``to abrogate or derogate''. It's just a correction, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The proposed amendment would add a new section, named 2.1, which would say:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Right.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, I know there has been some discussion with my office and probably with other members as well. This is similar to what had been proposed originally by you, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr. Scott: That's correct.

The Chairman: I think it's pretty much the same language that both the government and the Reform Party support.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Is there any other discussion or debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I'm not very familiar with clause 35. Could the parliamentary secretary or someone from the department give me a brief explanation of clause 35 and its effects of the federal government and on the other provinces?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I'm going to ask Mr. Willis from Justice to give an ever so brief description of section 35 of the Constitution Act for Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Willis: I don't have it in front of me, but basically section 35 simply confirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights that have existed as of 1982 in favour of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Excuse me, I didn't quite understand.

[English]

The Chairman: There seems to be some confusion over the Constitution these days.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like to ask the witness to repeat what he just said. I am going to stay at my microphone, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Willis: I mentioned that I don't have section 35 in front of me, and therefore I can only give an approximate paraphrase, but essentially section 35 confirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights that existed at the time of the adoption of the 1982 Constitution in favour of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I understood the question to be ``What is in section 35?''

The Chairman: That was the question.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, as I understand section 35, it's not just existing aboriginal rights but existing and future aboriginal rights, just for clarification.

Mr. Willis: Yes.

The Chairman: Seeing no further debate, shall new clause 2.1 carry?

Amendment agreed to

On clause 3 - Her Majesty

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, will you be moving your amendment on clause 3?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Are we already there?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Excuse me, I would like us to discuss the draft amendment that was introduced.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to move the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: The Clerk entitled it B-4, I believe.

.1040

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment replaces line 2 on page 3 with the following:

right of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: That is to say we remove the words "or a province". In fact, the Parliament of Canada wants to introduce a statute on the management of its oceans, but the provinces have not yet been asked to vote on that. That is why I'm asking that Canada alone be bound. Canada must have a method for operating with the provinces through the Constitution. I wonder what interpretation can be given to the words "or a province"?.

I don't know what the people from the department think of it. I see there is no interest in the constitutional aspect. Do the people from the department have a legal opinion suggesting that they would proceed in this manner? That must be the case because you can't legislate without relying on solid bases.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Parsons, would you like to have a comment on the proposed amendment by Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed amendment would in effect release the provinces of any obligations to comply with regulatory aspects of this act. The equivalent of this clause 3 is commonly found in other Canadian environmental protection legislation. For example, section 4 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has an identical wording to this.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I think we cannot support this amendment put forward by my colleague. Obviously, the act has to be binding on Canada, or a province as well. This is the same as any other act that we put forward. It's quite consistent with any other legislation we have.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, this is a different statute, a new statute, and I am not familiar with the examples of statutes that we are being shown now. I am trying to understand what is going on because, in my view, we must rely on a legal basis. I don't understand why we want to bind under this statute someone who does not have to vote on it. The relationship between Canada and the provinces is already provided for in the Constitution. Isn't it redundant to add it here?

I would like someone to tell me that all this was done on some legal basis. Can anyone tell me: Mr. Bernier, you need not ask that question; refer to page x of the Constitution and you will see that that's how things operate? Was a legal opinion issued? Don't tell me that we're working like this because we've always worked like this. We are introducing this bill in order to change working methods that are out of date, at least in the area of the oceans. I believe my question is appropriate. Isn't it clear enough?

[English]

The Chairman: My understanding of the response was that, if your amendment carried, it would have the effect of exempting the provinces from compliance under the act. So the act would only apply to Her Majesty in right of Canada. Am I right there? The impact would be that it would not be applicable to the provinces?

Mr. Parsons: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That's kind of....

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: First of all, in addressing my friend's concerns, Mr. Chairman, he's indicated that he's concerned and that he wants provincial involvement, but clearly the proposed amendment to the preamble addresses that particular issue.

The other thing is that the member has said he supports the principles of the act. If he does, then obviously he'd want the provinces to adhere to this Oceans Act.

Therefore, I don't think it's necessary. If he wants to delete the word ``province'' then I find it quite contradictory to what the member's been saying.

.1045

So we can't support that, Mr. Chairman, and I hope we can vote and get on with it before any further discussion; I think we've had ample discussion on it.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: I understand we have legal counsel here. Could we maybe hear from legal counsel what their opinion is with respect to this proposed amendment?

The Chairman: There we go. Back over to you, Allan.

Mr. Willis: The only legal point I could add to what has been said is that if the policy is that the provincial governments are to be bound by the act - or the federal government, for that matter - it must be expressly so stated in the legislation, and that's because of a provision in the Interpretation Act that codifies earlier jurisprudence. So if governments are to be bound, it must be expressly stated and that's what clause 3 does.

The Chairman: Okay. Last point, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: On this point, Mr. Chairman, to be consistent with the meaning the Minister wants to give the bill, that is to say that he is seeking a concerted effort, we must not try to impose anything. That's the reason why I was hoping we could remove the expression that binds the provinces and imposes a will on them since the Minister is not seeking to impose a will, but rather to cooperate with the provinces. That's why I find the words used are contradictory: you can't impose something and request cooperation at the same time. It's like petting a dog the wrong way.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's see how persuasive your arguments have been.

Amendment negatived

Clause 3 agreed to

Clause 4 agreed to

On clause 5 - Determination of the baselines

The Chairman: There are a couple of amendments in clause 5.

Mr. Bernier, do you want to move that amendment at this point in time?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Which one? Are you at 5(3)?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, it is subclause 5(3).

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: No, not right away.

.1050

[English]

The Chairman: You're not going to move it?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: No.

[English]

The Chairman: So there will be no amendment on subclause 5(3).

Clause 5 agreed to

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to

On clause 8 - Rights of Her Majesty

The Chairman: There was an advance notice of an amendment by the Bloc to subclause 8(2). Mr. Bernier, will you be moving that amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: No.

[English]

Clause 8 agreed to

On clause 9 - Application of provincial law

The Chairman: There is a Bloc amendment on clause 9. Mr. Bernier indicates he will not be moving that amendment.

Clause 9 agreed to

On clause 10 - Contiguous zone of Canada

The Chairman: I think Mr. Dhaliwal is proposing an amendment.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, this is just a technical correction on the French version, and you have that before you. So I move amendment G-3.

The Chairman: It's a technical amendment. Is there any question on that?

Mr. Bernier, do you have a question on the technical amendment?

Mr. Bernier: I just want to listen to the French part of it.

Mr. Dhaliwal: One of my colleagues has challenged me to read it, but I wouldn't want to test myself on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, do you have that in front of you? Would you like to give him a lesson in the other official language?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: So can no one from the government party give me the French version this morning?

The Chairman:

riale d'un autre État, ou assujetti aux droits souverains d'un autre État.

[English]

How about that? I don't want any comments from you guys back there, okay?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 10 as amended agreed to

On clause 11 - Prevention in contiguous zone of infringement of federal laws

Mr. Dhaliwal: I have an amendment on clause 11. The Department of Justice lawyers have suggested a change that would help to clarify the intent of this clause, and to avoid misinterpretation.

So, Mr. Chairman, I therefore move that clause 11 of Bill C-98 be amended to read as follows:

Subject to Canada's international obligations, a person who is responsible for the enforcement of a federal law that is a customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary law, and who believes on reasonable grounds that a person in the contiguous zone of Canada would, if that person were to enter Canada, commit an offence under that law, may prevent entry of that person into Canada or the commission of the offence. For greater certainty, this section is governed by section 25 of the Criminal Code.

.1055

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: I'd like to move a subamendment to that, Mr. Chairman, that the words ``subject to Canada's international obligations'' be deleted on the proposed amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I have a clarification. Apparently the wording was updated. My copy doesn't show that, but I have an updated version. If I could reread that amendment, it should read:

An offence under that law may, subject to Canada's international obligations, prevent the entry of that person into Canada or the commission of the offence and, for greater certainty, section 25 of the Criminal Code applies in respect of the exercise by a person of any powers under this section.

I believe this is the new section that is provided by Justice.

The Chairman: Okay, so you've withdrawn your first amendment. This is the amendment that you're putting.

Mr. Scott, you will be putting a subamendment.

Mr. Scott: I still would like to move a subamendment to remove ``subject to Canada's international obligations'' from the amendment.

The Chairman: So we're dealing with the subamendment and the subamendment would remove ``subject to Canada's international obligations''.

Mr. Scott, do you want to give us some rationale for that.

Mr. Scott: An offence under the law is an offence and criminals are criminals, and I don't think we should be considering anything other than that in this legislation, Mr. Chairman. That's why I'm proposing this subamendment.

The Chairman: Can somebody from the department help out?

Ms Hedy Kirkby (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I can speak to that. I'm from legal services at Fisheries and Oceans.

The wording, the qualifier, that is ``subject to Canada's international obligations'' was put in as a result of a request by the Department of Immigration, legal services.

I'll read what they had submitted to us from Immigration, legal services:

The wording of the section as it presently reads is too wide in that it might have the potential of violating other international obligations and treaties to which Canada is a party, notably the non-refoulement provisions contained in the Refugee Convention and the Torture Convention.

So, in certain instances then, enforcement officers would not be able to use the powers given under section 11, because in doing so they would be in contravention of other existing treaties or what not. So this is just to qualify it to that effect.

Mr. Scott: Could you maybe give me an example. I really don't follow where you're coming from on that.

Ms Kirkby: The example is the one that I just read, that there are in place treaty obligations to which Canada is a party. What I'm told is that these are specifically the non-refoulement provisions contained in the refugee convention and the torture convention, which I understand puts limitations on returning incoming refugees to their country of origin in certain circumstances, if it's known that they're going to be in danger for their lives, for example. So one would have to respect the obligations of that treaty.

.1100

Mr. Wells: Is that because we're in the contiguous zone as opposed to the territorial sea? Is that the reason it's in this section? I think what he's saying would be valid if we're in the territorial sea or the area within 12 miles, but this is between 12 and 24 miles, is it not?

Ms Kirkby: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Wells: That's the reason it's there. Am I correct?

Ms Kirkby: Yes, because the United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea gives certain specific powers within the contiguous zone. This is one of those identified powers.

Mr. Wells: Were it any further I think your request would be valid. Initially, when I saw it I agreed with it, but when I read closer and saw it was the contiguous zone, that's why we have to make it subject to international obligations, because our jurisdiction isn't quite as strong in that area.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Wells is quite correct on that. The territorial sea is part of Canada. The contiguous zone is not part of Canada. It is an area in which we exercise certain jurisdiction with respect to customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary law, and out to the edge of the exclusive economic zone there's another set of rights that we exercise.

The Chairman: Have you any further comment, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scott: I understand that we have legal counsel here for private members. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, it is.

Mr. Scott: I wonder if we might hear from legal counsel for the private members whether or not he's in agreement with that interpretation.

Mr. Philippe Ducharme (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Office, House of Commons): I'm sure that these persons are far more knowledgeable than I am. From what I know, I agree with their statements.

Mr. Scott: That being the case, then I would be happy to withdraw the subamendment.

The Chairman: The subamendment has been withdrawn by consent. So we're at the amendment. Is there any debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 11 as amended agreed to

On clause 12 - Enforcement in contiguous zone of federal laws

Mr. Dhaliwal: There's an amendment on subclause 12(1). This is also coming from the Department of Justice lawyers, who have indicated that this subclause should be amended to clarify its intent as is necessary to clearly indicate that the power of arrest in the contiguous zone is limited to infractions that occur within Canadian territory. I therefore propose that subclause 12(1) be amended as follows:

Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence in Canada in respect of a federal law that is a customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary law, every power of arrest, entry, search or seizure or other power that could be exercised in Canada in respect of that offence may also be exercised in the contiguous zone of Canada.

The Chairman: Does anybody else have any comment? That seems clear to me.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 12 as amended agreed to

Clause 13 agreed to

On clause 14 - Sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Canada

The Chairman: We have two amendments on clause 14.

Mr. Dhaliwal, I believe there's an amendment dealing with the French version. I'll go to it first.

.1105

I move that the French version of clause 14 of Bill C-98 be amended, a), by striking out lines 22 to 24 on page 6 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

Droits souverains du Canada

.1105

[English]

The Chairman: I think all the members have that, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on the amendment?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, you have an amendment on the main clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, before presenting my amendment, I would like to ask you to return to clause 12 because I would like to have an explanation, even though we have already voted in favour of this clause.

Do you prefer that we first finish with clause 14 and that I then request an explanation on clause 12?

[English]

The Chairman: I need consent of the committee to go back to clause 12. I can't do that on my own. Is there consent to go back to clause 12?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: All right, we'll go back to clause 12.

On clause 12 - Enforcement in contiguous zone of federal laws

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Bernier: On clause 12, we ruled on the exercise of our powers within the contiguous zone. I don't know whether Mr. Wells raised this point, but I would like to be sure I understand correctly. Is the contiguous zone in the international zone?

Ms. Kirkby: Yes.

Mr. Bernier: Does that mean that we're going to be able to enact a statute in the international zone? Are we in compliance with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea or regulations? I am a bit nonplussed. Since I'm not very familiar with this type of law, I wonder to what extent we can enact a statute outside Canada.

Ms. Kirkby: I mean that we simply took these provisions directly from the Convention. They were in article 33 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. Bernier: Article 33?

Ms. Kirkby: That's correct.

Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much.

[English]

On clause 14 - Sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Canada

The Chairman: Let's go back to clause 14. Mr. Bernier, will you be still moving those amendments?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Yes, I would like to move this amendment. I would like to present clause 14 in the form of two subclauses.

Subclause (1) would read like the current text. Line 28 of page 6 would be replaced by the following:

14.(1) Canada has

Then we would add after line 44, page 6, a subclause (2) that would read as follows:

(2) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection (1) abrogates or derogates from the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces.

Do you want to discuss that?

[English]

The Chairman: We already had comment from the Department of Justice. It goes back to the earlier debate with respect to who has the powers under the Constitution. I think this is again clear that by definition the exclusive economic zones beyond the territorial sea and therefore beyond provincial waters...and therefore provincial laws do not apply. Am I correct? You want to put this on the record.

Mr. Willis: That is correct, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, I think the officials would say it's redundant to state that because this is outside of the territorial sea and the province has no powers. It is the state that has the powers beyond this.

.1110

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: But the exclusive zone is not only in international territory, unless I've misunderstood. It seems to me that it includes all our waters, and I find it hard to understand that we do not want to introduce this subsection on the ground that it is redundant. And even if it is redundant, it will stand as proof of our respect for our partners. Furthermore, since what's involved is the management of natural resources, I don't see why we're afraid to talk about constitutional matters. Under the Constitution, this issue concerns a provincial power and I don't understand why we're afraid to talk about it.

But is there a document or an analysis? What are we basing this on? There must be something. Are we afraid that the provinces have too many powers? But my remarks do not concern the provinces. I would simply like to know what we think of this and what you yourself think of it, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Does anybody here want to address that? Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I think, Mr. Chairman, you clearly noted why we couldn't include this and your comments were also agreed upon by the legal expertise.

Therefore, I could not support this amendment. Mr. Bernier keeps going back to this area, but I keep going back to the original preamble that clearly states they should work in collaboration with the provinces.

This is a constitutional matter and it is really beyond our ability to deal with that. Therefore, we cannot support this amendment as per your comments and the legal advice given here.

The Chairman: Is there any further comment on the amendment?

Mr. Wells: I'm not sure I clearly understood what Mr. Bernier said. If he was saying that the province has the right to natural resources under the water on the seabed, I'd like to get a legal opinion on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I am saying that if I've properly understood the Constitution, the exploitation of natural resources is a provincial jurisdiction. The sole purpose of the subsection that I am proposing is to prevent any infringement of the provinces' rights. That's the only reason I am making this proposal.

There are also provincial statutes that are already in effect, in Quebec, for example.

A voice: It's shared.

Mr. Bernier: Yes, but at first, I thought it was a provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. I'm simply asking that we not encroach on the work already done by certain provinces.

[English]

The Chairman: But the only thing is I don't think you're incorrect. I think natural resources is the purview of the provinces constitutionally. We have to define what the province is and where the province begins and ends.

I think it's accepted logic that the provincial territory ends at the low water mark. You are right insofar as natural resources are powers given to the provinces, but the province does not extend beyond the low water mark. Is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. Willis: That is the general principle, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: So you're right and you're wrong. You're right except that you're seeing provincial territory being extended beyond the low water mark, which is not the accepted wisdom.

You're making two arguments. One is that natural resources is a provincial responsibility and there's not a big deal of debate on that, and you're correct. But then you go a step further in your arguments in saying, therefore, the province extends beyond the low water mark...and your province does not extend beyond the low water mark. That's the boundary of the province.

Mr. Wells: Can I ask a question as to what jurisdiction may have been conferred to the provinces with respect to anything below high water mark?

.1115

Mr. Willis: Low water mark is the general rule laid down by the Supreme Court as the limit of provincial jurisdiction. In the case of this clause, we're talking about the exclusive economic zone, which is not only beyond the low water mark but beyond the limit of the territorial sea, and therefore, strictly speaking, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

It's an area where the coastal state does not have full sovereignty but limited jurisdiction as defined in the international conventions and codified in these two sections.

Another related point is when we speak of Canada's sovereign rights here, we are addressing and dealing with concepts of international law, not of federal-provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Wells: I guess I should have been more explicit. I wanted to get the answer that we're not dealing with the territorial sea but with the exclusive economic zone, so any question of provinces that may have some claim within the territorial sea would not apply out here anyway.

Mr. Willis: That is correct.

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I'm still curious. I thought what I was presenting was all right. I'm willing to believe, and correct me if I misunderstood the last witness, that our statutes are framed in order to ensure we are respected internationally, but we also have to realize that the citizens of Canada will be affected by this, and I consider it is my role to protect them.

As I said a moment ago, it was the provinces that formed Canada. I would therefore like the witness to provide me with a document that would prove that he is basing his remarks on something solid. How is it that I can't have access to these things? I would like someone to tell me why it would be unconstitutional or improper to say that we're protecting the provinces so that this doesn't infringe on their rights.

You talked about the definition of territory, and I'm saying that sovereignty must also be exercised by the provinces.

Canada is formed of 10 parties. If something happens to the south of Nova Scotia, I believe Nova Scotia we'll feel concerned and will want to have its say. And the same is true of Newfoundland.

If Canada can exercise its sovereignty, it's thanks to the provinces. That's why I would not want us to deny the rights of the provinces or for them not to have the right to intervene if something happened near them.

So what is this based on, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: But I think the point is you're cluttering up the legislation. If the province does not have rights in the exclusive economic zone, to state that nothing in that section shall take away from rights they don't have may in fact give somebody a claim later on, saying, well, indeed we must have some rights out there; otherwise, why would you have put it in legislation? We know the province must have a claim there; otherwise the federal government is getting nervous.

I think that's another reason we just can't put that in there.

This is a matter of international law. My understanding of it, anyway, is we have limited sovereignty in the area being described here. It's not part of Canada. We have limited powers in that area. Am I right there?

I don't mean to be frivolous or cutting here, but we could put a clause in every act saying ``Nothing in this act shall take away from the rights of a municipality or the rights of the Kiwanis Club''. If they don't have rights, then it's obvious they don't have the rights there, so you don't state it. This bill would be very thick.

Mr. Bernier, make a final point, and then we'll have to put it to a vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, may I also use the services of a lawyer who can tell me whether I am right and who can give me his opinion on this subject, as the gentleman from the Reform Party did a moment ago?

I put questions to those opposite me a moment ago, but I didn't receive an answer. May I put questions to the witness? Then I will let you dispose of clause 14.

Will you allow me to ask some questions, Mr. Chairman?

.1120

[English]

The Chairman: We have a lawyer here. Let's deal with the issue. There are a number of amendments that are similar to this, and I think we should clarify it right now. Let's get it clarified.

We have the independent legal counsel here. You've listened to the debate. Is there reason for this amendment to be adopted, in your view?

[Translation]

Mr. Ducharme: Clause 14 ratifies what article 56 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea provides with respect to the recognition of states regarding the exploitation and conservation of natural resources.

With regard to the amendment you propose, I am not sure there can be a situation in which there could be legal consequences. I find it hard to see any.

Mr. Bernier: Then allow me to try to clarify the situation. You tell me that this comes directly from article 56 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, each country has its own way of operating. When a country forms a homogeneous whole, this is much easier for it.

For my part, I've said from the outset that Canada is formed of 10 parties and that each of them signed the agreement, the first Confederation. That's one thing. So some provinces may apply certain things in different ways. They have the legislative instruments.

Take Quebec, for example. Quebec has a statute on the quality of the marine environment. When Canada was constituted, the concept of environment did not exist. Everything was beautiful, pure and green. But now, everyone is familiar with this concept.

Quebec thus has this legislative instrument. When natural resources are explored and exploited and that has an impact on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Chaleur, there's necessarily a conflict with that statute.

It's clearly stated that the federal statute will prevail over the provincial statutes. If that's so, I'm willing to accept it. I don't particularly want to have a stronger provincial power, but I don't want the federal power to encroach further on the provincial jurisdiction.

Am I right to say that if we preserve the text as it is written and do not add subclause (2), the federal statute will prevail over the various legislative instruments of the various provinces?

Mr. Ducharme: It's hard for me to answer that question. I can only tell you that clause 14 sets forth the federal government's claim to have authority over all matters pertaining to the exploitation of the seabed in the exclusive economic zone, but that doesn't necessarily answer your question.

Mr. Bernier: They claim to have all the territory because they say that, in that way, they won't have to be accountable to anyone. We won't even be able to discuss possible conflicts. Is that what the department wants me to understand?

[English]

The Chairman: We're going to go to Mr. Parsons.

I think we should vote on the proposed amendment. He has another one.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, it was pointed out that clause 14, which is being discussed, is based on article 56 of the Law of the Sea Convention, which is headed ``Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone''. As far as I'm aware, despite all the other discussions going on in Canada, Canada is the coastal state; there aren't ten coastal states.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, and then we're going to put it to a vote.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other amendments that are similar to this one. I think Mr. Bernier is thinking ahead, and maybe this will be a subject that will be negotiated in the future. Hopefully it won't be, but maybe it will be. But I certainly don't think from what we're hearing today that it's useful to keep on discussing this when clearly it's outside of provincial jurisdiction.

So I would move that we get on with the vote on this and the other clauses following.

.1125

The Chairman: We agree. Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Bernier, unless it's a new point, I'm going to go on with the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: This is a new point, but it will be very brief. I would simply like the committee or the department to order a constitutional analysis on this point.

Second, I would like us to proceed with a recorded vote. Each member will have to show his colours. You represent your fellow citizens and you'll have to answer for your actions.

[English]

The Chairman: That's not a problem; we can do that. I'm not going to ask the department or the committee to get a constitutional.... If the committee wishes to instruct me to do that, I will, but I'm not going to do it on my own. That's because, in my view, this is very clear. This is extremely clear.

I understand your point of view; you're a sovereignist. The reason for your being is to protect what you see as the rights of your province in Confederation.

Mr. Bernier: And yours, if you want.

The Chairman: I'm also a federalist, and I also believe in a strong national government with the powers of that government. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to endlessly entertain debates on the constitutionality of the bill.

If there is a challenge on the constitutionality of the bill, it should be done outside of this place. I see no consensus, apart from you, Mr. Bernier, that there's a constitutional issue here that should be pursued. As chairman, I have to look around the table all the time.

I have great respect for the viewpoints that you put forward, but it does not seem to be supported as a priority issue to be further debated at this point in time.

I will call the question for the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?

Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 14 as amended agreed to

On clause 15 - Rights of Her Majesty

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, you have proposed two amendments here. Will you be moving either of these amendments?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I will not move them. I just want to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I submitted my amendments some time ago and I believe that the department produced a legal analysis of them. I would like to see that analysis. I could read it and save you a great deal of time. Is that possible, Mr. Chairman? Could you ask if this analysis exists and, if so, decide whether I may examine it?

[English]

The Chairman: It's up to the department to indicate whether or not they have, but I don't see that this has a great deal of currency with our current deliberations on clause-by-clause.

Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, when we received these proposed amendments, we did of course consult with our legal counsel as to whether or not there were any legal problems with them.Mr. Willis is here today to, when you deem it appropriate, respond to questions on those points. There is no written legal analysis of the proposed amendments in detail.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: You'll understand if I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the people who introduced this bill did not produce a legal analysis, particularly since there must have been consultations and correspondence with certain provinces.

.1130

You can't make me believe that no legal study was ordered. That would be like going trout fishing without worms or flies. What would you hope to catch? Just what you can buy at the store. In other words, you want to impose things.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's keep on track here. Are you going to move the amendments? If you are you can carry on with this. If not, there's nothing on the floor to be debated.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I don't want to add anything else because I don't know what these gentlemen are hiding from us. When I spoke to the Minister, he assured me that we could count on his cooperation and a spirit of partnership. However, I can't say that we have this spirit of partnership this morning, Mr. Chairman. I will therefore have to reserve a large part of my amendments for the work done in the House because, there at least, the Minister will answer me. This morning, I didn't have the cooperation and the spirit of partnership promised by the department. And if the Minister is listening to me speak on the airwaves this morning, he still has the time to call me.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's keep it on ground zero here. If there are no amendments, shall the clause carry?

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to

On clause 17 - Continental shelf of Canada

The Chairman: I believe there is a technical amendment on clause 17.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There's a technical change. Let me move amendment G-7.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 17 as amended agreed to

On clause 18 - Sovereign rights of Canada

The Chairman: There are two amendments. We've been told by our legal counsel that we may have had it marked as a single amendment and it should go down as two different amendments, one with the English version only and one with the French version only. Who is going to be moving those amendments and explaining to us why they're doing that?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I'll move those amendments, Mr. Chairman. It's a technical amendment. I move that clause 18 of Bill C-98 be amended by striking out line 12 on page 8 and substituting the following:

other non-living natural resources of the sea bed and

The Chairman: I believe your amendment is to affect the English only, Mr. Dhaliwal, because the French already has ``natural'' in it.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes.

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: You have another amendment, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, I also have the French version.

The Chairman: Again, that is for consistency between the English and French texts. ``Sovereign rights'' appears in the English text but not in the French text. Am I right, Mr. Dhaliwal?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes.

The Chairman: Any debate on that? Shall that amendment carry?

.1135

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 18 as amended agreed to

On clause 19 - Rights of Her Majesty

The Chairman: On clause 19 there were two Bloc amendments proposed, but there's nobody here to move them.

A voice: He doesn't want to move any more. He's going to move them in the House.

Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to

On clause 23 - Evidence

The Chairman: On clause 23, three amendments were circulated. Mr. Bernier's not here, so I guess he won't be moving them. I just want to have a look at them for my own purposes. They are B-16, B-17 and B-18.

Is there another proposed amendment on clause 23 that came from the committee? Yes, there is. It's proposed subclause 23(2). I guess I can't move an amendment, eh?

A voice: No, you should let somebody else do it.

The Chairman: Okay, somebody might want to move an amendment. In the book there is a proposed amendment that came up through testimony.

Can you find it, Mr. Scott, in your book?

Mr. Wells: I believe one substitutes ``Minister of Fisheries and Oceans'' for ``Minister of Natural Resources''.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Wells: I'll move that amendment.

The Chairman: Do you have that one, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scott: Where are we?

The Chairman: We're on clause 23. There were three Bloc amendments, none of which have been moved. There is a proposed amendment from the committee based on testimony. It's on page 46 of the book.

The proposed amendment changes authority here. The original wording was:

any legal or other proceedings, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Minister of Natural Resources containing a statement

That should be changed to ``the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans''.

Mr. Wells: I'll move that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 23 as amended agreed to

On clause 24 - Saving

The Chairman: We have a number of amendments on clause 24.

Mr. Scott, do you have some comments on this?

.1140

Mr. Scott: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just simply that we feel the clause should apply to the act and not to the part.

I also believe we've already set that out in other parts of the bill as well. It seems like it's a bit redundant.

The Chairman: I think you're correct. So the proposal you made for changes to clause 24 has been accommodated in a previous amendment. The impact is the same as what the Reform party had proposed, that is, that the non-derogation clause apply to all sections of the act.

So I guess the government has moved an amendment that would basically strike out lines 34 to 38 on page 11 for consistency. Am I correct there?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 24 as amended agreed to

On clause 25 - Regulations - Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Chairman: There is the Bloc amendment, but there's nobody here to move it.

Is there someone to move the government amendment?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I move that the French version of clause 25 of Bill C-98 be amended a) by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 12 and substituting the following -

The Chairman: Okay, everybody has that in their book? We can dispense with that.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Okay.

The Chairman: We all have the amendment in front of us. It's for clause 25 on page 12.

Is that for language conformity, Mr. Dhaliwal?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, in the French version.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 25 as amended agreed to

On clause 26 - Regulations - Minister of Justice

The Chairman: I'm just going to hold off for one second; I just need some clarification.

A Bloc amendment was proposed, and I understand the government did not disagree with it. They agreed with it in principle but thought the amendment should be reflected in another section of the legislation. So I'm seeking clarification from the department.

I just want to be true to some of the discussions I had with the Bloc Québécois with respect to some of their amendments. We had talked about this a little earlier this morning.

Mr. Bernier is back.

Mr. Bernier, in your absence your staff had indicated that you were not going to be moving most of the amendments, but on this particular one there may have been some accommodation.

Just so everybody understands, there is no amendment being proposed. But the gist of the amendment, which would recognize consultations with provinces as well as interested persons, might be revisited again in clause 27. Okay?

.1145

Clause 26 agreed to

On clause 27 - Publication of proposed regulations

The Chairman: There is a separate amendment by the Bloc on clause 27.

Will you be moving that, or are you just going to let that go, Yvan?

Mr. Bernier: No.

The Chairman: No? Okay.

Mr. Bernier, on a previous point, when we met this morning I indicated that I thought we had some agreement that the amendment you had circulated but have not put for clause 26 might be appropriately put as part of an amended clause 27. That's to ensure that the provinces as well as interested persons are consulted.

So would somebody like to move that amendment? The amendment would basically be on clause 27. Would somebody move this amendment?

The amendment would be to insert ``province'' in clause 27 as follows:

27. (1) A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make pursuant to paragraph 25(b) or section 26 shall be published in the Canada Gazette at least 60 days before its proposed effective date and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested persons

If somebody wishes to put it, Mr. Scott, the amendment should read:

in provinces to make representations.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: So the amendment is to insert the words ``in provinces'' after the word ``persons''.

Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: I'm just wondering if we should say ``interested persons and interested provinces''. Are you referring to all provinces at that point?

The Chairman: The ``opportunity shall be given to all provinces''.

Mr. Wells: All provinces, period, whether they're interested or not.

The Chairman: Help me out here, guys, at the other end.

Mr. Parsons: The intention here is that given what's in clause 26, which talks about provincial laws being extended and so on, it would be the province concerned or the province interested.

The Chairman: So it should be the ``interested province''? Or should we just leave it as ``province?''

An hon. member: ``Concerned.''

Mr. Parsons: Well, ``interested persons and provinces'' in fact covers both.

The Chairman: It covers both.

So Mr. Scott's amendment will stand unchallenged.

A voice: Is Mr. Scott moving now?

The Chairman: Does Mr. Scott move that?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 27 as amended agreed to

Clause 28 agreed to

On clause 29 - Development and implementation of strategy

The Chairman: Are there any amendments on clause 29?

Mr. Scott: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would move an amendment to remove the words ``aboriginal organizations'' and replace them with:

with affected municipalities and communities, including those of an Indian band or Inuit community

The Chairman: Let's hang on to this one for a second, guys. This is the one we've been negotiating.

Mr. Scott: Well, it's in the preamble, but it's also here in the body of the legislation.

The Chairman: There is a proposed amendment from the committee as well. He's dealing with the committee amendment.

I'll tell you what we'll do. Why don't we put the committee amendment first, and then we will amend the committee amendment. Am I right?

.1150

Why don't we just stop this nonsense of amendments and subamendments. Can we combine both your amendment with the proposed amendment from the committee to come up with a single amendment, and then we'll just deal with it that way? Okay? That's the easiest way to do it.

So you just want some clarity and consistency with what we've done earlier in the bill, right?

Mr. Scott: That's right.

The Chairman: So we would say:

29. The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies

Can we look at the proposed amendment from the committee and see if we can work in your wording? It says:

with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, provincial, territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations

Mr. Scott, do you want to put ``communities'' in there as well, like we had on the -

Mr. Scott: Right now as it stands, it says:

with affected aboriginal organizations, municipalities and communities

The Chairman: Okay, that's what we'll do.

So the amendment would be as follows:

29. The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments, affected aboriginal organizations, municipalities, communities and persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements

Am I right? Does everybody have that?

Mr. Wells: How are you defining ``communities'', Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I'm not.

Mr. Wells: I have problems when you extend it to something that's not defined. I know what a municipality is, but community can be a community of nations, right? How are you defining it?

Better still, how would you interpret it from Justice's point of view? Who would you have to consult with?

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: If you like, we can define community in the preamble.

Mr. Wells: I'm just trying to get a sense of how this is going to be interpreted when the time comes. It appears we're in collaboration with the world.

Ms Kirkby: I don't really know if it's so much a legal question.

I think you're looking at me, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr. Wells: Yes, I'm looking at you.

We could ask Mr. Scott what he means by community. I'm just trying to get a sense of what we mean by using the word ``community'' in that context, that's all.

Mr. Scott: Well, I think it's pretty clear we're getting at settlements where you have people living who stand to be affected. They may be organized in municipalities, or they may not be, but they may have a very real interest in what's taking place with respect to the legislation.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, if we took out ``communities'' because it may be unclear, it may be broadening - I know that's not your intention - and put in municipalities, because that's a defined entity, would the communities not be covered under ``other persons and bodies''?

Mr. Scott: Fair enough.

The Chairman: Okay?

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: Good point. So I take it that with consent we will drop ``communities''. I think it's very important.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I have two questions on that.

This morning, you emphasized that if we ever had trouble with a clause or an amendment, we could defer the vote on the amendment or the clause in question. First, I would like to be able to read the wording. So we could perhaps defer the vote while waiting for the written version.

Second, I would like to ask the witness whether including the municipalities in this kind of thing would enable the federal government to go over the heads of the provinces and to intervene directly with the municipalities. Is that how I should interpret this?

.1155

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chair, I have some problems with ``municipalities''. We have a general clause that says ``with interested persons and bodies''. You made your comment earlier that you could include so many groups in there if you start getting specific after the Kiwanis Club.

So I personally have a problem with including ``municipalities'' in there. I can agree with ``affected aboriginal organizations'', but I would prefer not to include ``municipalities'' in the amendment to this, with all due respect to the concerns of the hon. member.

The Chairman: Well, let's get some authority here, because this item has been negotiated with the department.

Mr. Dhaliwal speaks on behalf of the minister at the table here, so where are we at on this, guys? We're trying to get some agreement so we can proceed with the clause-by-clause.

I know this is an issue that has come up. We talked about it briefly at the beginning of the day. Upon reflection, after we did this at the beginning of the day, is there some problem with this? If there is, I think there's general consensus to go forward with this. Or perhaps we'll listen to whatMr. Bernier said, and we'll deal with it later in the day.

Mr. Parsons: Are you asking...?

The Chairman: I'm asking you, Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, we did speak before the committee meeting on this point. I indicated at that time that we could agree as officials - Mr. Dhaliwal, of course, speaks officially for the government - to ``affected aboriginal organizations, municipalities and communities, persons and bodies''.

But I think Mr. Bernier has raised an interesting question with respect to municipalities, which we need to reflect upon.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, can we stand this until the department and the parliamentary secretary have a chance to discuss it further, as well as for the department to...? We will get a written copy of the proposed amendment and we'll deal with it a little later in the afternoon. Is that okay?

Mr. Scott: Sure.

The Chairman: We'll stand that particular amendment at this point, and we will stand the clause. Agreed?

Amendment allowed to stand

Clause 29 allowed to stand

On clause 30 - Principles of strategy

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I don't want to stop your momentum. I would simply like us to plan our day for the benefit of committee members. It's nearly noon. Till what time does the committee intend to sit? Personally, I would like to be able to attend Question Period in the House, but before going, I would like to eat. Given all that, at what time are we going to adjourn and at what time should we come back?

[English]

The Chairman: Well, this group still looks pretty frisky to me. I would suspect that we can continue to go on.

We recognize that people have duties after Question Period and lunch. How about if we go until about 1 p.m., and then we will reconvene directly after Question Period?

Mr. Wells: We can bring in lunch.

The Chairman: Well, we could probably bring in lunch. When we're dealing with the critics, they may have some responsibilities at Question Period, and I'm always worried, as is the parliamentary secretary.

We can probably get lunch in, if we want.

Mr. Wells: Oh sure, I thought we were sitting right through.

The Chairman: You guys over here...?

Mike, what's your schedule like? Do you want to go to 1 p.m., and then break and come back at 3:15 p.m.?

Mr. Scott: That's fine with me.

The Chairman: Perhaps we should do that. That gives a little time as well to resolve some of the other issues.

We will break at 1 p.m. and we will come back at 3:15 p.m.

Mr. Wells: And then we'll sit through until we're finished?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Bernier: Okay.

The Chairman: On clause 30 there is a proposed amendment from the committee. Has everybody got that? Who's moving that?

Mr. Wells: Was this amendment proposed by one of our groups?

The Chairman: Yes, it was. There's some evidence there. There are several of them actually.

.1200

We are on page 59, at clause 30. I think Mrs. Payne will be moving the amendment, which was supported in testimony.

Mr. Verran (South West Nova): I so move, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Verran has moved that amendment, which would add a paragraph so that clause 30 would read as follows:

(c) the precautionary approach, that is erring on the side of caution when scientific information is uncertain or incomplete.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Scott: I have some difficulty with this because I foresee it potentially being used to stop exploration, to stop development down the road, without any requirement on the government or the minister to ever explain why. He can just say they're erring on the side of caution or of science. I think it is too open-ended and may be a roadblock to rational, sensible development. So I won't be supporting it and I urge the committee not to support it.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Wells: I have some problems because by the very nature of it, I don't know when scientific information is either certain or complete. I'm concerned about how this may be interpreted. That's from a different point of view. I would want to stop it ``erring on the side of caution'' and eliminate ``when scientific information is uncertain or incomplete''.

I'd like some comments on that from people who are more expert than I am.

The Chairman: I think we all agree. We've been around enough as a fisheries committee to know that if you don't err on the side of caution when the evidence isn't clear one way or the other, it's usually the species that suffers. Most of what we've done as a parliamentary committee for the last two years is deal with the consequences of politicians taking an overzealous and rosy approach to stock assessments, quotas and things like that.

Mr. Scott, we have heard over and over again from witnesses that the precautionary approach must be one of the key underpinnings of a national strategy.

Mr. Scott: I'll grant you that, Mr. Chairman, in relation to what you just said about fish stocks. However, again and again in my province I've seen rational proposals for mine development and other resource utilization stopped cold in their tracks by this very kind of thing, where we're going to err forever on the side of caution. That prevents people from going to work, getting jobs and being involved in the resource industries, and I'm concerned that would be the effect of this. If there is some proposal to change this so that it won't have that effect, I would be happy to support it. But the way it is right now, I think this clause could be used to forestall reasonable development forever by those who have no interest in any kind of development.

Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, in the preamble and in earlier parts of this act, I think we stated that these regulations will only be imposed after consultation with all interested bodies, including the provinces.

When I looked at this amendment I thought it was a good one. I agree with the member opposite that it could have some deleterious effects, but I still think it should be looked at a little more closely. As you just mentioned, we have had great difficulties in terms of sustainable stocks of fish.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I support the precautionary approach, and in light of the leadership we've shown in the UN on the straddling and migratory stocks.... This is an approach taken at the UN, and the minister has been down there to sign it. I fully support that we should always err on the side of caution. We've seen what happens when you don't do that. If we want to ensure that we don't make irreversible mistakes for future generations, we always want to have an approach where we err on the side of caution.

.1205

Having said that, I think my colleague has made a good suggestion, that maybe we could end at ``caution''. I think that would be acceptable. We could take out ``when scientific information is uncertain or incomplete''. I think that's a good suggestion. I'm willing to support that.

Mr. McGuire: I tend to agree with Mr. Scott. I think paragraph (a) takes care of the development clause. It gives an awful lot of indiscriminate power to a minister. He can always exercise caution or postpone decisions. You are always going to err on the side of caution. I don't know if it can be reworded or redeveloped, but there is something wrong with this amendment. I don't think we should be supporting it at this moment.

Mr. Scott: I would remind Mrs. Payne that there's a potential for development of substantial underground petro-chemical reserves in her province. The effect of this clause could be to prevent that from happening without any valid scientific evidence to support that barrier being placed in front of the petro-chemical industries.

If it's going to be the umpire, the one who determines when development proceeds and by what rules, there has to be some requirement by government.... You just can't throw your hands up in the air and say we're erring on the side of caution, and then walk away and leave everyone else standing on the sidelines. That's my concern here.

The Chairman: I would like to stand this. We should deal with it later in the day, because I think some very good points have been made. There seems to be a level of interest and varying opinions. I think everyone generally agrees with the thrust, but I think Mr. Scott is right, there could be problems with it.

Amendment allowed to stand

Clause 30 allowed to stand

On clause 31 - Integrated management plans

Mr. Scott: We're running into the same thing here that we ran into on clause 29. We stood clause 29 in order to -

The Chairman: Why don't we stand the amendment as well as clause 31?

Amendment allowed to stand

Clause 31 allowed to stand

On clause 32 - Implementation of integrated management plans

Mr. Scott: I think we will have to stand this one too, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Shall we stand that clause and deal with them all together later in the day?

Clause 32 allowed to stand

The Chairman: Before we get into clause 33, there is a proposed amendment from the committee. It would be new text that would go between clause 32 and clause 33.

.1210

Mr. Scott: Which page number is that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: It is page 67. It would be a new subclause, 32.(1). The amendment would be that:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations

(a) prescribing Marine Environmental Quality guidelines, criteria and standards;

(b) respecting the powers and duties of persons designated by the Minister as enforcement officers;

(c) respecting the implementation of provisions of agreements under the Act.

Mr. Bernier: Read slowly.

The Chairman: You're slowing down on me, are you? It'll be in the book.

Mr. Wells: Would it be clause 32.1? Is that what you're saying?

The Chairman: It would be clause 32.1. We'll have to renumber this when we get through it. It's for the reprint.

Mr. Wells: I assume that when the bill is printed it will become clause 33.

The Chairman: We'll move a motion at the end that the clauses be renumbered. It's done automatically. It's just for our purposes.

Amendment agreed to

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I oppose it.

[English]

The Chairman: We have it on the record.

Clause 33 allowed to stand

Clause 34 agreed to

On clause 35 - Establishment of marine protected areas

The Chairman: Turning to the proposed amendment to clause 35, a change is proposed to the text before we can debate it. Rather than go with a motion and then amend it, let me see what I have here.

In paragraph 35(1)(c), you could take out ``representative'' and replace it with ``unique''. In subclause 35(2), we would remove ``As the Minister responsible for oceans'' and replace it with ``For the purposes of integrated management planning referred to in sections 31 and 32'', and the rest of it would be as printed.

That change came about as a result of negotiations last night and this morning with another department.

Mr. Parsons, would you fill us in on that?

.1215

Mr. Parsons: You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Thomas Lee, ADM at Parks Canada, testified before the committee. At that time, he in fact supported extending the marine protected areas clause, which was there previously.

In fact, the committee has done this with their proposed amendment; however, in subsequent discussions, after we were looking at the committee proposal, certain concerns were brought to light with respect to the word ``representative'' because of the particular mandate with respect to national conservation areas, etc.

These couple of amendments were suggested back to you as the chair of the committee, because this was a committee amendment. With this wording, the two major departments involved are on side.

The Chairman: As chairman I am satisfied. What we don't want to do with our amendments is to add more fuzziness in the act. It seemed yesterday that there was a problem between the departments with respect to some language in the committee's proposal.

I don't have any difficulty with the change. Are we agreeable to those changes, which means a few words? The amendment has been moved by Mr. McGuire. Shall it carry?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 35 as amended agreed to

On clause 36 - Interim marine protected areas in emergency situations

The Chairman: There's a proposed amendment on page 75. It's a committee amendment, and it's in bold type. It would say:

36.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, may make orders exercising any power under section 35 on an emergency basis where the

- this is a new word -

Minister

It has also been indicated that the following words should be added at the end of 36(1) after ``risk'':

to the extent that such orders are not inconsistent for the land claims agreement that has been given effect and has been ratified or approved by an Act of Parliament.

That basically is in the negotiations with Nunavut. There were a whole bunch of amendments that they were proposing. I had indicated to Mr. Parsons during the negotiations that I did not think every clause of the act had to be amended where there was deemed to be some problem. We have done the non-derogation clause.

On this particular one, dealing with marine protected areas, there was considerable testimony about the requirement. There was a process. Remember we went through all the process? The Governor in Council has the ultimate authority to reject, amend or accept the recommendation from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

They believed, however, that if we added this, it just restates the obvious. But I think this allowed us to get on with the bill rather than having endless discussions with the organization about subsequent amendments. I just didn't think we could do subsequent amendments.

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Through you to legal counsel, the Governor in Council or the minister still retains ultimate decision-making with respect to marine protected areas even with that amendment.

Mr. Parsons: Yes, the Governor in Council makes the orders with respect to marine protected areas.

There is a provision in the final agreement with respect to the Nunavut area that does set out certain processes and requirements for ministers of the Crown to deal with the people involved in the land claim settlement administration.

As for the legal effect of this particular addition here, from our perspective, it is not legally necessary.

.1220

That was explained to the Nunavut organizations. But there is a perception here with respect to this particular clause, because it dealt with ``emergency basis'' and so on. There are in fact clauses in the Nunavut agreement that deal with emergency basis as well, so there could be an inconsistency. So we agreed to put this amendment because there was that perceived problem, not necessarily a real problem.

The Chairman: So it doesn't look like we're going to take away existing powers from anybody.

Mr. Parsons: Not in any way, beyond what already is done with respect to the ratification by Parliament of the Nunavut Final Agreement.

The Chairman: It respects the current responsibilities and powers as reflected in the Nunavut Final Agreement.

Mr. Parsons: Yes.

The Chairman: It does not alter in any way, shape or form, give or take.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Did I hear that this does not broaden the powers or the jurisdiction of any land claims agreement? Is that correct?

Mr. Parsons: No. The land claim agreement is negotiated and ratified by the groups concerned, and then it's ratified by the Parliament of Canada. There is legislation. I forget the bill, but there's legislation that gives effect to that land claim settlement.

The intent of this is, from a perceptual point, to clarify that this provision, 36(1), does not in fact override what's already passed by Parliament in the ratification of that land claim settlement.

Mr. Scott: But, with respect, if the Governor in Council or the minister has the ultimate decision-making authority, then in effect it does override. Would you not agree?

Mr. Parsons: There are provisions in the legislation for certain overrides.

The Chairman: But, Mr. Scott, when we went through this with all the officials here, there was a process that was defined. Ultimately, at the end of the process, the Governor in Council has the authority to make the decision. It took us a while to question the witnesses to get to that point, because they wanted to talk about the process, not the end result of the process, which is who finally had the right of approval.

This recognizes that there is a process. By extension, it recognizes that the right of approval still rests with the Governor in Council, because it does so in that process.

Mr. Scott: What you're saying, Mr. Chairman, then, through you to the witness, is that this just requires the minister or the Governor in Council to respect the process and respect the agreement that's there, but the final decision, if it has to be made, is ultimately going to be made by the minister or by the Governor in Council.

Mr. Parsons: Yes, that's correct, to the extent that it's not inconsistent with what the government has already embodied in the legislation.

Mr. Scott: Again, just one more time. This is not going to either expand or take away from the legislation that's already in place with respect to land claims.

Mr. Parsons: That's quite correct.

Mr. Scott: It's not going to expand or contract the jurisdiction that's there already.

Mr. Parsons: That's correct.

The Chairman: So it's basically there as a reminder of process and of another piece of legislation that dictates process. That's all it does, right? But this was a level of comfort that, if given, allowed the department and others like me to say that everything is covered off that has been raised by the Nunavut and by the NTI.

Mr. Parsons: Yes. In all fairness, on that last point, Mr. Chairman, just so there's no misunderstanding, there are other concerns that the Nunavut had that were not addressed. They wished to go further than this with respect to amending the bill.

The Chairman: But it is the opinion of the government that if this amendment carries, as well as the previous amendments and the amendments that are now stood, when that language is cleared up, there is a significant level of comfort with the department and the government that the issues have been addressed as fully as they have to be addressed.

Mr. Parsons: It is the view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other departments with which we've consulted that these amendments taken together substantially address the concerns that were raised.

The Chairman: Okay, I'm fine on it.

Is there any other debate on the clause as amended?

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: We're on which clause now, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: We're on clause 36. In the book there is a proposed amendment out of testimony.

Mr. Scott: Okay, but are we going to be voting on 36(1) or the entire clause?

.1225

The Chairman: We're voting on the amendment. Then we'll vote on the clause, because there is an amendment. The proposed amendment is what you see in the book with the words:

to the extent that such orders are not inconsistent with the land claims agreement that has been given effect and has been ratified or approved by an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Scott: Okay, so we're voting on the amendment then?

The Chairman: Yes.

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose another amendment. It's to replace ``90 days'' in subclause 36(3), so that it would read as follows:

36.(3) An order made under this section that is not repealed ceases to have effect 10 days after it is made.

The rationale for that, Mr. Chairman, is that this is intended to be an emergency measure. We are not against the implementation of marine protected areas in an emergency situation but we feel uncomfortable with it being effective for 90 days.

This could allow the minister to designate economic resource areas as protected as a precautionary measure for 90 days without explanation or without having to defend or consult. That could have a real impact on people who are involved in resource extraction of one kind or another in that marine protected area. Therefore, we propose to limit the interim measure that this clause is designed to bring about.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, 10 days is a very short period of time. You know how government works and how long it takes to consult with groups and do all the work and the process. As we know, 10 days is very limited. I would have a problem supporting Mr. Scott's amendment.

I think 90 days is quite adequate. Look at 10 days when you've got to go through the process, do the consultation, and talk to the groups. It really isn't very long. I'm sorry, I don't follow whyMr. Scott would want to reduce it to 10 days.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, 90 days can be an entire fishing season for some people.

The Chairman: Mrs. Payne.

Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Concerning the point that Mr. Scott has just raised, I think 10 days is far too short a time. I wondered if maybe we could have 30 days, with the option to extend it for another 30 days if necessary, or something of that nature.

The Chairman: If we did it, the minister would have to do it every 30 days by Order in Council at that point.

Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Parsons: For the provision that's there, 90 days was what was considered to be necessary to provide the government with sufficient time to determine the extent to which further protection was warranted when this emergency thing had been triggered. It was to be then declared a marine protected area through the usual methods. So it was to allow sufficient time for discussion, consultation and so forth.

I don't disagree with the member's point about some fishing seasons being short. This is not the main provision dealing with marine protected areas. We've already dealt with that in the previous adoption. This is a supplementary one that's intended to be used on an emergency basis. Even though it's used on an emergency basis, there has to be adequate time to consult as to whether or not that should be continued, dropped or whatever. Consultation takes time.

The Chairman: Anybody else on that point?

Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: I'll simply comment that I don't see the need to change it, given the circumstances. I would agree with the 90 days.

Amendment negatived

Clause 36 as amended agreed to

.1230

On clause 37 - Offence and punishment

The Chairman: On clause 37 there is one amendment proposed. It was to basically increase minimum fines to bring them in line with the Fisheries Act so that there's no inconsistency. It would read that:

(a) a fine not exceeding $100,000; or

(b) to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

That's what's currently prescribed in the Fisheries Act. Am I right, Mr. Parsons?

Mr. Parsons: That's correct.

The Chairman: It's just to make the two acts consistent.

Mr. Wells: I so move.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 37 as amended agreed to

Clause 38 agreed to

On clause 39 - Application of provisions of Canada Wildlife Act

The Chairman: On clause 39 there is a very long proposed amendment. My understanding is that with this amendment, rather than just referring to sections 11 to 11.5 and 13 to 19 of the Canada Wildlife Act, they are basically reprinting them in the bill so that it's very clear. Some of the words have been changed to reflect the fact that we're dealing with this bill, not the Canada Wildlife Act.

So with some degree of certainty, Mr. Parsons, can you give us the degree of comfort that everything in here is pretty much exactly as would be in sections 11 to 11.5 and 13 to 19 in the Canada Wildlife Act, other than the obvious changes in references to this bill, not the Wildlife Act?

Mr. Parsons: That's essentially correct, Mr. Chairman, with one exception. Clause 39 was very brief. It referred to the provisions in the Canada Wildlife Act. Those provisions, as you stated, have been brought in. There have been changes from wildlife officer to enforcement officer in the context of this bill and so forth. The point you just made yourself previously with respect to fines has also been incorporated into this clause to make it compatible with the Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: So it makes this compatible with the previous amendment, which makes the fine clause compatible with the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Parsons: Apart from that, this is what is in the Canada Wildlife Act and what is encompassed in that short phrase of clause 39 as it existed previously.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Scott: I would like to move an amendment that prior to the words ``Sections 11 to 11.5'' at the beginning of clause 39 that the words ``For greater certainty'' be added.

Mr. Wells: Is that the amended clause?

The Chairman: So you're proposing an amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Scott: I'm not sure where your words are going in. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't follow you.

The Chairman: We wouldn't need that, Mr. Scott, because we've spelled it out, but it would have been appropriate if we hadn't done that.

Clause 39 as amended agreed to

On clause 40 - Powers, duties and functions of the Minister

The Chairman: There is a proposed amendment on page 83 that Mrs. Payne is moving. The proposed amendment is to delete the words ``the coordination of'' from subclause 40(1).

.1235

I talked to the researchers about this. It was supported by testimony and it's meant to make it very clear that there is a lead minister who has to be responsible. We heard from a number of witnesses that the words ``coordination of'' are weasel words, as we say down east, and they're meant to confuse rather than clarify. To take out ``the coordination of'' means that the minister also has a very clear authority and responsibility to be the lead minister on this. So rather than have it fuzzy, Ms Payne has moved that.

Is there any further debate on this?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 40 as amended agreed to

On clause 41 - Canadian Coast Guard

The Chairman: Ms Payne is going to be moving an amendment.

Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, on pages 18 and 19 of this clause, it has been mentioned from some witnesses from the coast guard that the role of the commissioner should not be entrenched in the act because it does compromise future flexibility.

I therefore propose that subclauses 41(1) and 41(2) be amended by striking out lines 24 to 35 on page 18 and substituting the following....

The Chairman: Let's see if we have a new and revised wording. The wording has been refined from the proposed amendment. Mr. Scott, it would be the wording that's in the loose-leaf document, which is not the document I thought the wording was coming from.

Mr. Scott: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to understand this. Would the effect of this amendment be to delete subclause 41(2)?

Mrs. Payne: No.

The Chairman: It would be that clause 41 be amended by striking out lines 24 to 35 on page 18. Subclauses 41(1) and (2) would be deleted and would be replaced with the proposed wording.

Mr. Scott: Are we going to be dealing with the amendment now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Scott: I would also like to move an amendment, but my amendment was going to fit in with the original words in the bill.

The Chairman: Your amendment will have to work on the amendment that's currently before us. Why don't we just discuss what your amendment would do and we'll see whether or not there's a way we can put a subamendment?

Mr. Scott: My amendment would have the effect of requiring the coast guard to operate in an economical and efficient manner. We heard testimony from industry with respect to the coast guard where they were saying they don't mind paying for the services, but they have no control over how the coast guard is run. The effect of this is to require at least some accountability from the coast guard with respect to their operations.

.1240

Mr. Wells: But that's not what your amendment says.

Mr. Scott: Yes, the effect of my amendment would be to require the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard to operate in an economic and efficient manner.

Mr. Wells: Yes, but by whose definition of ``efficient''? Am I missing something here?

Mr. Scott: I think we heard from enough witnesses testifying before this committee with respect to the lack of efficiency of the Canadian Coast Guard and the fact that these people are going to be the ones paying the bills but effectively having no control over how the organization is run or how they spend their money.

Mr. Wells: We also had evidence from the coast guard people saying how they were becoming much more efficient. I'm sure we could get two or three witnesses to say they are inefficient, or efficient, whatever we wanted. So I'm asking who's going to define in your context whether or not they're efficient.

The Chairman: We're having some trouble here by way of process. The amendment effectively removes the sentences you wish to amend by subsequent amendment. So why don't we just discuss this informally while we figure out what the heck we can do with this?

What about the concept itself? That was what was originally proposed in the amendment, and I heard what you were saying about...in whose definition. I can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

Mr. Dhaliwal: According to what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, one of the amendments says ``services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of'', and it outlines the services that the coast guard provides, but it clearly says ``the safe, economical and efficient''. Perhaps I don't have the right amendment.

Mrs. Payne: No, you're right. That is correct.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, you already have it. It's not gone. The effect of the amendment before us would take out subclauses 41(1) and (2) but would not take out paragraph (a). Paragraph 41(2)(a) would remain and it reads:

(a) services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

That's not removed by the amendment.

Mr. Scott: That's for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships, but it doesn't have any requirement on the coast guard to operate in an economical and efficient manner.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, we have to bear in mind here that coast guard services are one component of a whole range of services that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are providing, including marine science services, fisheries management, etc. I think the question Mr. Wells raised is in fact a very pertinent one.

You're correct, the services for a safe, economical and efficient movement.... The concept, I think, is captured there.

Mr. Scott: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the effect of this legislation, when taken in context with the fees for services, is for the first time going to require industry to pay directly for the services of the Canadian Coast Guard. While we agree with the idea of user pays, we also agree that the user should have some accountability for the way the money is being spent if they're in fact going to be required to contribute to the cost of that.

We heard from a number of people testifying at this committee of their concern, first of all, over the way the coast guard is operating right now. We heard witnesses testifying that the coast guard is not operating in an efficient manner, is not operating in an economical manner, and they fear they are going to be forced to underwrite the cost of this, while having no control over the direction or the management of the Canadian Coast Guard.

What my amendment was trying to do in a very limited way was require the coast guard to have some accountability to the people who are paying the bills. If somebody has an idea of how we could do that within the context of this clause, I'd sure be happy to hear it, unless we're just going to disregard the testimony we heard from witnesses with respect to their concerns.

.1245

Mr. Wells: Do we have Mr. Scott's amendment? I don't see it in the package here.

The Chairman: He's just proposing it now.

Mr. Wells: My difficulty is in putting it into the context of what we're dealing with. He's dealing with the original wording. We have an amendment on the floor. I'm just trying to get the context of the whole situation and see where paragraph 41(2)(a) stands in relation to the amendment.

Help me, Mr. Scott, if you would. Is subclause 41(1) going to remain as is?

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: We're dealing with the amendment. We have an amendment before us that would effectively take that out.

Mr. Wells: But Mr. Scott's amendment is to the original wording.

The Chairman: But you can't do that.

Mr. Scott: That's my problem; I can't do it to the original wording.

The Chairman: Allan, tell us what you're thinking on paragraph 41(2)(a), which remains after.

Mr. Allan Nixon (Committee Researcher): I was wondering whether a small change in the wording of paragraph 41(2)(a) would help. Rather than saying:

(a) services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships

one could say:

(a) economical and efficient services for the safe movement of ships

or something along those lines, so that ``effective and economic'' applies to the services rather than to the movement of ships. Would that help?

Mr. Scott: If it was applied to the coast guard's activities and not to the movement of ships, yes. We also want to see the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships, but we're trying to get at the activities of the coast guard.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, it's almost 1 p.m. Perhaps we could put a hold on this particular item, because there is some confusion.

The Chairman: I'd like to deal with it, because I think we're almost at a resolution on this. Let's give it a few more minutes.

If you wanted to place an amendment that said what Allan just proposed, that would be a separate amendment. It would not impact. It would not be a subamendment, okay?

Mr. Scott: Okay.

The Chairman: So we'll strike out (a) and then you would put in those new words. If that's okay with you, why don't we deal with it that way?

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: So we'll deal with the amendment before us. All in favour of the amendment that was put forward by Mrs. Payne, which is in her book as clause 41.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: There is now a new amendment before us, or there will be very quickly. This would amend paragraph 41(2)(a).

Allan, can you help us with the wording on that again?

Mr. Nixon: I think it would say:

economic and efficient services for the safe movement of ships in Canadian waters throughout the provision of

Then it follows on to the next -

The Chairman: Okay. Can everyone write that down and give it a little bit of thought?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: May we permit him to write it down so that we may have it submitted to us this afternoon? Personally, I prefer to see the text before voting.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. Okay. It's a small change. Is there somebody from the department who can also interpret that for us while we're here? It's not a huge change.

Mr. Parsons.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, before you vote on the proposed amendment, seeing as new wording has been formulated on the fly here, it would be useful if we could take a few minutes to look at the formulation of the wording.

The Chairman: Okay, that's not a problem. Let's get the wording and then we'll work on it so there's some syntax.

What is the wording that you've proposed, Allan, to which Mr. Scott has agreed?

Mr. Nixon: It is:

efficient and economic services for the safe movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

.1250

The Chairman: How would you like to deal with those, Mr. Parsons?

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I would like to beg the committee's indulgence. Since you intend to break for lunch shortly, I would like to do a quick consultation on the wording.

The Chairman: All right, we will stand this particular amendment and then deal with it and with the main amended motion.

So the first amendment was carried. We're standing Mr. Scott's amendment and then we'll go to the amended motion.

Amendment allowed to stand

Clause 41 allowed to stand

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Are we still on clause 41, or have we reached clause 42?

[English]

The Chairman: No, we stood it. We're on clause 42.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I don't intend to start a debate, but I would like someone to tell me why we're talking about pleasure craft safety at paragraph 41(2)(c). I thought we could have talked about marine safety, not only that of pleasure craft. The departmental people will be able to give me an answer when they return this afternoon.

[English]

Mr. Parsons: The line Mr. Bernier is referring to with respect to what was paragraph 41(2)(c), ``pleasure craft safety, including the regulation of'', etc., is there specifically because of the division of responsibilities between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that occurred after the merger of the Canadian Coast Guard with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The ship safety responsibility is split between the two departments. Mr. Gallagher, who is from the coast guard, could elaborate further if needed.

Mr. Jack Gallagher (Navigation Specialist, Strategic Planning Group, Canadian Coast Guard): There are many components to navigation safety, some of which were traditional coast guard programs that were transferred to Fisheries and Oceans. However, some of those components are parts of international conventions and other legislation that stayed with Transport Canada - legislation regarding the certification of mariners, and the international convention on collision prevention. So certain aspects of navigation safety stayed with Transport Canada, but the whole boating safety issue and safety of pleasure craft did transfer and is part of our office of boating safety within the coast guard.

The Chairman: So the amendment reflects the reality of the merger.

Mr. Gallagher: That's right.

The Chairman: We've already stood that clause, so we can go back to it later.

On clause 42 - Functions

The Chairman: There is a committee-proposed amendment on clause 42.

Mr. Wells: I move that amendment.

The Chairman: Has everybody found that? It is:

(j) conduct studies to obtain traditional ecological knowledge for the purpose of understanding oceans and their living resources and ecosystems.

It compels the minister and the department to take advantage of traditional sources of information such as fishermen, first nations people and people who have been close to the resource.

Mr. Wells: You said compel, but we haven't replaced ``may'' with ``shall'', and that was one of the recommendations.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wells.

.1255

Mr. Scott: I'd like to move that after the phrase ``traditional ecological knowledge'', the following be included to define that somewhat:

meaning knowledge from communities or individuals having been in contact with marine resources such as fishermen and fisheries.

The Chairman: Let's back up here. We did pass it, but I read that there's consent from the committee to go back.

Are you proposing an amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: Mike, why are you proposing that? What are you trying to clarify?

Mr. Scott: I want to give some definition to the phrase ``traditional ecological knowledge'' and not leave it so open-ended. So we're saying ``meaning knowledge from communities or individuals having been in contact with the marine resources''.

The Chairman: So you're trying to define traditional ecological knowledge.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Wells: I have difficulty with narrowing it. I think we're better off if we include that by the phrase.... If we start trying to limit it, I think we're going to take away from what we're doing.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I think the best way is to take advantage of all of the knowledge that's available and not to specify only certain knowledge. The purpose of having this clause - it says ``traditional ecological knowledge'' - is to not focus on one particular area. I think we would take away from its main purpose if we started adding and qualifying and trying to be specific.

The Chairman: A final point and then we'll vote on it, because it's two minutes before 1 p.m.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps we could make a small change to the wording that would help the committee. We could change it from ``meaning knowledge'' to ``including knowledge from communities or individuals''.

The Chairman: But that is already covered under ``obtain traditional ecological knowledge''. If there's traditional ecological knowledge in communities, it's going to be covered.

Mr. Wells: As soon as we get something, we narrow it, and I don't think that's the intention.

The Chairman: Just for the sake of clarity, we have decided to reopen this thing. Mr. Scott has an amendment to the amendment.

Subamendment negatived

Amendment agreed to

Clause 42 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: We might even get another one in. Let's hang in here.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, you have noticed, as I have, that it is now 1:00 p.m. and that we will now have to leave.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, you've been around long enough to know that sometimes the Speaker can call it anytime he wants.

Why don't we start this one for a minute and then we'll all get out for lunch.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: While you look for your clause, I'm going to make a final comment. I'm willing to believe that the Chairman can see the time, that he can in fact see, but as Deputy Chairman, I pointed out that it was time to look at the time.

When there are votes, you occasionally do things a little quickly. I must also tell you that I remained silent about certain proposals this morning because I intend to return to them a little later. However, I will find a way to let you know the amendments on which I agree and those on which I do not agree. I would not like it to be taken for granted that my silence is tantamount to absolution. That is not the case. I don't know how the interpreter will tell you that, but...

.1300

[English]

The Chairman: It is 1 p.m. We will deal with this amendment at 3:15 p.m. I would suggest a couple of things. If the department can look at the wording of the clauses we've stood, perhaps with our researcher, and come up with new language, we can deal with those clauses when we come back. There are one or two other outstanding issues.

Everybody be back at 3:15 p.m. because we're going to start right on time. There are a lot of clauses for which there are no amendments.

This meeting stands adjourned.

.1510

.1528

The Chairman: We're all set. We're going to leave those items until we pick them up again, which isn't now.

So we're going to pick up where we left off, and that is on clause 43. There is a proposed amendment G-12 on clause 43. Can you speak to this one, Jean?

.1530

On clause 43 - Powers

Mrs. Payne: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make an amendment to this.

This amendment at paragraph 43(c) is required to recognize the national and international advisory and support role of the minister with respect to marine sciences. It is also required to be consistent with paragraph 45(b) relating to hydrography, which we will get to a little later on.

My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be to strike out lines 15 to 39 on page 20 and substitute the following....

The Chairman: Okay. Does everybody understand what we're doing?

Mrs. Payne: Then we're putting the whole thing back in and adding paragraph (c).

The Chairman: It should be reworded to just add paragraph (c). We don't have to delete everything and put it all back in.

Mrs. Payne: I don't know if the wording is exactly the same.

The Chairman: Yes, it appears to be. It's the same both in the binder and in the loose-leaf copies. Are there any questions on this after line 39?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like to make a brief clarification with respect to the French version. I am going to read our proposal B-35. In the middle of the paragraph that the member for St. John's West just read, it states:

Il peut à cet effet mettre à contribution des navires...

In the English version of the amendment, this provision appears at subparagraph 43(b)(ii), which reads:

[English]

(ii) for that purpose maintain and operate ships,

[Translation]

I would replace the words "Il peut à cet effet mettre à contribution" with the words "Il peut à cet effet établir ou maintenir".

[English]

The Chairman: Are we all in agreement, then, to the amendment in the French text?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 43 as amended agreed to

Clause 44 agreed to

.1535

On clause 45 - Canadian Hydrographic Service

The Chairman: There are proposed amendments to clause 45. Mrs. Payne.

Mrs. Payne: As mentioned during the hearings by some witnesses, the Canadian Hydrographic Service and the role of the dominion hydrographer should not be entrenched in the act as it compromises future flexibility and, also, bureaucratic structures normally are not reflected in an act. I would like to propose that we strike out lines 14 to 36 on page 21 and substitute the following, which would be clause 45....

The Chairman: The clerk tells me that the way we should deal with this amendment is we should be striking out lines 14 to 19 of clause 45 and then vote against the other two clauses.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 45 as amended agreed to

Clauses 46 and 47 negatived

Clause 48 agreed to

On clause 49 - Fees for services or use of facilities

The Chairman: Are there any amendments?

Mr. Scott: I would like to propose a new amendment that's not on the sheet, Mr. Chairman. What I would like to propose is that we amend subclause 49(2) to read as follows:

49.(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection (1) may not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or use of the facility to the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered, according to the stipulation contained in section 41.

The Chairman: I'm sure you're going to give us an explanation as to why we should do this.

Mr. Scott: The reason for this is that there's a great deal of concern on the part of some ports, such as Halifax and Saint John, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, that they could in fact end up paying for services that they don't require, such as ice-breaking services. The intent of this is to ensure that the specific marine sector that requires the services is the one that in fact ends up paying for it and that cost is not borne by ports that don't require it.

The Chairman: I like it, but somehow I don't think it's going to pass. So somebody tell us why we shouldn't do that.

Mr. Michael Turner (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard): May I suggest that a couple of points should be taken into account here. One, of course, is that this is the standard text and wording that's been used in a number of different acts, and if we do have them different in different acts it may get a bit confusing when one tries to administer them later.

.1540

More important, in this specific instant, I would just remind the committee that there is a wide-reaching set of consultations already under way as to how best to ensure that the fees to be set for the marine services provided by the coast guard are fair and equitable across various regions of the country.

What you are proposing - to decide the matter already here today - would effectively pre-empt the entire consultation process.

Furthermore, I'm afraid that the very clear wording the hon. member has proposed - being specific, specific and specific - would really require a level of cost accounting and cost attribution that would be extremely difficult and costly for the government to provide on an ongoing basis.

From a public policy point of view, should the minister and cabinet decide they wish to establish the marine services fees, or any other fee under this act, in a certain way to accomplish certain policy objectives, then it may well be that they don't want to be constrained to the extent of having it narrowed down to a very specific local group of users for a very specific purpose.

I fear that the addition of such a modification or amendment to this clause would tend to tie the hands of the government of the day considerably. While that may be the intent of the hon. member, I'm not sure the government of the day would appreciate it because of the way in which the legislation is designed to operate now.

Mr. McGuire: Mr. Chairman, I think you'll recall that when the minister was a witness in front of us, he explained that if something like this was adopted as policy, not only in this act but as general government policy, a lot of areas of this country would be pretty lean and mean if there was no equalization of costs, whether it was for these types of services or for other services.

If we recall what he said, we agreed at that time that he was correct. We should agree today that this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Scott: Are you saying, Mr. McGuire, that you think we should be sanctioning an ongoing wealth transfer?

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, through the chair.

Mr. Scott: Are you suggesting that we should be sanctioning an ongoing wealth transfer?

The Chairman: Through the chair, Mr. Scott, through the chair.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, is he suggesting that we should be sanctioning an ongoing wealth transfer forever and a day, where British Columbia, which requires about 12% of the coast guard's budget, would be paying 35% to 40% of the costs, where the Port of Halifax and the Port of Saint John would be subsidizing ice-breaking services when they don't require them?

I'd suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the intent of this amendment is equity. I would suggest that if we abandon that, if we abandon the principle of equity, there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers across Canada as a result.

The Chairman: Mr. McGuire, do you wish to respond to that?

Mr. McGuire: Yes, I would. When you're on top, it's easy to say that, but there have been times in the past where there were a lot of things in B.C. to which the taxpayers in Ontario contributed, and to which they still contribute today.

Our country was built on the principle of equalization - especially over the past 30 years - of wealth distribution. It is forever and a day, and it's in our Constitution.

Mr. Scott: Well, equalization is already taking place, Mr. Chairman, outside of this. This is over and above or further to equalization. I suggest that it is not equitable.

I suggest that what happens in the event that we do not approve this amendment is that the Port of Halifax, the Port of Saint John, the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver are going to be subsidizing other ports, their competitors.

The Chairman: I think you're going to be proven wrong. There are other factors in this mix, such as the ability of the Port of Halifax, the Port of Saint John, the Port of Prince Rupert, and some of their members of Parliament to argue persuasively for one of the other options that are in the paper. The proof will be in the pudding when the decision is made.

I understand what you're saying; I understand the points you're making. They're good political points, but you're assuming certain decisions will be made that you don't know will be made.

Mr. Scott: As much as it may appear that way, I'm not trying to make political points. I'm really here advocating for equity.

The Chairman: I'm an advocate of equity, too, Mr. Scott. The reality is that if everybody has to pay for what they use, and if you take that principle to the nth degree, I don't know that everybody in the Port of Halifax would want to pay for every single service provided by the Government of Canada on a 100% cost-recovery basis any more than the residents of Prince Rupert would.

.1545

There is a theory of cross-subsidization that has been widely used and accepted as a necessity in this country when you're dealing with transportation infrastructure. What you have to do, however, is to ensure that periodically that gets rebalanced given fiscal frameworks, and that's what the government is trying to do.

So that's my two cents' worth. I don't think the Port of Halifax will ever pay for anybody else's ice-breaking, and I think the government will hear that loud and clear.

Ms Payne.

Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, as a member from one of those parts of the country where an ice-breaking service is extensively used, I certainly cannot agree with the amendment as proposed by the hon. member across the way.

I would also concur with my other colleague who just mentioned equalization in this country. I think we can certainly look to search and rescue costs as one of the other areas, among others, that are subsidized for other parts of the country.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I think the minister has said that these fees would be fair and equitable, and that's been agreed upon.

Also, this is not like a freeway where people can collect a toll and you know the exact cost. It's much more complicated than that, because there are overheads involved and all sorts of costs. You can't simply know the exact cost for every little service that occurs.

The general principle of equity in there is ongoing talks in terms of advisory groups set up to determine how the fee should be collected, on what basis the fee should be established.

We've had all sorts of representation, whether it should be based on cargo, whether it should be more specifically linked to the person who uses it.... Should he or she or that company pay the amount it costs? This is still an ongoing situation.

I can't support the amendment by the hon. member. Simply from an administrative point of view it would become very difficult to do. I also think it's not as simple as he makes it out to be.

In this country we recognize that we can't leave people high and dry, whether in Prince Rupert or somewhere else, and say we're going to make you pay absolutely 100% for every single service you get from government. Then what would happen? The urban areas obviously would be able to deal with it better. The outskirts areas would be much more difficult to deal with. If that philosophy was used in his area of British Columbia, there are areas where he would be hit very hard.

So as a country we have to go across and say, let's do it equitably, but let's not abandon those parts of the country that cannot afford certain services and say, we're not going to give you rescue service because you're not able to pay for it. We have to provide a service right across this country. That's what being a country is all about.

So I can't support that view.

Mrs. Payne: I thought you were in Atlantic Canada supporting us last week.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the very eloquent words of my friend across the way. First, in response to his remarks, I don't think anybody is looking to get this right down to the last penny.

We're looking for an equitable distribution of costs versus an equitable distribution of services rendered. That's the intent of this, that the proportions remain within a reasonable parameter that will be acceptable.

The Chairman: Does this do that? It says:

(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection (1) may not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the service or the use of the facility.

There are various ways you can apply that. That's one of the debates currently under way. One of the beauties of our system is that there is consultation about how you do these things.

But that clearly says you can't charge me a fee that is greater than the cost to the Crown of providing the service or for the use of the facility.

Mr. Scott: Well, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm from Missouri. The way the wording is right now, as I understand it or as I interpret it - and I'm not a lawyer by any stretch - you could say, for example, that ice-breaking services are a service provided by the coast guard for Canadian ports. Therefore, the coast guard is entitled to levy a fee against the Canadian ports for that service without making a distinction between the ports that are requiring the services and the ones that aren't.

So I'm suggesting that we're looking for equity here.

.1550

The Chairman: But by extension, the problem I have with your argument.... I don't disagree with the fact that if you don't use the service, you should not be lumped in with others that do and help pay for it. I don't believe that when you're dealing with some of these marine service charges.

I remember when I was in opposition. We railed against the Tories who had come in with some proposed cost-recovery fees for small airports. It would have made sure that a plane that was landing....

I remember the fees. If it is $1,050 to land, say, a 737 or 727 at Pearson in Toronto, in Deer Lake - I guess it was - the cost-recovery fee was something like two and a half times that, because they didn't have the traffic.

So by extension, if you just take this thing to the wall and you apply it through all transportation sectors, it means that in Prince Rupert, or indeed in Sydney or the Gaspé, people wouldn't be able to fly in and out. It would adversely affect their competitiveness, because you've adopted a principle of specificity in applying the charge directly to the user in every case. I think we need that flexibility there.

Mr. Scott: Maybe I should just quit dancing around and cut to the chase. What we're talking about here, essentially, is that if we don't specify a specific fee for a specific port or a specific marine area, the Port of Halifax, which is an ice-free port, in effect is potentially subsidizing the ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway that do require -

The Chairman: We have subsidized ports along the east coast and other ports for years. One of the things the people in my port - because it's my port - are looking to see from this new policy is, yes, we said we will pay on cost recovery. I was on the transportation committee when these issues were raised and we pushed hard. The port commission pushed hard to have cost recovery.

They also made the point that if you're not using a particular service, you should not be charged for that service, and they've continued to make that point. I have utmost confidence that the arguments they've made, which are similar to the ones you've made, will be persuasive.

I have more confidence in how persuasive they will be with government than you do. You want it more specific. In my view, I think this deals with it, but I do understand the concept. I understand the concept you're talking about. I haven't met anybody who reasonably believes that the Port of Halifax or the Port of Saint John is going to start paying for things they aren't using broadly.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, this is not my amendment. This was suggested by the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, in concert with Canadian Stevedoring and the Chamber of Shipping in British Columbia.

These people aren't taking this position and they're not advocating this because they have no concerns. They are very concerned -

The Chairman: Sure they are.

Mr. Scott: - that there's going to be a cost shipped on to them that's going to be disproportionate to the usage.

I suggest with all respect that the work of this committee -

The Chairman: Did this just come up to you today? We have amendments from you and this is not one of the amendments.

Mr. Scott: I just became aware of this within the last few hours.

The Chairman: I'm going to go over to Mr. Turner, see what we have there, and then we're going to call the question on this.

Mr. Turner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to note that we are very much aware of the concerns in the different parts of the country, including the west coast and the Atlantic. The commissioner and I were both in Vancouver on Thursday and Friday. On Thursday we met with the coalition, including the B.C. Chamber of Shipping, and discussed this concern.

If I may summarize their view very quickly, they would prefer to see a regionally based fee, not specific down to the distinction you have in the proposed amendment, sir, but rather regionally based, even if the regions were all of the east and the west coast.

There is certainly a high degree of concern in various parts of the country that they not have to pay for ice-breaking specifically, if they don't use ice-breaking.

We are simply saying, sir, that we would prefer not to see the minister's and the government's hands tied in terms of the consultation process already under way. From an administrative point of view, to get extremely specific about services in specific sites for specific groups and specific purposes is going to be extremely onerous and costly to do as well, from a cost accounting point of view.

But I can tell you that we are certainly aware of the concerns of the west coast. We were talking to them on Thursday and Friday of this past week.

The Chairman: Let's put the question on the amendment. Do we have the amendment?

.1555

The amendment would be to subclause 49(2). After the word ``facility'', it would say:

to the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered according to the stipulation contained in paragraph 41(2)(b).

Mr. Scott: That should be subsection 41(2), Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: So we would drop (b).

Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to continue to kick a dead horse here, but I will ask for a recorded vote on this.

The Chairman: Do you have a comment?

Mr. Bernier: Before the vote?

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: The idea may seem interesting. First, I would have liked the amendment to be presented in writing. You say that you did not have the time to write it down. Having been trained as an accountant, I would like to see what that could represent in terms of costs. When you compare sectors...

So I must say to my colleague that, if we cannot abstain, I will be forced to vote against it because I don't know what this could represent in terms of costs.

I come from a region that also needs icebreakers very frequently. This disadvantage could become an advantage in that, if there is ice from Gaspé to Montreal and in the Great Lakes, goods will be unloaded at Gaspé. So the disadvantage could become an advantage, but, as I don't know the consequences of this amendment, I would invite you to consider it further and to report to us on it.

[English]

Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 1

Clause 49 agreed to

Clauses 50 to 53 inclusive agreed to

.1600

The Chairman: We have an amendment for a new subclause, subclause 53(1).

Mr. Scott, are you going to amend the proposed amendment? If so, give us some idea of what you'll be doing before you move that amendment. If it's something that can be incorporated, we will do that, and if not we'll move the amendment and then you'll do it as a subamendment.

Mr. Scott: What we're proposing is to replace subclause (2) with the following:

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans shall undertake an impact analysis of this act within five years of its enactment and table its report to Parliament thereon, including a statement of any changes to this act or its administration that the committee would recommend.

The effect of this is to require the standing committee to review the act, as was recommended by many of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee, within a five-year period.

The Chairman: What's the difference between that and...? In the first one it says we are compelling the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, within three years after the enactment of the act, to review the act. What would be the difference there? We already have a three-year review in subclause (1).

Mr. Scott: This is an impact analysis that we are proposing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McGuire: I think the member's suggestion for five years rather than three years is a good one.

The Chairman: But he's not amending subclause (1); he's amending subclause (2). So we would still have a three-year review of the act, and his amendment would be to subclause (2), which would provide a further review, which would be an impact analysis within five years.

Mr. McGuire: I thought we agreed at a previous meeting that we would review at five years, not at three years.

The Chairman: No, I don't think we did. The committee agreed to three years.

Mr. McGuire: That's not much time.

The Chairman: I thought we agreed that it would be up to the committee of the day to decide if there was a further requirement for review.

Mr. McGuire: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, is that true?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I think the discussion went between three and five years. I don't think it was finalized with the committee, but both of those points were discussed. Either three years or five years is acceptable to me. Even four years would be acceptable from my point of view.

The Chairman: But it's for the record. It's a point of clarification, because we did have this discussion. Jim Gouk was here for the Reform Party, and we had the discussion on this very point. I thought we had reached an agreement. We talked about three or five years and I thought there was some consensus on three years, at which point we wanted to leave it up to the committee. I don't know if we have the minutes of that meeting. That might be helpful.

Mr. Dhaliwal: The other Reform Party suggestion that I think is very good is to say no more than a certain number of years. That would give the committee flexibility. It couldn't go beyond a certain time. I don't recall if it was no more than four or five years. That gives the committee the flexibility to say things aren't going well, maybe we need to review it after three years.

We could specify that it must be done within a certain amount of time, or even prior to that. I can live with either four or five years as long as we give the committee the opportunity to do it prior to that...but we set up the maximum limit that it must not go beyond a certain time.

.1605

The Chairman: The problem with that, and maybe somebody from the department can help me, is that if it says in the statute that it must be done in three years, it will be done in three years. If it says it must be done within five years, I can guarantee you it will be done at the fifth year.

We just went through that with another statute passed by the previous government in the last Parliament, and this government waited until the outside edge before anything came back to the committee. The committee can review it at any point it wants, but if the government and the department are not compelled to work toward a review on a specific date, I don't know if the review is worth wasting the committee's time on.

What's the position of the department on this?

Mr. Parsons: The department is in the hands of the committee on this matter. The only precedent that I'm aware of is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has a five-year clause. I think the wording is very similar to what's here - within five years after the enactment of the act. That's what it says in that legislation.

I don't quite understand what the difference is between the amendment and what's in the committee report.

Mrs. Payne: Without rehashing what's already been said, I made a proposal for a review after two years, and the consensus was that we would review after three years. The question that I have, and it's more a comment than a question, is that I assume the impact analysis would be included in any review that takes place at that time.

The Chairman: Let's see if we can get some consensus on this, because we're all rolling in the same direction on this one. The committee can do whatever it wants - three, four or five years. Subclause (1) says three years, and after previous discussion three years seemed appropriate. Subclause (2) of the proposed amendment indicates the type of review that should take place and says the committee must report within a year.

Mr. Scott, your proposed replacement on subclause (2) is not that dissimilar. You use the words ``impact analysis of the act'', but I don't know if that is more pointed than the current wording.

It says ``provisions and operation'' right now. I think we're saying the same thing here. We all want a review, but I think the committee is around three years.

Mr. Scott: I don't have a hang-up about the timeframe, but I think what we're really after is to know what the impact of this legislation has been. That's why we have worded it that way. ``Impact analysis'' requires the committee to undertake to look at what the bill has actually achieved. I suppose there's nothing wrong with the way it's worded right now, but I think our words strengthen it.

The Chairman: I hate to put words in your mouth, but on this new subclause (2), would it be appropriate to say that your amendment reads as follows:

The committee shall undertake an impact analysis of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within a year after this review is undertaken,

Since we don't have the proposed amendment for the new subclause before us, why don't we take out ``comprehensive review'' and substitute ``impact analysis''?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you draft it and that you arrange with Mr. Scott to have it drafted?

.1610

The paste-up that you have makes no sense. I can't follow you given the configuration of the French text. Would you write it in the margin and give us the copy, even if we have to come back to it later? I get the impression that we're going to be here for a long time yet. So we could go on to something else.

[English]

The Chairman: There are only two words, so why not -

An hon. member: Why don't we just wait?

The Chairman: I think we can deal with this one....

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, may I advise my friend across the way that I just have a bit of a problem. To me, ``impact analysis'' is going to be too narrow a review, whereas the words ``comprehensive review'' mean a much more thorough review of the act in terms of the wording. If you want a thorough review of the act, the words ``comprehensive review'' will better serve the committee rather than ``impact analysis''.

When you just say ``impact analysis'', it narrows it down to the actual impact rather than to a review of the whole act. We're not really achieving what we want by changing the wording.

The comprehensive review is a much more global review. Therefore, I think we should prefer it. I'd like to hear from any other members. I think it would be much better for the committee to have a comprehensive review, as opposed to an impact analysis, which is just an analysis of a narrowly focused area of the impact.

The Chairman: I'm also told there are problems with the French on this. Can we go over to that?

So it's up to the committee. A comprehensive review can include an impact analysis.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, exactly.

The Chairman: An impact analysis is more restrictive. My researchers are telling me that, too, so normally when I get that from them, I....

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, one way of dealing with this point would be to say:

The committee shall undertake a comprehensive review of revisions and operations of the Act, including an analysis of the impact of the Act.

The Chairman: Well, that's okay to me, but what about the French? Can we work that...?

Okay, well look, we've just had another proposal here. Can I just have the clerk's attention for a minute?

We have another proposal here, and the proposal came from Mr. Parsons.

Could you repeat that, Mr. Parsons, because the clerk will have to assist us with some translation?

Mr. Parsons: In subclause (2):

The committee shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the Act, including an analysis of the impact of the Act

- and then -

and shall within a year

- and so on.

A voice: Including an analysis of the impact.

Mr. Parsons: I slipped in ``five years'' there too while you weren't watching.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: But guess what? I didn't mark it down.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, as a Francophone, I will tell you that this is not much clearer. I would like people to take the time to write it down and we'll consider it again at the end.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, look, I agree. When amendments are put wherever....

We do understand that at times amendments come out of the work we're doing here, butMr. Bernier does make a good point.

Mr. Bernier: The translator could take his time. Only in two to five years; he could translate that.

.1615

The Chairman: Well, folks, I think we do have some difficulty here. If you want to get hung up on this clause, fine. My view is that the wording of the clause is not so bad that we can't live with it.

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: If we want to sit here and spend another couple of hours trying to work out the translation, I don't think....

With the greatest of respect, Mr. Scott, it's an important issue, but I think the clause pretty much handles it.

The committee will be master of its own destiny at the time anyway. It'll decide what it wants to do, and we'll go forward.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Let's get going.

The Chairman: So you can either withdraw it or we can vote on it.

Mr. Scott: What's the problem, Mr. Chairman? Is the problem translating the -

The Chairman: The problem is that there is going to be difficulty, and the French is slightly different now. The reading in French is slightly different from the one in in English.

Mr. Bernier raises a point about amendments coming forward that we're supposed to be debating that are not in both official languages. That may cause difficulty for some members of the committee. That is a real concern.

As chairman, I'm asking that if this is something really important, then I guess we'll have to wait until it's all translated. The provision as it is....

Mr. Scott: It's not that important. It's important, but....

The Chairman: Okay. I think the testimony of the committee, which will be here in Hansard, will indicate that the committee was hoping that the review will look at the analysis of the impact of the act over the three-year period. Are we agreed on that?

Mr. Scott: The main point, Mr. Chairman, is that we feel very strongly that there should be accountability for legislation we passed, that it should be reviewed to see what is -

The Chairman: But it is reviewed, Mr. Scott. Subclause (1) says it has to be reviewed in three years.

Will we be voting?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Without wanting to sound ironic, I don't know whether the mistake was made in English or in French, but depending on the interpretation, the English version seems louder than the French version.

If the interpreter will please repeat it, you will understand. I'm going to read it in French:

(2) Le comité examine à fond les dispositions de la présente loi ainsi que les conséquences de son application en vue de la présentation...

In my view, that means an impact analysis. Furthermore, that's what we said earlier. I don't have the English version; I only have the blue book.

[English]

The Chairman: That's a question of its application, the consequences of its implementation. Ah, okay!

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: That means that he is not moving an amendment there. Instead the idea is to make good translation. Perhaps it was thought out in French this time.

[English]

The Chairman: So we're fixing the English. Shall we have a technical amendment to fix the translation in English to say:

The committee shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of this Act, including the consequences of its implementation within a year after the review is undertaken.

So that would be the wording? Do you have it? It's in subclause (2).

So it would be in the English version only. The English has now been changed to reflect the French.

Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

So this is a technical amendment being moved Mr. Dhaliwal so that the English reflects the French text.

All things are possible if we work at it, right?

Subamendment agreed to

Amendment agreed to

Clauses 54 to 73 inclusive

.1620

On clause 74

The Chairman: There is an amendment on clause 74.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Let us move amendment G-14.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 74 as amended agreed to

Clauses 75 to 87 inclusive agreed to

On clause 88

The Chairman: On clause 88 we have a government amendment. I understand this is also a technical amendment.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 88 of Bill C-98 be amended (a) by striking out lines 13 to 15 on page 34 and substituting the following:

mined under the Oceans Act, and

(b) by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 34 and substituting the following:

includes the seabed and subsoil below that zone, and

I also have a French version.

The Chairman: What's the impact of this one? Why are we doing it?

This is the one where we're taking out ``airspace'' because it shouldn't have been in there.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 88 as amended agreed to

.1625

Clauses 89 to 91 inclusive agreed to

The Chairman: A new clause 91.1 has been proposed. The clerk has given me some advice that this may be outside the scope of the bill. I think there's consensus here in the committee that this be done, but if it's raised on a point of order in the House and the Speaker rules against us, then the entire report can be sent back. Okay?

So what I would like to do is to get some advice from the committee. First of all, if the departmental officials can indicate what this amendment does, because I think it is supported by all parties here, then we'll have to figure out how we can deal with it.

Mr. Parsons: As you recall when the minister spoke last to the committee, Mr. Chairman, he referred specifically to this initiative flowing out of the merger between coast guard and DFO. He announced at this time that agreement had been reached between his colleagues and himself that this in fact should be included. It was an item that had been intended to be put in the Oceans Act but had been held back because of the state of negotiations at that point. Mr. Turner could elaborate further on what this means in practice vis-à-vis the coast guard.

Mr. Turner: The Navigable Waters Protection Act refers, in fact, to the protection of the public right of navigation, which is of course a concern of the coast guard and ties in specifically to the responsibilities contained within clause 41.

The intent between the departments in transferring the administration of this legislation, which was done on April 1, was, in turn, to now transfer the responsible minister...in other words, to replace the Minister of Transport with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The way in which this act is used, Mr. Chairman, is that anyone who wishes to construct anything in, under, over, above, through, etc., any navigable waterway must make application to the department and to the minister, who then approves, exempts, or fails to approve, depending on the circumstances, that application, taking into account the protection of the public right of navigation. It is a public right of fishing, of course, that must be constrained or permitted through other acts of Parliament.

In the case of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that act is used in order to permit interference with navigation by the construction of certain works. The act is already being administered through an arrangement between the two departments by the coast guard, even though it is in DFO. If the act is not formerly transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, some other administrative arrangement will have to be made in order to allow this function to continue, because it is a vital part of providing for the official movement of ships of all kinds. All the marine navigation, whether commercial, fishing, or whatever, is subject, of course, to the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The Chairman: It is completely consistent with the desire expressed around this table to have direct lines of accountability, reduced overlap and reduced bureaucracy. I personally have no trouble with it, but as chairman I have to rely on some of my advice. We can go forward with this and we can adopt it, but the opposition would have to agree, because otherwise if it's raised on a point of order, I don't want the report on this bill to be rejected by the Speaker.

So we have the three major parties in the House represented here. If we agree, then I would allow the amendment and have a vote; otherwise, I can allow the amendment and we can have a vote, and then somebody will go and complain in the House and we could have the whole report back on us.

.1630

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I think all parties expressed that they would like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to be responsible for this act. They've clearly indicated that they would support it. A number of groups also came out and said this should be consolidated under this act.

I think we should go ahead and support this. I hope the opposition will agree. I do have amendments for new clauses 91.1 and 92.1, to put the fisheries minister in charge of this Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The Chairman: It's a technical point. I could have not raised it and just put it, but I have to be responsible to the members of the committee and also to Parliament on this thing.

With consent, we can do this. With consent, the chairman can allow the amendment to stand and we will vote on the amendment.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: I'm at a little bit of a loss here, Mr. Chairman. Maybe you can help me. Are we in effect dealing with an act outside of the Oceans Act?

The Chairman: We're dealing with a section of an act that is not referred to in the bill that was referred to us from Parliament.

Mr. Scott: We're making a technical change - actually, more than a technical change - in that act?

The Chairman: We are giving statutory weight and direction to the fact that you don't need the administrative arrangement that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the minister who would be responsible in this instance.

Right? That's what we're doing here?

I think there's agreement on it. It's a technical point, though. The technical point is that this particular section of the act was not referred to in the original bill.

So I can only allow the amendment to be moved with consent.

Mr. Scott: I guess my only question, Mr. Chairman, is whether what we are proposing to do is above board and legal.

The Chairman: It's above board and legal, because anything can be done with consent in Parliament. The other option is that this would have to be put on the floor of the House with consent. I don't think there'd be any difficulty with the House leaders agreeing to this. It's not a contentious thing; it's procedural. All it does is further consolidate. It's the type of consolidation, as I think we heard from witnesses, that had to take place.

As a matter of fact, this particular consolidation has taken place because of the weight of testimony of witnesses saying the act doesn't really consolidate enough. A couple of extremities out there flailing about should be incorporated.

So they concluded their negotiations between ministries and said yes. There was no agreement to do this between ministers when the act came before Parliament. Subsequent to that, and based on the weight of testimony, and the view of the committee, this came together. The only way we can effect it now is through an amendment here or an amendment in the House. It would be easier to deal with as an amendment here.

Mr. Scott: In principle I don't have a problem, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to hear what my friend from the Bloc might have to say about it.

The Chairman: Mr. Turner, do you to want just very quickly explain again why this has happened now?

Mr. Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

As you've already quite eloquently outlined yourself, when the act was being written, agreement hadn't been reached between the department on the actual transfer of their legislative power. However, the transfer of the administration and operation of the act has already taken place, effective April 1, when the coast guard was merged with Fisheries and Oceans.

This act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and what it permits, which is the administration of the public right of navigation, is one of the specific services we provide under paragraph 41(2)(a), services for the safe, economic and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters.

I obviously can't speak to the opinion you've had with respect to whether or not it is in keeping with the act except to say we're a bit surprised that there would be any question on that. It is one of the specific services already provided, one we already administer. This simply was a late-breaking agreement between the ministers, based partially on testimony to your committee, that in fact the act should be formally transferred as well.

I could also add, sir, in case there are any parties that have any concern about the transport role in this area, that there is, as part of this agreement - the transfer of the act to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - an agreement that the Department of Transport will be formally consulted on all applications that may impinge on the right of navigation of commercial shipping in major waterways. So both departments are happy to propose this transfer.

The Chairman: I'm not disagreeing. I think this should be done. But on a technical point - and it may seem inane - we are governed by the rules. The rules can be altered with consent.

.1635

I don't perceive this to be a major problem except that unless there's consent here, I don't want to report the bill to the House, have this pass, and then, even if everybody agrees, have somebody from one of the three parties represented here jump up in the House and say ``according to...'' and start quoting the rules and Beauchesne's so that we suddenly have this act back in our laps before Christmas.

Let me be blunt. If we agree that this is the type of thing we want, nobody else is going to disagree. But even if everybody here agrees, I'm not going to report a bill with amendments that will find either the Bloc or the Reform Party - it won't be the government because the government supports this - getting up on a technical point and having the entire report possibly returned to us by the Speaker.

I'm trying to be prudent. There was far too much work done on this bill by members of the committee and I don't think it would be proper for me to proceed and jeopardize the good work done by the committee on all the other clauses.

Mr. Scott, I need your advice on this. The government side has spoken. They think this is fine.

Mr. Scott: I think it's fine.

The Chairman: Well, speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, sometimes you also have to look at body language. If you want to have peace with your bill, organize matters so that I am not so easily tempted.

This morning, I expressed my profound disappointment at the lack of cooperation which I was seeking. So I will be honest with you. If you leave me easy openings, I'm going to take them. Some things in this don't suit me. I told you that I was interested in integrated management. I'm not interested...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, I'm going to stop you there. I don't take linkages. It's up to you to do what you want to do. I think I've treated everybody on this committee with a great deal of respect today. If you want to go back to this morning, we had an agreement, which I extended, and we went to 10:30. This issue is not to be linked. I don't play that type of poker.

Either you agree or disagree. Then we'll get on with it. I have a job to do and so do other members of the committee. Let's stop beating around the bush. If you agree with this, I will allow the amendment to stand. If you don't agree, I will not allow it to stand and somebody else can deal with it in the House. I'm only the chairman. We vote on things here. We have voted on everything to date. I'm not going to go back and start making deals. I think I've been fair to date.

Let's deal with this. Do you agree that this motion should be put and voted on here?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: If you had let me finish my sentence, you would have understood. You have to understand, Ron, that I am working with the interpretation. When you speak quickly... I can speak quickly too and I don't know if you'd be able to follow me. Do you understand me? No.

I understood that, it was unacceptable as drafted in my language. If I give my consent and someone else from my party says "Let's delete it," then I can be honest with you and tell you that I won't give my consent. The temptation would be too great. So it's no.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Then I'm not going to allow either of the two amendments. They'll have to be worked out in the House.

.1640

Clauses 92 to 95 inclusive agreed to

On clause 96

The Chairman: Clause 96, Ms Payne.

Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this clause. Because of the merger of DFO and the coast guard, the definition of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans should be reflected in the Canada Shipping Act. Therefore I propose that clause 96 be amended by adding the definition of ``Standing Committee''. It will be included in paragraph (a):

(a) in Section 660.10(7), the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans

The Chairman: The clerk has indicated that I should rule that out of order because the Standing Orders are what determine the composition of committees in any Parliament.

If the name of the committee changes, we will have to come back and change the act....

The Clerk: The name would be changed. This has been the fisheries and forestry committee. It's been all -

The Chairman: You're right. It has been the fisheries and forestry committee in the previous Parliament. So I'm going to rule -

Mrs. Payne: I'm not about to argue with the clerk.

The Chairman: Okay. Argue with him, not with me. I'm going to rule that out of order.

Clauses 96 to 102 inclusive agreed to

The Chairman: We have a proposal for a new clause 102.1.

Mr. Dhaliwal: We have a technical amendment.

The Chairman: Does everybody have that?

Mr. Dhaliwal: It's moved that Bill C-98 be amended by adding immediately after line 17 on page 39 the following:

102.1 Subsection 660.10(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Recommendations and response

(7) Each advisory council shall advise and may make recommendations to the Commissioner and may report to the Minister or to any standing committee of either House of Parliament on Fisheries and Oceans or on Environment and shall receive a response to such report within 30 days or, if the House is not sitting, within 14 days after resumed sitting.

The Chairman: Shall we carry the amendment?

Mr. Bernier: I have a question.

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: We are talking about a new subsection 660.10(7) in the Canada Shipping Act. The Clerk is aware of my little problem. I only have the amendment. I don't have the original version.

[English]

The Chairman: Does somebody have the Canada Shipping Act for Mr. Bernier? Can somebody come up and explain the context of this amendment?

Mr. Turner: Sir, if you could look at the Canada Shipping Act, you would see that the part now known as chapter 36 deals with the response organizations and their response to oil spills. In the last round of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, we established, among other things, a series of advisory councils, one to be set up in each region.

.1645

The function of these advisory councils was to consider all matters relating to the operation of this new system whereby response organizations for oil spill clean-up are to be certified by the coast guard. Every ship operating in Canadian waters or coming into Canada will be required to have an arrangement, as it's called in the act, with these response organizations.

The device of establishing an advisory council was used in the legislation in order to provide a mechanism for local input and a local forum to discuss any issues arising around the operation of these response organizations and the system laid out in chapter 36. The provision that is proposed to change here would have had those advisory councils able to make recommendations to the commissioner and the minister and any standing committee of the House. It specifically referred to the Standing Committee on Transport or on the Environment.

Because the other sections relating to these response organizations are being transferred through this act to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the advice of the advisory council should similarly be to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or this committee instead of the transport committee.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: In the same vein, I just reread the amendment, but I still haven't received the original text. From the witness who just spoke, I learned that it is either the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of Environment that may...

Which of the two will have the authority or the obligation to intervene in order to solve the problem? Is that stated somewhere in another subclause or another clause? Let me remind you that the Minister admitted the other day in committee that relations between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada amounted to yin and yang. That fits poorly into a bill. Who is going to do what? It's all well and good to give answers or to listen, but...

[English]

Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the query, the responsible minister will be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The section here provides that the advisory councils may report not only to the minister or the commissioners, but to two of the standing committees of Parliament, the environment committee - not the Minister of the Environment - or this committee. So it's not the Minister of the Environment who is involved in the legislation, sir, it is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The advisory council may submit its report and advice to either committee of the House, this committee or the environment committee. The part we are proposing to amend in fact was not that part in which reports could be submitted by advisory councils to the environment committee but rather the other committee, the Standing Committee on Transport. It proposes to substitute this committee, the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for the Standing Committee on Transport.

It says ``any standing committee of either House of Parliament on Fisheries and Oceans or on Environment''. That is also designed, sir, to allow for the eventuality where the name of the committee changes.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Just for the witness, Mr. Chairman, I presume the advisory council would be working to advise both on the environmental issues that are dealt with, and therefore they're able to give advice to both committees, because some involve the jurisdiction of the environment committee and some issues involve the fisheries committee. Is that why this advisory council could report to both?

Mr. Turner: I would just qualify that, sir, by saying that generally the matters the advisory council would report on are currently under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and, if this bill is passed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the essence of that part of the act is environmental protection, however, they will be of interest to the environment committee as well from time to time.

.1650

Mr. Dhaliwal: Okay, thank you.

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: Now on clauses 103 straight through to 109, there are no government amendments. Mr. Bernier, you had given us notice of an amendment on clause 107. Will you be moving that?

Mr. Bernier: No, monsieur le président.

Clauses 103 to 109 inclusive agreed to

On clause 29 - Development and implementation of strategy

The Chairman: Now we have to go back to some of the other clauses that we stood earlier today. We start with clause 29.

Once we agree on this, it sort of kicks into a bunch of the other ones we also stood.

Does everybody have the proposal that has come forward for 29? It reads:

The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements

Okay, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scott: Yes.

The Chairman: Is everybody fine on that?

Mr. McGuire: Why are we qualifying the community with ``coastal''? The community that is not coastal may be affected. Does it have to be on water to be affected?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. McGuire: It does?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Verran: Shot down again, Joe.

Mr. McGuire: Not necessarily.

The Chairman: There were some discussions among parties. There were municipalities where there was some difficulty with Mr. Bernier and with some others from the department with respect to including that in the amendment. It was deemed, because you are dealing with marine protected areas, that ``coastal communities'' would probably be the way to deal with both of those concerns. Mr. Bernier and the department have pretty much the same concern.

Mr. McGuire: What about communities that are not on the coast?

The Chairman: That would have an interest?

Mr. McGuire: That would have an interest.

The Chairman: Can you give me an example?

Mr. McGuire: I know in Prince Edward Island, for example, there's the village of Morell. It is not on the coast, but it does have the port of Red Head. People use this port. The people live in Morell, and Morell would have an interest in the St. Peter's Bay area, for example, if anything happened in this particular watershed. You don't have to be on the coast to be affected.

.1655

The Chairman: But then they would be an interested body.

Mr. McGuire: They are a community. What's the difference between a community and an interested body?

The Chairman: It doesn't much matter to me. We can just take out ``coastal'' if that will help get this thing through today, and just have ``communities''.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do believe there's enough latitude in the way the wording is right now. It's inclusive rather than exclusive and I suggest the committee adopt it as is.

We have one problem on the French. The French given to us is missing ``boards and agencies''.

We're just going to get a correction here on the French and then we will put the motion.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, there's a point on this, if we may.

[Translation]

A witness: The translators translated "with other ministers, boards and agencies" by "d'autres ministres fédéraux", which encompasses the three words.

[English]

The Chairman: Why isn't it all-encompassing in English?

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, this is similar to what exists in the language at the moment.

The Chairman: Okay. Well, if it is covered in the French, then I would ask, does the amendment carry?

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: Does the clause as amended carry?

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: You know where I'm coming from. I withheld my proposed amendments for strategic reasons. The phrase "coastal communities" proposed by Mr. McGuire... In any case, I don't know where you are. I am having trouble with this. And if you tell me that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans shares my concerns, I have twice as many reasons to be concerned.

If we write these words so as not to deal with the term "communities" or "towns", I will remind you that you cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we've had the debate on this. The concern was municipalities. You raised it at that point. The department said it is a good point. It was felt ``communities'' was a more appropriate language and the committee has just approved this.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: You will record my vote.

[English]

The Chairman: It comes up in the next one as well.

.1700

Just for the sake of clarity, because we have only a few clauses to go on this, Mr. Bernier, I thought we had already agreed to the clause as amended. What is the particular problem you have with the words ``coastal community''? Mr. McGuire had raised the point. The response was that other communities could be consulted as well, and had a right to be consulted.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I will remind you that we're talking about passing a bill. That's something formal.

What is enumerated in here, such as the federal ministers, the provincial and territorial governments, are tangible, touchable entities, but a coastal community is not an entity that can be reached, defined or touched. How are we going to reach those people?

Where I come from, we say, "We are part of the coastal community." But what people will be identified and who can be referred to directly?

To me, when you say "coastal community", it's broad; it brings nothing to mind and dilutes the rest.

[English]

Mr. Dhaliwal: Do you want to take ``coastal communities'' out of there? What are you proposing on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: That's not my amendment, but his. I'm simply telling you what I think of it.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Scott has indicated that if ``coastal'' is taken out, he believes it's too broad. Is it your proposal that you would take the word ``coastal'' or ``communities'' out of it? Is coastal the problem?

Mr. Bernier: That's what I'm trying to figure out.

The Chairman: Both are?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: If you want to move on to the vote, we'll vote. I explained the principle. I'll choose another way of presenting my ideas and opinions on that.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, I'm in the hands of the committee on this. This is an amendment we had stood. I thought we had language that was acceptable. We can put it to a vote.

Mr. Scott: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I thought we had voted on it.

The Chairman: We did, but I've reopened it. It's going to appear in the next two as well, so we might as well deal with it right here and not have the debate when the next two issues come up.

Mr. Scott: Okay.

Mr. Wells: The difficulty we have is that, as usual, there's no option provided. It's just a criticism without a positive solution. So I say we move on.

The Chairman: Let's vote on the amendment again.

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in my earphone, I heard "à la majorité des voix". Does that mean "on division"? Did you note that I voted nay?

The Clerk: That you voted against it. "On division" means that someone voted against it.

Mr. Bernier: That's not what I heard.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, you've just made it sure; yes, we've done it.

Clause 29 as amended agreed to

On clause 30 - Principles of strategy

The Chairman: There was debate with respect to the precautionary approach. I thinkMr. Wells had come up with a suggestion. Mr. Scott had expressed a concern about the precautionary approach, the entire clause, I guess.

It was the whole thing, Mike?

So we're going to start it again. A proposed amendment is in the book.

.1705

Before I have the amendment moved, Mr. Wells, are you going to suggest that we drop that back part of it?

Mr. Wells: We had a comment by Mr. Dhaliwal earlier that from his perspective, he wanted to leave in ``the precautionary approach'' but would be agreeable to ending proposed paragraph 30(c) at the end of the word ``caution'', taking out the words ``when scientific information is uncertain or incomplete''.

In the absence of some other wording someone may have devised over the lunch hour, I would move that we accept this amended proposed paragraph 30(c).

The Chairman: So the proposed amendment is that a paragraph 30(c) would be added and would say:

(c) the precautionary approach, that is erring on the side of caution.

Is there some comment on that?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 30 as amended agreed to

On clause 31 - Integrated management plans

The Chairman: It would be suggested that an amendment be moved.

Mr. Scott: I so move.

The Chairman: The amendment would be that after the word ``with'' it would be ``other ministers, boards and agencies'' and so on. It would be the same amendment as we've just passed.

Mr. Scott: Verbatim.

The Chairman: Is it agreed?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 31 as amended agreed to on division

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: It's going a little too quickly for me. I'm going to reserve my remarks on all these amendments and I will express my views in another way at the report stage in the House. I find the discussion is going quickly and it is very hard to follow.

[English]

The Chairman: It's all in the hands of the committee. Are we going too quickly? We just took an amendment that we spent some time on. It is the same amendment that was applied in the last act.

I asked if there was debate on it. I looked around the table and nobody indicated there was debate on it. As chairman, I have to move on. If there's debate on it then we have debate, and then we move the motion. Nobody debated it.

I'm sorry, but I'm going as slowly as I can at this point. Too much caffeine in my system, I guess.

On clause 32 - Implementation of integrated management plans

The Chairman: The proposed amendment to paragraph 32(c) should probably reflect the language of two of the previous amendments. So we would be looking at a proposed amendment as written in the book, with the change in paragraph 32(c) that has been reflected in two of the three previous amendments.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, just refresh my memory, because I can't recall -

The Chairman: I'm sorry; yes, it's paragraph 32(d).

Mr. Scott: - but I believe where it now says:

For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister may

we have proposed that we change ``may'' to ``shall''. I'm not sure if we've done that or not.

The Chairman: No, we haven't on that one.

I think the questions that were raised at that time were whether or not paragraphs 32(a) and (b) should have ``shall'' and whether paragraphs 32(c) and (d) should have ``may''. Am I right there?

Okay.

Mr. Scott, you're right on that.

So the proposed amendment would be:

For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister

``shall'' for paragraphs 32(a) and (b), and ``may'' for paragraphs 32(c) and (d).

That would be one set of corrections.

.1710

Mr. Scott: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to see ``shall'' for at least paragraph (d) as well because it then requires the minister to be in consultation, rather than leaving it open-ended with a ``may''.

Mr. Parsons: It would say he ``shall establish marine environmental quality guidelines'', as opposed to ``may''.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Parsons: On the consultative part I agree, but on the operative part you would then be compelling the minister to establish marine environmental quality guidelines.

Mr. Wells: I would like to establish that under the consultation, but he can't be required to do it. There can't be a ``shall'' for (d).

It's not ``shall consult''; it's ``shall establish''.

Mr. Scott: Okay, that's a valid point.

The Chairman: So it will be ``shall'' for (a) and (b) and ``may'' for (c) and (d). The emboldened print here shall be replaced with the text we've just agreed to. I'm talking about the text from the previous amendment.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on that.

Mr. Scott: No.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 32 as amended agreed to

On clause 33 - Cooperation and agreements

The Chairman: In subclause 33(1) there is a proposed amendment in our book. Again, language should be changed to reflect the consensus we have reached.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The next item is subclause 33(2).

Mr. Scott: Have we changed the ``may'' to ``shall''?

The Chairman: We haven't done it yet. Herb, or somebody from the department, there is a suggestion that in subclause 33(2), at the end of the first sentence, the ``may'' should be changed to ``shall''.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I would have a problem with that, Mr. Chairman, because when you use the word ``shall'', any group can say the minister did not comply with the act if a group is not consulted. I think the staff can advise further, but I think there would be a problem if we put ``shall''. I think we should leave ``may'' in there. It puts a legal liability on the minister to consult with every group out there. Can we get some advice from staff on this?

Mr. Parsons: I would concur with what Mr. Dhaliwal has said on that point, as far as this clause is concerned. There could be a potential situation where individuals would go to court and say the minister was obliged by the act to consult and he didn't consult this particular community or this particular person - this even applies to persons. It would be difficult to establish whether the minister had met the obligation of ``shall consult'' when the term ``person'' is so broad.

.1715

Mr. Scott: I have a suggestion - and I hate picking the proverbial you know what. Why don't we go with ``shall consult with ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada with provincial and territorial governments'' and ``may consult with aboriginal organizations with interested persons and bodies, including those bodies established in the land claims agreements''?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I can't support that.

The Chairman: It's a half-and-half amendment.

Mr. Wells: The intent here is consultation, and you want to consult with the aboriginal organizations as well. If you put a ``may'' there, you're going to give it a lesser -

Mr. Scott: It's going to be an affront, Mr. Chairman. Right now -

Mr. Wells: At least everybody's being treated equally.

Mr. Scott: - if he consults with one, he will consult with them all in the same way. But in this case he has a greater obligation to one group than to another, and I don't think that's a good way to have it.

Mr. Wells: What happened to your equality principle, Mike?

The Chairman: Okay, let's see if we can get on with it. I don't think there will be a consensus for that, Mike. The proposed amendment would be changed to reflect the language we have from clause 29 onward. There would not be a change, so let's get an amendment on the floor. The amendment would be the proposed amendment, but would reflect the language we've adopted. We'll put that to the floor.

Do you want to propose a subamendment then to change the ``may'' to ``shall'' after what we've heard, or should we just vote on the amendment?

Mr. Scott: It's not going to pass so there's no point.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 33 as amended agreed to

On clause 41 - Canadian Coast Guard

The Chairman: Does everybody have this amendment? Mr. Scott you were dealing with this on the proposed amendment. The wording that has been proposed is in paragraph 41(2)(a). This is the change we are dealing with:

efficient and economic services for the safe movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

Is that satisfactory to everybody? Is there any further debate?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I think staff members might have a response on this.

The Chairman: This is what they have agreed to, so shall we vote on it, please?

Mr. Turner: I have just a brief word of explanation, sir. Our only concern in the wording wasn't that we were planning to provide services that weren't efficient and economic, but rather the nuance here was that we are sometimes called upon to provide support consistent with government policy objectives for the efficient movement of ships, and in doing so cannot always assure that we in turn are providing it in a most economic sense.

The example I would use is support for certain arctic development projects. It's not a concern other than that. We just want to make sure that in the amendment we don't in any sense restrict the flexibility of the government to provide support in those kinds of situations.

The Chairman: I don't think it does that.

Mr. Wells.

.1720

Mr. Wells: It would certainly change the wording significantly. It doesn't mean the same thing as the previous one. Help me a little bit here, because I'm just wondering about ``efficient service for safe movement''. What do you mean by ``economic service''?

The Chairman: It means in the most economical manner possible.

Mr. Wells: We're talking financially then, are we?

The Chairman: Yes, so if you need one ship to do it, make sure you do it with one instead of three. It does not compel the government to abandon any of its public policy roles at all. It just means that when they're fulfilling it, it should be a prerequisite of the department, which I'm sure it is anyway.

Mr. Scott: It's not going to bind the government to stop providing these services.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Scott: It's going to require them to do it in the most efficient manner that they can.

Mr. Wells: It doesn't say ``more efficient''; it says ``efficient''. I have some difficulty with how ``economic services'' could be interpreted, but if the department is happy with it....

Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, I also have difficulty with ``economic service''. I really don't know what ``economic service'' means. I understand, as my colleague just said, what ``efficient service'' means. ``Economic service'' sounds like a financial thing, though.

Mr. Wells: All service is going to be economic. Whether it's going to be good economics or bad economics, I guess, is the question. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something here.

The Chairman: I'm missing something, because I thought we talked about this earlier and I asked that the department come up with something. Now I'm hearing that the department has but it sort of hasn't, and I'm hearing from the parliamentary secretary that perhaps the government doesn't support it.

Is this supported by the department? If it's not, let's rework it now. We've got a vote in fifteen minutes and this was an issue raised prior to our breaking at 1 p.m. Is there a problem with it?

Mr. Turner: I don't want to go as far as saying there's a problem with it, sir. I'm simply suggesting there would be other wording that might be preferable, even if it said simply ``efficient services for the safe movement of ships''.

The Chairman: But the problem we have is that we have to deal with this in the context of the testimony, as well as comments from the committee. The reality is that I may believe the coast guard is efficient and economical in what it does, but the individuals who are now being told they have to pay for part or all of the service do not have that level of comfort yet. They want something in the statute that would indicate that when the services are provided by the monopoly provider, which is the coast guard, it will be done in the most cost-efficient manner possible.

Mrs. Payne: We could change the wording to ``efficiently economic'' or ``economically efficient''.

The Chairman: The researchers here are trying to help us through the language. What about ``efficient and cost-effective services for the safe movement''?

Mr. McGuire: What about just ``efficient''? It takes care of the ``economic''.

Mr. Scott: No, I think ``cost-effective'' has to be in there.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, if we're unable to get a wording that is acceptable to the committee, I'd say we have to go back to the original wording that says:

(a) services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

I think we should go back to the original amendment if we're unable to agree on any wording. I understand Mr. Wells' point when he says this is a different meaning from that of the original proposed amendment.

The Chairman: That's because a subamendment was being proposed.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Other members of the committee cannot live with these new wordings, so I would recommend that we go back to the original wording, which I think people can live with and which also states ``safe, economical and efficient movement of ships''.

The Chairman: I'm going to suggest that since we have to go to a vote on an opposition motion in seven minutes, perhaps we can deal with this quickly when we get back.

There have been two proposals put on the table. One is on the words that have been used, the other on ``cost-effective'' or whatever. Can the department think about that for a bit and then give us some feedback on it when we come back?

We're going to stand adjourned until after the vote. Since we only have a couple of clauses left, I would ask that everybody come right back after the vote so that we can get out of here and do other things that we were going to do tonight. We just have the preamble left after we get through this.

.1724

.1759

The Chairman: Okay, we're back in session.

We're back on clause 41. In our absence, has there been any further progress with respect to the wording in the proposed amendment in (a)?

Mr. Turner: Just to let you know that the department has called the staff and looked at this clause. I apologize if we caused any confusion there by the discussion of changing the position of the words ``efficient and economic'' to the front of the sentence instead, but it wasn't the intent that the department was supporting this amendment. It was to show how this will affect the proposal.

Our preference is clearly to remain with the wording provided in the initial bill. As I said, the intent is to enable the government to provide services in support of efficient movement of shipping.

We believe there are a number of other mechanisms already available to ensure that our own operation is as efficient and economic as possible, including this committee, of course, the Auditor General, the public accounts committee, our own advisory board and consultative mechanisms, and so on. So our preference, sir, would be to leave the wording as is proposed in the original bill.

.1800

The Chairman: From a procedural point of view, here's what I'm going to do. I see that Mr. Dhaliwal will move or has moved the proposed amendment as it is in the original book, and I understand that Mr. Scott is proposing a subamendment to it. Just for the sake of clarity, so we can deal with this, Mr. Dhaliwal has moved the proposed amendment, which is to clause 41 in the book, which has at the beginning of paragraph (a):

(a) services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

There is a proposed subamendment by Mr. Scott that would change paragraph (a) to read:

(a) efficient and economic services for the safe movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of

We'll have one last shot at this one.

Mr. Scott: It appears as if the way in which we worded our subamendment is perhaps not finding favour with the committee. I don't feel that it's the committee's role to accept necessarily what the department feels comfortable with. That's not our job. Our job is to ensure that when we're dealing with legislation the Canadian public and the taxpayers are well served. I believe that requiring the coast guard to provide a cost-efficient service, particularly when fees are going to be levied for the service, is a step in the right direction.

If the subamendment is not finding favour, then I'm quite prepared to change it and move a different subamendment, if that's possible.

The Chairman: Okay. Why don't you tell us what it is.

Mr. Scott: Okay. I would be prepared to move the insertion after subparagraph 41(1)(a)(iii), leaving off at ``ice breaking and ice management services'', of a new paragraph (b), which would then reletter the subsequent paragraphs under that:

services under subparagraphs (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) shall be provided in the most cost-efficient manner possible.

Mr. Wells: We can't support that.

Mr. Scott: You can't support ``cost-efficient''?

Mr. Dhaliwal: Not ``the most cost-efficient''.

Mr. Wells: ``Cost-effective'' maybe.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Cost-effective is one thing, but if it is the most cost-efficient.... You have to provide a service.

Mr. Wells: The key here is that you're going to provide a service.

Mr. Scott: Yes.

Mr. Wells: What was the word? ``Most efficient''?

Mr. Scott: It is ``shall be provided in the most cost-efficient manner possible''. I'm not saying you can't provide the services. We understand that the services need to be provided. We're just saying they should be provided in a cost-efficient manner or on a cost-efficient basis.

Mrs. Payne: I really think these words are somewhat superfluous. I would hope that government always acts in a cost-efficient and responsible manner. The fear I have is that if we start inserting words of this nature, we could then pay in spades with the kind of service we obtain, because someone is going to pick up on this and say, well, we've been told that we have to cut our costs here.

Mr. Wells: We're not going to have any services in the Atlantic. You know that. That would be another wedge in the door to cut out all the services.

The Chairman: Why don't we give this just a few more minutes. Is there some wording that would curry some favour with members on both sides?

Derek, can you see anything that we can do there?

Mr. Wells: I think, after I review it, that the initial wording talks about.... We're talking about services, and the services are for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships. That's what we're trying to get: it's got to be economical, safe and efficient.

.1805

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I agree with the spirit in which the hon. member comes forward; the services should be provided in a cost-effective fashion. But this assumes we're not providing it now, and I have a problem with that assumption. We would hope that all services in government are always provided in a cost-effective fashion and that they're always looking at ways to provide that service in a way that is advantageous to the taxpayer, where the maximum benefit is to the taxpayer.

I don't have a problem with the spirit, and I defer to my colleagues to see what they have to say without giving any direction. I'm just wondering if we're saying that it isn't and it should be. As my colleague Jean Payne has pointed out, all services in government should be cost-effective.

I think we should go back to the original one. If other members want to put as an item something like the above service to be provided in a cost-effective fashion, I don't have a problem with it personally, but I think we should already be providing that service as it is in a cost-effective fashion. I'm open to other colleagues' views on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: Again, I think we agree with the spirit. We want it to be cost-effective, but when you talk about it being the most cost-effective, the most cost-effective way is to eliminate it altogether or cut it down to its barest minimum. When you start cutting it to its barest minimum, you know who's going to suffer.

If we get into the same sort of discussion when we get into the Fisheries Act and we talk about technologies and we're going to talk about the most efficient, the sense we get from this party is that we're going to be cutting out the little guy, the one who's going to be most affected by this. We all want to be efficient. We all want to be cost-effective; that's agreed. I hope we can find some wording that gets that in.

I object to saying it's the most cost-efficient, because you can't always deliver some of the services we need to make the most of. I'm just saying I think if we look at the spirit of what we're trying to get, maybe we can find some wording. I'm afraid the most cost-efficient service is no service at all.

Mrs. Payne: What about the wording that was just proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal, that these services be carried out in a cost-efficient manner?

The Chairman: If that's the case, you can do that by inserting ``efficient and cost-effective services''. I agree with you; it would be ``efficient and cost-effective services for the safe movement of ships in Canadian waters''.

Mr. Wells: We're not only talking about the safe movement of ships. The initial one talks about ``the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships'', and now you're putting the emphasis on the service and not on the movement. So you may want to combine the two. You're changing the whole intent of the section when you take the emphasis off movement of ships and put it on the service itself.

The Chairman: How about if it says ``cost-effective services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships''? Let's go back to the proposed amendment, which is on page 69, and leave that as it is and say:

relating to

(a) cost-effective services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships.

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. McGuire: In support of the original wording, the users of these services will certainly let us know if they're cost-efficient, especially with the cutbacks and the reports we've been hearing from the witnesses. Also, we will have the review of the act in three years, where the Auditor General will get all these people around, ourselves included, to look at the efficiency of the department. What is wrong with the original wording in light of all these extra or exterior checks and balances we have on the act?

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, and then we're going to figure out how we'll move on this.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the comments of the members opposite, andMr. Dhaliwal says we hope the government is always providing services in a cost-effective manner. I come from a business background, and unless you require it, unless you make it a stipulation, I suggest that you're not going to get it, or it's highly unlikely you're going to get it.

.1810

Now, we have heard from witnesses from organizations and so on that are going to have to pay...they have testified before the committee that they have some real concerns about both the cost of the Canadian Coast Guard and its efficiency. I agree, and I suspect many people here agree, with the concept of user-pay, and that's what we're getting to here with the fees in subclause (3).

Hand in hand with the notion of user pay and levying fees and requiring those ports that are going to be benefiting from the services to contribute to the underwriting of the cost, there has to be some assurance to those people that their services are going to be provided in a cost-effective manner. We certainly have heard enough testimony...and we received letters from a number of organizations that expressed real concern.

I see nothing wrong with requiring the coast guard, hand in hand with the notion that charges are going to be levied, to provide this service in a cost-effective or cost-efficient manner. When we just throw up our hands and say, well, we always hope or we always expect government is going to deliver these services in a cost-efficient manner, without requiring it, then the chances of that happening are lessened substantially. That's why I think it's vitally important that we get it.

It's not so much I as the people who are going to be paying for these services who have asked that we put this in here. I think we have to acknowledge that and we have to include it.

The Chairman: Just before we do that, I'm going to try this wording out, and then we'll call the question. Does it offer any level of comfort if in the original proposed amendment, at the beginning of (a), we said ``cost-effective services for the safe, economical, and efficient movement of ships''?

Mr. Dhaliwal: I don't know if that will fit in with the preamble at the top, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wells: We're talking about cost efficiencies, aren't we? Is that the same thing as ``cost-effective''?

Words are important here. We have to find -

Mr. Dhaliwal: That wording will be a problem, though. If you read the preamble at the top, I don't think that would make sense.

The Chairman: It reads:

the duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not assigned by law to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to the provision of cost-effective services

You have the provision of ``cost-effective''.

Mr. Dhaliwal: But it's frustrating to have ``safe, economical and efficient movement of ships'' - that's a fundamental responsibility'' - but not the cost of it. I guess you could totally remove it and it would cost nothing, but you won't get ``safe, economical and efficient movement of ships''. His fundamental duty, as a minister, is to make sure the services provide a guarantee to the public that there is safe and economical movement of ships. If you have a huge tanker going through an area and the minister's main responsibility is the cost and not the safe movement, you have a problem. You have to have safe movement of these ships. That's his fundamental responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to push the issue, we could put item 5 at the end and say ``the above service to be provided in a cost-effective manner''. I think that's the only compromise.

The Chairman: We may have had something there. The legal counsel has suggested this may deal with the issue, so we can get on with it. It would be a new subclause (2), so that clause 41 would become 41.(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). After (e), you would have something like this as subclause (2):

(2) The Minister shall ensure that the services referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii) are provided in a cost-effective manner.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I don't have a problem with that, unless my colleagues -

The Chairman: That might do it.

Mr. Scott: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I really would like to be able to go back to my colleagues and recommend that we support this bill at the end of the day. I frankly will have a hard job doing that unless we can show financial accountability is in there.

Mr. Wells: How about that wording?

The Chairman: Is that okay?

Mr. Scott: Yes.

.1815

The Chairman: So we would put it in at the end of (e), clause 41 would become 41(1)(a) to (e), and we would have a subclause (2) that would say:

(2) The Minister shall ensure that the services referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii) are provided in a cost-effective manner.

Mr. Parsons: It would be (i) to (iv).

The Chairman: It was suggested that we leave channel maintenance out of there.

Mr. Scott: It should be (iv).

The Chairman: It should be (iv). Okay.

So I take it you are withdrawing your subamendment, with consent.

The subamendment has been withdrawn.

I guess we have withdrawn the main amendment. The new amendment proposed byMr. Dhaliwal would have clause 41 as it is in the book, with a provision for subclause 41(2), which would be the new subclause added to what we have in the book. It would say:

(2) The Minister shall ensure that the services referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iv) are provided in a cost-effective manner.

All in favour of the amendment....

Mrs. Payne: I'll abstain, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 41 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: Okay, we're moving over to the preamble, if everybody can focus their attention on that.

We have a proposed amendment to the preamble, so somebody from the department should help us out here. The proposed amendment will have to be further changed to reflect some of the language with respect to affected aboriginal organizations, as has been done with the other one. That change would be to what is proposed in our research document.

Mr. Parsons: That's correct, yes.

The Chairman: So everybody has the proposed amendment to the preamble, with the changes to reflect the wording that we've agreed to in other sections.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: There's a technical amendment to the French version, amendment number 61.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, it is just a technical amendment. I move that the French version of the preamble to Bill C-98 be amended by striking out line 13 on page 1 and substituting the following:

[Translation]

lois internes, les droits souverains du Canada sur

.1820

[English]

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint, as amended, for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That's the end of our business. I now adjourn our committee and I thank everybody for sitting here all day. I think we have a good bill. I think we have a better bill through the process. I want to thank everybody, all members of the committee, for taking all the time. I think we can truly say that this is a different bill; it is a better bill for the process that it's gone through.

I think it's these types of processes, even though they are difficult at some points in time, that show that the committee system in Parliament does work.

I want to thank the research staff for all of the hard work they've done, as well as the support staff, and especially Joe McGuire.

With that, we'll stand adjourned