Bill C-10 (Historical)

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for the question. This afternoon we will continue the prebudget debate that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will deal with the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill introduced earlier today. I understand there is some agreement pursuant to the usual process of passing the bill at all stages. We will then consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut bill.

I wish to advise the House that there will be a royal assent later this afternoon on Bill C-11.

Next week we will debate Bill C-39, the Yukon bill. That will be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, the marine parks bill. When this is completed we will turn to Bill S-31, respecting a number of international tax treaties. If and when Bill C-35 is reported from committee we will turn to its report stage and third reading.

I would like to report to the House that if we have time next week I will be prepared to entertain a second day of prebudget debate or consultation.

I understand that some members will be producing a motion to defer a debate until next week. I am awaiting that process.

I also wish to inform the House that there is ongoing consultation among House leaders, although not quite complete, about having a take note debate next week, possibly on the issue of the World Trade Organization and international trade generally. Those consultations are not yet complete.

Committees of the House

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to an order of reference dated Thursday, May 10, the committee has considered Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, and agreed on Tuesday, October 30 to report it with amendments.

Marine Conservation Areas

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great importance to my constituents. I have been working to amend Bill C-10, the badly flawed government bill on marine conservation areas.

Over 25 organizations, municipalities, chambers of commerce and fishing groups have made their concerns known to me and through me to the committee. Unfortunately less than half will have the opportunity to present their concerns to the committee. The government has done a poor job of consulting with British Columbians.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a unanimous resolution calling on the government to consult widely prior to passing the bill. The bill has the potential to seriously hamper offshore oil and gas exploration on the west coast, a resource an ailing British Columbia economy badly needs to build its future.

I ask the government, on behalf of my constituents, to please listen to our concerns and delete clause 13. I ask it not to stand in the way of B.C.'s offshore oil and gas development.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-10.

Call in the members.

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

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Liberal government's attempt to create national marine conservation areas.

The objective of establishing marine conservation areas is to protect and conserve marine ecosystems found in the ocean environments of Canada and in the Great Lakes. The purpose of the bill is to establish rules that would allow the creation of national marine conservation areas.

The bill is actually unfinished business from the last Mulroney government. It took the weak Liberal government more than 13 years to tinker with the idea of creating marine conservation areas. It is still at step one after feeble attempts to introduce legislation in previous parliaments, namely Bill C-48 and Bill C-8. It shows the lack of commitment of the Liberals to protecting and conserving our environment.

In addition to preserving marine areas for the benefit and enjoyment of Canadians, the bill strives to establish a framework for regulating marine ecosystems and maintaining biological diversity. It is important to note that while environmental protection and sustainable development are important issues, they do not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The bill makes provision for two schedules that are intended to include the names of marine conservations areas and reserves. The minister has identified 29 marine conservation areas and the intent to create new national parks, but in Bill C-10 the two schedules are blank. The actual locations of all 29 parks have not been identified.

As a past co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee I would imagine these lists could be filled in by regulation and we would find the 29 locations somewhere in the thousands of pages of regulations that no doubt accompany the bill. That is governing through the back door, not through the front door and not through the voices of elected members in the Chamber. The bill should describe the location of each park and that information should be inserted in the two schedules. I hope the matter is fleshed out during the committee hearings.

Bill C-10 would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the authority to create a new marine conservation area on crown land without going through the normal legislative process. Currently the government is required to come before parliament any time a new national park is to be established or an existing park is to be changed. The legislation would remove the power from parliament and would allow parks to be created or changed by order in council. That is ridiculous.

The minister states that activities such as commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. However all fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety plans are subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Similarly regulations affecting navigation or safety rules under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Transport.

Disposal regulations pertaining to sections 127 and 128 of the Environmental Protection Act require the joint approval of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the Environment.

What is to be done about these contradictions and overlapping responsibilities? Clause 13 of the bill would limit or prohibit the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic material in all marine conservation areas. I anticipate hearing from stakeholders about this clause at the committee hearings.

There are considerations with respect to private property and reasonable search and seizure. Clause 22 of the bill states that, in the discharge of their duties, marine conservation area wardens, enforcement officers and persons accompanying them may enter and pass through private property. This is an invasion of the property rights of law-abiding citizens.

The weak and arrogant Liberal government has shown its pattern of disrespect for privacy rights and interference with personal property. We have seen that in Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, where the arrogant Liberal government refused to offer fair compensation to Canadians.

Enforcing regulations is a serious issue and it is not addressed in the bill. In reference to Parks Canada, the director of the organization suggested that the RCMP be allowed to be involved in enforcement activities. Currently Parks Canada is involved in a labour dispute with its park wardens over personal safety. The bill contains the same deficiencies as the National Parks Act. It does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law.

Since 1993 there have been three separate reports recommending that sidearms be issued to wardens in order to fulfil their responsibilities. With park wardens off the job and other law enforcement agencies overburdened with enforcing criminal code violations, wildlife is being slaughtered in our national parks. The bill does not address any of these situations.

The Canadian Alliance affirms the federal government's role in the preservation of Canada's natural and historical heritage such as national parks. It supports sustaining and developing national parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. It also supports sustainable development and environmental protection regulations that have been fully debated by parliamentarians, not through the back door but through this Chamber.

The bill would strengthen the power of cabinet while diminishing the effectiveness of elected representatives. The bill is virtually unnecessary because the regulatory framework already exists to accomplish what the bill purports to achieve. It is just a power grab by a department that understands that it has a weak minister who does not understand that the new regulations are not required.

The legislation would clearly limit the ability of parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas are introduced or existing areas are expanded, with no input whatsoever when new parks are being created. The weak and arrogant Liberal government, time and again, abuses the Chamber and uses elected members as a rubber stamp. It does not give enough opportunity for debate by elected officials. There is no reason for this tight fisted form of control and undemocratic manner of proceeding. Like the bogus changes the government is proposing to Bill C-9, the Elections Act, Bill C-10 is also virtually anti-democratic.

The scope of the bill, as it relates to fishing, aquaculture and transportation, is such that changes to any schedule should require an act of parliament. Affected communities would be at the whim of the minister. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage a free reign to create unlimited advisory committees for each marine conservation area.

Limitations on the size and structure of each committee should have been established in the legislation. Will the committee that hears the bill allow these limits and rules to be established? I doubt it very much.

These advisory committees would give the government an opportunity for patronage in the way membership is composed and would serve no other purpose than that of a rubber stamp under the guise of public consultation. What we have here is yet another job creation program for failed Liberal election candidates and their supporters.

If marine wildlife and ecosystems are to be protected, park wardens should have exclusive jurisdiction in the enforcement of laws and regulations relating to each conservation area. Unfortunately, wardens are increasingly finding that they cannot do a proper job due to interference from Ottawa.

The decision by Parks Canada management to transfer responsibilities from park wardens to law enforcement agencies like the RCMP is Ottawa's way of centralizing tight fisted control away from the frontline officers who have the practical experience to know what does and does not work in Canada's national parks. What a shame.

The bill is a mess. It is as much an assault on our environment as an assault on the stakeholders in the regions that will be affected by it. My heart goes out to my colleague the Canadian Alliance heritage critic because I cannot see how the bill can be fixed or amended during committee stage.

On the one hand, the bill is not required because everything it does can already be done under regulations. On the other hand, it is a power grab by the minister and should be stopped 100%. Those concerned about preserving the environment can see that after 13 years of trying to bring the bill forward for debate in the House the government does not care about the environment.

I hope the bill looks significantly different when it comes back before the House following committee hearings. However, knowing the government's record, I doubt it. I hope the minister's secret agenda of power grabbing is exposed. I hope Canadians see clearly how little the government cares about the environment.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again on Bill C-10, which is going through another life cycle. At the beginning of the 36th parliament it was Bill C-48 and at the end of the 36th parliament it became Bill C-8.

I was pleased to be critic at the time for Canadian heritage and I spent some time on the bill. However it now rises again. These things seem to die on the order paper fairly regularly. The bill originated in 1988 when the Mulroney government introduced the National Parks Act that would permit the establishment of marine parks.

I will not go through all the details but I will hit a few high points about the intent of the legislation. I do not think anyone in the House or across the country would disagree that environmental protection and sustainability are paramount. Whether they pertain to national parks, marine areas or regulating the pollution of large companies, environmental protection and sustainable development are very important issues.

However these issues do not fall specifically within the jurisdictional power of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We talk about ecosystems, fish, aquaculture and so on. It would be wise to place some of the responsibility for these issues with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We could then talk about the Department of the Environment and how important it is to look at environmental sustainability in the whole area of marine conservation parks.

I also sense frustration with the amount of input parliament would have. I am not sure if this place is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Bill C-10 would pare down anything parliament would have to say on the issue. It would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the authority to create marine conservation areas on crown land without going through the normal legislative process. The question is, why bother with this place at all? Cabinet might as well get together, have coffee, bring up an order in council and throw a dart and pick a marine conservation area.

A lot of people and advisory committees have done an incredible amount of work on this issue. I have seen the maps and the areas and they seem well thought out. However the whole idea of going to cabinet and just zipping something through in a morning session, or maybe not even that long, maybe even before coffee, is no good. The House of Commons is where such debate should take place.

We know in the years we have been here that the amount of discussion and the power of parliament itself has been pared down. Members have also witnessed incredible growth in government. Budgets have ballooned. The debt has certainly ballooned and hopefully we are starting to control that. The annual deficit is somewhat under control. That is probably a good start.

Let us look at the amount of governing that would occur under marine conservations areas. Once a marine conservation area is established the minister may maintain and operate the facilities, conduct scientific research and monitor and carry out studies based on traditional ecological knowledge of the areas.

That is a nice tidy sentence. We can all guess where it may lead. It could lead to mushrooming bureaucracies, advisory committees and all kinds of studies and scientific research. Such things are essential but if they are not monitored they could fly loose. The legislation could be an entity unto itself. When members see the mushroom cloud it places under the government, a cloud with no checks or balances that will only get bigger and bigger, they should be careful.

This whole area unnecessarily expands the minister's domain to areas that fall outside her ministerial responsibility. The minister talks about marine conservation areas, which is again a nice thought and something that perhaps needs to happen sooner or later to a degree, but it is by order in council and should be under DFO control as much as anything else.

What about the Minister of the Environment? The bill would require the heritage minister to establish a management plan for marine conservation, ecosystem protection, human use and zoning. Somewhere in there surely the Minister of the Environment and his department should be involved. We then start saying that it is this department or that department and the whole thing blows loose because it gets bigger and bigger rather than adopting tighter checks and balances.

In addition, each marine conservation area would require the establishment of a management advisory committee to review and implement management plans. For every marine park or conservation area there needs to be a whole advisory committee. I am not necessarily questioning the wisdom of that. A lot of people have a lot of expertise in the area and I do not. I certainly respect the ability of advisory committees to review and implement plans.

However where does it stop? That is the question. This thing will get bigger and bigger. There must be rules and regulations and the government needs to come forward with them. Unfortunately we see no checks and balances in this piece of legislation.

Ministers have all kinds of power, which we have certainly seen. I could digress and talk about Bill C-15, the enormous omnibus justice bill, but there is no point in getting into that right now. It is certainly before the House. It is an unbelievable piece of legislation and an example of phenomenal ministerial power. I hope it gets chunked down into bite size pieces so we can deal with each section on its own.

Regarding ministerial powers and perhaps overuse of powers, the minister states that commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. I would like an expert to tell us those things rather than the minister.

In the last bill we talked about whether the minister would be able to curtail or eliminate commercial flights over marine conservation areas. What would that do to small charter companies that fly over the ocean three-quarters of their lives on the B.C. straits?

The clauses would allow commercial fishing according to the minister's will. All aquaculture fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety plans would then be subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Heritage. Do we not see the thing getting bigger and bigger? It looks like mushrooming to me.

The whole idea of putting regulations into place is essential. However, how do we enforce them? We have seen all kinds of legislation over the years where regulations were put in place and not enforced. How do we enforce regulations? That is the frustration we see with the National Parks Act.

My colleague talked about Kootenay Park, Banff, Jasper and Yoho. The parallel is that the National Parks Act does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law. Park wardens drive around in their brown trucks. We see them all the time. I live very close to Elk Island National Park. It is 45 minutes east of my home in Edmonton. Lew and I ride out there a lot. We see park wardens and we know they are people we ought to respect.

I am a law-abiding citizen. When I see the rangers' authority I do not try to pull anything on them. We have gone around and around the block in the House about sidearms for park rangers. If a person is up to no good or wants to poach moose, elk or bison, they know park wardens are fairly powerless. The government is very irresponsible in terms of the National Parks Act.

The parallel can then be drawn: What would the government do with the marine conservation act? The director of Parks Canada has suggested allowing the RCMP to get involved. That is good, but there are lots of parks where the RCMP is more than a 12 minute drive away. Park wardens should have all the power and authority vested in them by the government and the minister to protect both wildlife and public safety.

For marine conservation acts the record is not stellar. We must ask what would happen. Would people be chased around in boats? Is that what enforcing the regulations would come to?

Let us look at the history of the legislation. This is the third swing around. Who knows when it might get passed? Is the government really committed to the legislation? It has died on the order paper a couple of times, as I mentioned. Will we put regulations in place that the minister will live by, or is this a grandiose plan that will not be enforced?

Many think parliament is irrelevant. A proposed amendment structure in the legislation would allow 20 days for amendments and a three hour debate on them. Such amendments may affect shipping lanes, commercial fishing, sport fishing, aquaculture, commercial flights, and who knows what. Recreational boating may not be allowed in some areas. If an amendment is put forward there would be only three hours to debate it. That is almost an admission that parliament is irrelevant and does not matter. Decisions would be made around the cabinet table.

The legislation would severely limit the ability of parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas are set up. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage free rein to create unlimited advisory committees for each marine conservation area. We know where that could go when people are absolutely unchecked.

Limitations on the size and structure of each committee must be established in the legislation. We need to make sure the parameters are in place. If we get an unlimited number of people with unlimited amounts of salary, and it looks like a big pot out of which we can draw cash, we all know that it could go on for a very long time. It may need to be studied for a little longer and, because it is important, we may need to bring in 15 experts. The thing needs some parameters in place but unfortunately we are not seeing that at this time.

I will wrap up by drawing a parallel with the land national parks and some of the things going on there. The parks of Banff and Jasper are absolutely glorious. They have a lot of building projects going on. The minister took her first swing out to those parks last summer or the summer before and was able to see first hand how fabulous these parks are and how important it is that we balance economic and sustainable development with environmental protection.

We want to make sure there is a balance in nature. We may not be able to please both sides of the equation but if I want to go to a park or spend money on a hotel or in a restaurant, I want to be able to do that. If I have the money to go camping in Jasper Park, I want to be able to go there and enjoy the pristine wilderness, have a campfire outside my camper and enjoy the campground. I am not sure that anyone ought to be telling me that I cannot do that.

It would be the same if we were talking about a marine conservation area. It is important that I am able to make use of that area but at the same time I do not want heavyhanded regulations. I want wisdom, not advisory committees. This may sound foolish, coming around in boats, but there needs to be absolute common sense from the government. I do not think we see that to this extent with some of the things I have discussed. I hope the government takes into account, when it swings through the legislation again, that too many rules and regulations certainly are unwise. At the same time, this just cannot be an open can or basket for people to help themselves.

I am really nervous about the fact that the minister would have far too much power and that it would be essential for joint ministries to work together. If we look at heritage we see that we have a marvellous heritage. We can also look at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. I certainly hope that no one is just trying to make a legacy for themselves. That would surely be unwise and people would be able to see right through that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 to create national marine conservation areas in Canada. This bill comes back to us under a different form that during the last parliament.

First, I must say that the Bloc is in favour of measures aimed at protecting the environment. Speaking of that, we can all recall how successful the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was. It ought to have served as a model for this bill to ensure that the necessary consultations were carried out so that, in the end, the measures taken and the management of the marine conservation areas respect the various jurisdictions and the initiatives taken by the various governments.

We have examples of this, such as Vision 2000 and other projects where the jurisdictions were taken into account and where some interesting results have been achieved.

In this case, is it because it is a more general bill, a kind of umbrella act, which will establish a general framework for the management of marine conservation areas, that the consultations do not seem to have been carried out appropriately and to respect what we would like to seeas the bottom line? To those of us on this side, the consultations do not seem to have been carried out properly and do not seem to respect what we would like to see as the bottom line.

As I said earlier, instead of focusing on collaborative efforts, as was the case for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, with this bill the federal government will have the right to create marine conservation areas without regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and its environment.

In addition to having a problem with the provinces as far as jurisdiction is concerned, there are also areas within the bill that are not very clear as far as the future relationship between Heritage Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada is concerned. We have experienced certain rather patent examples of difficulties with Heritage Canada, in connection with management of the ecosystem. This does not necessarily strike us as being very promising for the future.

For example, there is the overlap and duplication of Fisheries and Oceans-protected and Environment Canada-protected zones. This means that, even within the federal government, there is no clear vision of marine area management, because several departments are involved. The wording of this bill does not seem to reflect what we might have expected in terms of qualifying the situation. What we have instead is something that requires more time and more work.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill unacceptable in its present form. It does not respect the territorial integrity of Quebec. For example, one of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the area is to be established. One of the clauses relating to this states that the minister cannot establish a marine conservation area, unless, and I quote:

—the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area, other than such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada;

We see in this, therefore, an approach very different from that used, as I was saying earlier, in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, where the government agreed to respect provincial ownership of the riverbed and, thus, build a model that was unique and that respected the jurisdictions of each.

We know that, under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the management and sale of crown lands are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The bill before us does not totally respect this jurisdiction.

In addition, the same Constitution Act provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government and can only authorize the federal government, by order, to use them under its federal jurisdiction. Finally, the protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.

I think that, in the context of the consultations, it would have been a good idea to take this plan into consideration, in order to achieve a successful outcome in the end. We spoke of examples of the right of way of doing things. I mentioned the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, but there is the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan, another example to follow.

In 1998, the federal and Quebec ministers of the environment announced the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan, representing a total bill of $230 million to be shared equally by both levels of government. One of the objectives of this action plan is to increase the area of protected habitats by 100% from 12,000 hectares to 120,000 hectares. The third phase follows on the first two phases, in which both governments invested over $300 million.

This co-operation we find in specific projects such as the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan, we would also liked to find it in the present bill. On reading it, we did not.

Another important consideration is the fact that jurisdiction over the environment is shared, and so both the provinces and the federal government have responsibilities for it.

For example, section 91 of the Constitution Act provides that “the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,—...Navigation and Shipping...Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals...Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries...Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces”.

This basically sums up the content of the Constitution Act, 1867, as regards the federal government's responsibility.

Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in certain sections of the British North America Act, including section 92, which reads:

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say—...The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon...Property and Civil Rights in the Province...Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

So, some co-ordination is required to ensure that the federal acts respect this jurisdiction. The Constitution Act, 1867, also states that:

In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to ( a ) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; ( b ) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom—

Clearly, this bill should involve some kind of partnership that does not currently exist.

The example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park could have been followed as an essential condition to the creation of marine conservation areas, as far as land ownership is concerned. If the bill is passed as it now stands, the federal government could set up marine conservation areas on the seabed that it claims as its property and ignore Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment.

This is not satisfactory for the Bloc Quebecois and it also breaks a tradition I referred to earlier, a tradition of co-operation, which could have led to the establishment of interesting programs.

It is all the more frustrating and questionable, because this is framework legislation, which will define the way the federal government will act in this field. The government is proposing new principles as far as respect of mutual jurisdictions is concerned.

It seems that the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of Environment Canada. This covers a lot of territory.

We could for example end up with one site with several zonings, each one of these departments considering that there is, according to its own criteria, a marine reserve or marine protection area for Fisheries and Ocean Canada, a marine reserve for Environment Canada or a marine conservation area for Heritage Canada. Then, in each of these cases, there would be three monitoring levels, three jurisdictions for three different departments.

Perhaps I could give an example. If Heritage Canada felt that certain wrecks in the St. Lawrence River had a historic role that deserved to be recognized and the environment was part of the conservation area, but Environment Canada wanted this same location recognized as a marine reserve for fauna, and there were a contradiction between the two, it is clear that the bill does not contain the desired logic to settle the matter.

Is it not fair to wonder today whether, ultimately, this bill will not create even more confusion?

We believe that it will. We believe that the fact that the bill allows each of the federal departments to maintain its jurisdiction over marine conservation areas may end up creating total confusion. As we explained earlier, with three departments having jurisdiction and being able to define marine conservation areas according to their own different objectives, the final results might not be consistent.

The bill also provides that, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate, it may, in co-operation with the minister concerned, pass regulations, in respect of a marine conservation area, which differ from the existing provisions. In such a case, the amendment arrived at between Heritage Canada and the minister concerned takes precedence over the other regulations passed under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Aeronautics Act.

In other words, despite the fact that this is framework legislation, there is provision for the Department of Canadian Heritage, through its minister, to negotiate a piecemeal situation such as this, when it deems appropriate, and for the results to take precedence over all the legislation mentioned.

This discretion should be controlled very differently to make sure that it will not lead to squabbles between departments. It would also be subject to a change in ministers. If a minister from the Atlantic or the Pacific region has his own priorities in that area, he could use his powers under the act to put pressure on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or another minister, to demand some kind of acknowledgment of marine conservation areas not included in the planning by existing departments.

This section of the bill provides for a fourth way to create marine conservation areas, very specifically, on a case by case basis. I do not believe that framework legislation should provide for something like that.

We are all the more concerned by this situation that in the past there has been very severe criticism from the auditor general, among others, about the inability of Heritage Canada to protect ecosystems in existing national parks. Now that they want to get involved in marine conservation areas, are we going to be faced with the same kind of situation?

Very concrete examples can be found in chapter 31 of the auditor general's report, which states:

In the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete.

The report states further:

Although monitoring the ecological integrity of the ecosystems in national parks is a high priority according to Parks Canada policies and guidelines, in many national parks the Department has not monitored ecological conditions on a regular, continuing basis.

How can we trust a department that was the subject of such comments in relation to existing parks, when there are plans to establish new parks in an even more unclear situation, where the government will not be accountable for its actions?

In another comment, the auditor general said:

In almost all of the parks visited by the auditor general, there was no link between business plans and management plans.

In the end, it meant a lack of co-ordination in the activities listed in the business plans to make the parks better known and help them reach their public, as well as in day to day management, to make sure the services that are in demand and that are offered to the public can be provided. If park visitors do not get this kind of service, it is inappropriate to give this responsibility to a department which has had big problems in the past.

Last spring, the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks made its report public and urged the government to put ecological integrity back in the centre of its missions. The panel found that the integrity of ecosystems was at risk.

For example, the panel found that, in some national parks, the stress on the resource was so great that some species were disappearing. All the more so in marine areas, where we can have this type of situation if they are is not properly managed.

In Fundy park, in New Brunswick, three species have disappeared since the park was created, in the 1940s. Only one of the 39 national parks of Canada does not experience this stress. The situation is worse than what the panel of scientists expected.

Given all this information, one really has to wonder how Parks Canada will manage to preserve the marine areas of conservation, when it does not seem to have the wherewithal to protect existing parks.

There are more reasons to oppose this bill. Consultations before the introduction of the bill have been more or less a failure. A consultation paper was made public and sent to 3,000 groups across Canada, but unfortunately there has been no real consultation on the report.

For example, the Bloc Quebecois had asked for a copy of the 300-page report, which was really only 73 pages long, the large majority of which constituted the reply-coupon joined to the consultation paper. That was very succinct as a consultation result. We could hardly use it to improve the bill.

We must also realize that the decision concerns the fishing industry, which is in turmoil. In the past, we have witnessed tremendous failures in the federal policy dealing with stock management. Entire areas of Quebec and Canada saw their regional economy suffer badly.

Clause 10(1) of the bill states, and I quote:

10.(1) The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies ... in the development of marine conservation area policy—

How are they going to ensure that there will be consultation in the fisheries area in order to avoid an unacceptable outcome, when we are already aware of the failure of the federal fisheries stock management policy?

The way this bill is worded, the information given does not provide assurance, despite reassurances by departmental officials, that the objective will be attained, i.e. that marine conservation areas will be better protected. We have no assurance that Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected.

When the application of this bill is reviewed in another five, ten or fifteen years, we will probably find it was just one more failure. This review will probably show that the Bloc Quebecois was justified in what it has said about the bill being passed within a context of insufficient consultation of the provinces and insufficient co-ordination by the various federal departments involved. By then, we will have one or two examples available in which the discretionary power conferred upon the minister will have been used to solve problems in a specific region, not necessarily within the spirit of the law.

Given all these facts, the Bloc Quebecois invites the House to vote against the bill. We do not feel it is acceptable at this stage.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of Bill C-10 without a doubt is a very laudable intent. In taking a look at the condition of our oceans and waterways, not only in Canada but indeed around the world, the environment has to be protected. There can be absolutely no question about that. There are many areas of degradation which have occurred and continue to occur.

The intent of the bill is a good one. Coming as it does though under the auspices of the heritage department, we have some idea of what the heritage department is capable of doing, particularly with respect to preservation in parks. We therefore have an idea of some of the challenges that face the department, indeed some of the challenges that have been created by the department for people who also have the laudable intent to protect the environment under parks.

We should briefly take a look at the template or pattern we have. We know Canada's oldest national park, Banff National Park, is under a tremendous amount of pressure, created in no small part by human beings. The resulting pressure, which has been created to the changes of the flora and the fauna, has impacted the wildlife in the area. What has been the response of the park and what is some of the history relative to Banff and indeed the four mountain parks?

If we look at the history of Heritage Canada and Parks Canada, we again realize that with laudable intent they have attempted to create a situation where we could have interaction among human beings and the flora, fauna and wildlife in the parks.

In trying to create that situation, they have taken action which has allowed the build up of ski hills, riding and walking trails and a whole tourist infrastructure over a period of time. If we look at Banff Park as an example, believe it or not the town site generates almost three quarters of a billion dollars a year in gross domestic product. It is a gigantic amount of money which comes into Canada, and in no small part from Europe and particularly from the U.S.

In developing the projects around the park, care was taken over a period of time to get a proper balance to ensure that the park would be preserved for future generations of Canadians. What has occurred though, and it has become clear, is that some of the provisions to take into account the pressure which this would create on the environment within the park have some distinct deficiencies. As a consequence, some gapping holes have been left in what was formerly the very pristine wilderness area, not the least of which of course is the location of the town site of Banff itself. This has a direct bearing.

Under Bill C-10, Parks Canada would be responsible for the enactment for the use of the legislation. As a consequence, if we look at the way it has its work historically on land, what would the results be in terms of marine conservation area?

First, it is a fact that, if we were to take a species like the grizzly within the confines of Banff Park, clearly the habitat of the grizzly has been very seriously negatively impacted. As a consequence there are fewer and fewer grizzlies in that area. Furthermore, with the number of visitors going into Banff Park it is undesirable that there would be an increased amount of interaction between grizzlies and human beings. The two are simply not compatible.

What does that mean relative to Bill C-10? If we look at the number of interests with respect to ocean and Great Lakes areas, we will find that commercial and recreational interests are already in place in many of these situations.

In trying to come to an accommodation of the environment, the flora, fauna and the animals contained within a park, it strikes me that Parks Canada has swung the pendulum absolutely to the opposite end of the spectrum. Instead of now saying we have created the situation where human beings, tourists, from all five continents can come and enjoy what we have, because of these experiences there will be a cost to the wildlife in the area. There is a very strong swing to the entire idea of absolute conservation.

There has been a movement to ban any human interaction into the back country within the four mountain parks of Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay. Yoho and Kootenay are parks that are in my constituency. These back country areas basically account for 90% of the park. If we look at it through a very simplistic lens, it is probably a commendable thing to do, but it really is not because it does a couple of things.

It means that there is far more pressure brought into the remaining 10% of the park with far more wear and tear. I will give an example. Many of us have carpets in our homes or we have seen carpets in commercial areas. If we had people walking over the entire carpet it may last for many years, even 50, 60 or 70 years. Theoretically a carpet could last that long even with a great number of people walking over the entire area. The problem is if we confine them to only 10% of that area we have wear marks and have to replace the entire carpet.

That may be a weak analogy, but it presents a picture of what is currently happening within our park structure. With the correct intention of not wanting interaction in the back country human interaction in over 90% of the area would be excluded. That is a very laudable objective, but it has not been fully thought out because of the wear and tear on the last 10%.

We are trying to learn from what we are doing on land within Parks Canada to see how we might apply these things when it comes to lakes, rivers and oceans. The difficulty is that under the legislation there is a sufficient amount of discretion on the part of the government. We may see government whims gaining speed and decisions swinging back and forth like a pendulum.

People have some very legitimate concerns and a commitment to preserving what we have in terms of aquifer, species, flora and fauna that exist below the surface of the water. These people share the concern of Parks Canada and governments. They are saying that if we have not learned how to correctly do what we need to do on land, what will we be doing with respect to the parks or the water area?

I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton North. Taking a look at intent is one thing, but we should also keep in mind the legislation and history. For example, we created a situation in Kootenay National Park, which is in my constituency, that does not make any sense. At one point there was no road there. The road I am referring to is now called Banff-Windermere Highway 93-97. It ends up circling its way down from Lake Louise, up over Storm Mountain, down into the Kootenay River, up over the top and into Windermere.

There is a bottleneck at Sinclair Canyon, which is right between Radium Hot Springs and the town of Radium itself. Sinclair Canyon is exceptionally narrow and only wide enough for a two lane highway. As a matter of fact a river went through the canyon that has rock going about 200 to 300 feet straight up in the air. We put in a two lane highway at that particular point and had to dig the river underneath the highway.

When the national parks built Radium Hot Springs, it encouraged service providers and private industry to build chalets, bungalows and tourist accommodations so people could enjoy the hot springs. These people have ended up having a constant, neverending battle that has been increasing in noise to the point where they are now talking about removing those facilities at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Why? They say it is because it is a wildlife corridor.

It could not have been a wildlife corridor in the past, particularly for the larger animals, without the highway there. Putting in the highway meant that the animals could now, at very low traffic times, walk back and forth through Sinclair Canyon while dodging the 18-wheelers and the ore trucks.

We will be spending $4 million to $6 million to buy out the tourist service providers. These service providers are people who have been paying taxes and fees to Parks Canada. Not only will we spend $4 million to $6 million to remove those facilities but in addition we will lose the revenue from the facilities once we have removed them. This is the concern that I have with Bill C-10.

I realize this will be the fifth or sixth time that I have said this but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the Canadian Alliance is in favour of the intent of Bill C-10. The difficulty is that once the bill is enacted it would be under the control of Parks Canada which has a history of not managing its assets very well.

For example, there are people on the Queen Charlotte Islands who have seen the establishment of a park on the islands. They have also seen the husbandry of the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the west coast trail and all these things. Parks Canada's track record makes people concerned and nervous about the commercial access to the Pacific Ocean, and I understand their nervousness. It does not have a good track record of consistency and of following through on a prescribed course of action.

I have consistently accused Parks Canada of using the word consultation as a noun instead of a verb. It says that it had consultation. No, it did not. It came out and let people talk but it had already made up its mind. Consultation is a noun, not a verb. It is not a form of action. On the basis of the history of Parks Canada, it is with a tremendous amount of trepidation and concern that we look at Bill C-10.

There are literally hundreds of examples but I would like to present one or two more.

Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba has an area with a lot of natural grasses. Back in 1910 someone decided to plant some spruce trees. Those spruce trees did very well and grew to be very tall, straight, clear spruce. This wood is almost priceless. Each tree is counted in the thousands of dollars. Then some people from Parks Canada said that the trees did not really belong there, that we should get rid of them. Not only did they chop them down and uproot them, they burned them. Does that make sense? Hundreds of thousands of dollars in trees were chopped up for firewood so the grasslands could be restored.

Let us assume that the Creator did not intend there to be trees there and that someone planted them. By the same token, we could go to Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, which is an absolute wonder. It is a wonderful place to go and I recommend it to all Canadians if they want to see something absolutely spectacular and be treated wonderfully by the people in Rocky Harbour and Corner Brook. The park has moose like we have never seen before. Mr. Speaker, I know you have very large moose in your constituency but we could have a contest with these moose. They are that big and there are about 7,000 moose.

Gros Morne is kind of interesting. It is like the top of a mountain that has been taken off. It is perfect moose country full of marshland. In its brilliance, in the same way that someone planted the spruce trees, Parks Canada decided to import moose to Newfoundland, a place they should never have been. As a consequence, Gros Morne is literally being eaten into extinction by the moose.

Someone said that there should be a culling of the moose. Heaven forbid, we could never do that. Parks Canada can chop down the trees and burn up invaluable wood, but it cannot have anything to do with the management of that area because moose are animals that walk on the earth. The inconsistency of Parks Canada in its management, as I stated, gives us great pause for concern with respect to Bill C-10.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-10.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10, the marine conservation areas act. I do so as a supporter of parks and marine conservation. Yet I have serious doubts about the bill, as do many people involved in the marine industry in British Columbia including environmentalists.

In a recent conversation with one environmentalist from British Columbia it was pointed out to me that the best approach to protecting our marine environment was good fisheries management. Marine protected areas create little zoos and make us feel good, but good fisheries management is the best way to go. Marine protected areas are no substitute for good fisheries management.

There have been discussions in other jurisdictions in the world on these marine protected areas. I would like to read a short newspaper article from the February 1999 issue of Fishermen's News published in Seattle, entitled “Marine Reserves: Friend or Foe”. It reads:

The effectiveness of existing MPAs in the US should be assessed. A whole lot of MPAs already exist, particularly in California, but nobody knows whether they are having any impact. A thorough and science based review needs to take place of all existing marine protected areas and the myriad of already existing `no-fishing zones' along the California coast and elsewhere to determine their effectiveness for either: (a) providing baseline research information; (b) protecting critical marine habitats, or, (c) protecting specific marine fish or ecosystems. This review should be undertaken by a panel, including marine scientists, appropriate fishery agency representatives, knowledgeable commercial and sport fishermen, and knowledgeable marine conservation representatives. This review should include a report with recommendations for each existing MPA and no-fishing zone as to their effectiveness, whether there should be any changes in regulations or boundaries, and whether each should be maintained, reduced, expanded or eliminated.

That is a good recommendation, which our government would have done well to follow before it proceeded with the legislation.

What is the object of the bill? Is it marine conservation or merely the creation of marine parks? I am concerned that it is the latter, that it has little to do with conservation and much to do with the creation of marine parks.

I am concerned that the bill is only a further signal that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given up on marine conservation and protection. Canada does not need a few marine zoos with the rest of her marine ecosystem laid waste by a failure to manage the marine resource.

Canada has fundamentally sound legislation to protect the marine environment, namely the Fisheries Act. The government has failed to enforce either the letter or spirit of this environmentally powerful act. It is considered one of the best pieces of environmental legislation in the world. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act prohibits any activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. In section 36 it specifically prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance of any kind in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any water frequented by fish.

At this very moment the minister of fisheries is working to dumb down these sections of the Fisheries Act that were designed to protect the marine environment. The minister of fisheries wants to make the marine fisheries act aquaculture friendly, forgetting that it was designed to protect fish rather than to promote an industrial activity that if not carefully regulated could destroy the fishery.

Last week in Halifax the minister's Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Yves Bastien, said that the Fisheries Act and its regulations “were not drafted with aquaculture in mind and this causes significant problems both for the industry and the regulators”.

The Fisheries Act is not now nor was it ever intended to be an aquaculture promotion act. It causes problems for aquaculture because the government refuses to implement siting regulations that would prohibit locating farms in areas that would threaten productive lobster and other shellfish beds, prohibit locating farms near the mouths of fish bearing streams or in the migration route of migratory species such as salmon or would prohibit the use of lights at night that attract and disrupt migratory species. Without clear ground rules that are consistent with the Fisheries Act, the aquaculture industry will not be sustainable either in British Columbia or in the maritime provinces.

The government has called aquaculture the industry of the future. Until the fin fish aquaculture industry has clear and effective rules prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish and can abide by them, it is merely another polluting and environmentally destructive industry, an industry without a past or a future.

Canadians want seafood that is safe to eat and clean drinkable water. The two go hand in hand. Seafood grown without chemicals are a food of the future and part of any industry of the future. The commercial fishery is an industry of the future with a past that reaches back to the earliest days of exploration and settlement.

Aquaculture will also be an industry of the future when the government puts in place regulations consistent with the spirit and intent of the Fisheries Act. We have not arrived there yet.

Only a few months ago the auditor general tabled in parliament a report entitled “The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”. The auditor general advised parliament that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department were not meeting their legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild Pacific salmon and habitat from the effects of salmon farming.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the auditor general found, was not ensuring that salmon farms were monitored for the effects on fish and fish habitat with a view to enforcing the Fisheries Act. “The department”, he said, “is not currently monitoring effects on marine habitat or on juvenile or adult Pacific salmon in the vicinity of net cages”. According to the auditor general, fisheries and oceans scientists drafted siting criteria in 1985 but never enacted them.

Much of Canada's water is neither fit for the survival of fish nor for human consumption. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has failed to enforce the Fisheries Act prohibition against dumping. Too often municipalities, industry and forest cutting operations have been allowed to undertake activities that have led to the destruction of the marine environment.

The Fisheries Act is not designed to protect our drinking water but if enforced it makes the job of providing safe drinking water to Canadians much easier. If the Government of Canada were serious about protecting the marine environment, its first priority would be conservation and protection of our marine resources.

Setting aside a few marine parks may be well intentioned but it is not in itself a serious conservation measure. We already have under the Oceans Act the authority to establish marine protected areas. When such marine protected areas are established the first question that must be identified is: What are we trying to protect? Then, what measures must be undertaken to protect it?

Under this marine conservation areas act, large areas along our coastline would be set aside, not because there was a species in need of protection, if there were the fisheries act or marine protected area under their oceans act could be used. No, the marine conservation areas act is about setting aside large so-called representative areas.

I am concerned that these areas will become like land based national parks, no go areas for fishermen, men and women whose livelihood depends on the conservation and protection of the marine resource. Without fishermen on the water in these no fish zones there is likely to be rampant poaching, hardly an effective conservation measure.

Abalone fishing has been prohibited for the past decade, but the species has not returned because poaching has continued on unabated. One of the most effective measures for knowing the state of fishing stocks is to have fishermen fishing.

While the parks minister might deny that these marine conservations areas will become no take zones for fishermen, Bill C-10 appears designed to do just that. For example, in section 4 we are told that marine conservation areas are established for the purpose of protecting and conserving representative marine areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world. No mention is made of fishermen. If the areas really were intended to be multi-use areas we would see specific mention of fishermen in such a section.

The parks minister is required in section 10 to consult with the provinces, affected coastal communities and aboriginal organizations established under a land claims agreement. No reference is made to those whose livelihood depends on the resource. Fishermen are not at the table.

If it were intended that fishing was to continue, fishermen would be listed in section 10. The same is true for section 11 and so on. Section 11 requires for each marine conservation area that the parks minister establish a management advisory committee to advise the minister on the formulation, review and implementation of the management plan for the area.

Fishermen have been excluded from the act and I am concerned it will not be long before they are excluded from marine conservation areas. If I were convinced the bill would consider fishing and fishermen a legitimate activity and recognized fishermen's constitutional and common law right to fish, the bill would have my enthusiastic support.

I would support any action that would lead to rigorous conservation and protection of the marine resource and recognize the objectives of good fisheries management.

According to a recent series of articles on the advantage of marine protected areas in the Vancouver Sun by Larry Pynn, it would appear that is the case with the large marine protected areas around Australia's Great Barrier Reef. We are told that fishermen there are an integral part of the management regime with 95% of the area open to fishing.

That is not the case with our proposed marine parks act. We must have legislation that will require marine protected areas or conservation areas to develop reasons and scientifically defensible criteria for any and all areas of no-take zones in the marine environment which are over and above the regular management measures taken by DFO under the fisheries act.

Under Bill C-10 fishermen would have no place at the table. There is no recognition of their dependence on the resource. In addition if they are shut out of a marine conservation area there is no recognition of their financial loss and no recognition that they must be compensated.

When Parks Canada creates a land based park, there is no question that any private owners or crown tenure holders on the land are compensated, either a fee simple purchase of the land or buying out of the value associated with tenures such as timber or traffic. Just because marine resources are considered by some to be a common property resource, as are trees on crown land, does not mean that fishermen who have licenses to harvest marine areas do not experience an economic loss and are not entitled to compensation for that loss.

Fishermen must be compensated for any exclusion from licensed harvesting areas resulting from the creation of no take zones in marine conservation areas.

We are told Australian fishermen were compensated for the small area they lost in the Great Barrier Reef marine protection or conservation area.

A requirement for compensating losses is absent from Bill C-10. This would be unthinkable in a land-based park. Why is it not being considered in the marine environment?

Parks Canada has identified areas for the establishment of large marine conservation areas in the Queen Charlottes and the central and south coasts of British Columbia, all areas of significant fishing.

Let me identify several failures of marine conservation management. Let us consider if this bill would deal with these problems. If it did it would have my support.

A fisheries management failure is often camouflaged as a result of climate change, when in fact it is merely a management failure. I am thinking of the near collapse of Fraser River sockeye stocks.

Government ministers and DFO, in particular, blamed the collapse of sockeye on climate change that has caused, they said, changes in the water temperature and the like in the north Pacific. An internal DFO document reports documented evidence that there had been a management failure on the Fraser camouflaged as an environmental failure. Let me refer to the DFO report which, as I said, supports my contention.

The report entitled “Unsanctioned, Partially Monitored First Nations Fisheries on the Fraser River: A Conservation Risk”. The report warned the department that its failure to account for illegal or “unsanctioned fishing represents an egregious affront to salmon conservation”.

The report examined DFO's failure to account for the significant numbers of sockeye that were illegally caught on the Fraser River between Mission and Sawmill Creek. It said that the department had failed in the year 2000 to account for the illegally caught fish due to political and budget reasons.

The report documented how over the past several years that unsanctioned and unquantified in river catch had essentially added to the en route mortality account, the estimated number of fish that died en route to the spawning grounds from natural stress and temporary contact with fishing gear.

It came to the startling conclusion that this consistent failure to account for illegally caught fish together with the misleading practice of lumping them in with en-route mortalities:

—may be wrongly inflating the perceived significance of environmental effects on rates of migration mortality (an area receiving considerable attention since the 1994 Fraser River Public Review Board report).

The report said:

Overall, it is crucial to have a complete picture of catch to determine whether realised catch levels (by all user groups) are consistent with the achievement of desired spawning escapement goals—the fundamental measure of conservation success.

It also said that the estimate of total unsanctioned catch between Mission and Sawmill Creek on the Fraser for the weeks ending June 11th through September 10th was 30,952 sockeye.

The report said that Indian bands fishing in the Cheam and Yale First Nation areas caught 23,415 of these fish, 76% of the unsanctioned catch.

It further said:

Underestimating catch contributes to an underestimate of stock abundance, underestimating rates of exploitation, and difficulty validating and improving in-season abundance estimation that are crucial for implementing fishing plans and successfully achieving spawning escapement goals.

The report observed that conservation and protection that Officers adopted a more passive policy towards unsanctioned sockeye fishing in 2000, seizing fewer nets than previous years, especially 1999, despite valid conservation concerns for co-migrating species such as coho. It said that this was true especially true in the area fished around the Cheam First Nation band.

British Columbians are often presented with a particularly confusing picture of salmon stocks, the state of salmon habitat, and the health of fish populations generally, according to the report. Reasonable and simple questions about the state of the fish and fish habitat in British Columbia are often met with contradictory and confusing answers. Unsanctioned fishing activity is unsanctioned expressly because the fishery is closed to ensure long run conservation of various migrating fish stocks.

Canadians have a right to know about any substantial illegal fishing activity by any user group. Unsanctioned fishing is an area that receives little public attention despite the potentially serious consequences to the status of some stocks.

I could go on and talk not only on the issue in British Columbia but also on the problem of maintaining adequate lobster stocks on the east coast, especially in the area of Burnt Church.

I will quote a short statement from December 13, 2000 question period briefing note to the Prime Minister. It said:

The Burnt Church and Indian Brook bands have refused to acknowledge the government's right to regulate the fishery...They have, instead, asserted treaty rights claims and, in Burnt Church, put in place a large scale illegal lobster fishery.

The government knew about the problems and yet it blamed them on the environment. It is now putting in place marine protected areas as an excuse for failing to enforce existing fisheries regulations. The minister has the power to protect all the fish habitat and all fish in coastal waters but he is not doing his job. The bill will not help him.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1993, we have indeed witnessed considerable interference by the federal government in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It did not take into account what Quebec had to say concerning areas under its own jurisdiction.

Bill C-10 is a blatant example of the federal government not respecting provincial legislation, in this case Quebec's environmental legislation. I also think there is a certain consensus about this bill.

Other provinces say they are concerned about the federal government's approach. We know that the federal government is often referred to as a centralizing government, not only in Quebec but also in the other provinces. This causes people to become frustrated instead of establishing a dialogue of creating a partnership.

When the federal government says that it wants to negotiate in good faith, it must sit down with the other party or parties, whether the issue concerns a shared or an exclusive jurisdiction. However it does not do that. It announces billions of dollars in spending and legislates. It spends money, but who is footing the bill? All the taxpayers are footing the bill.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since the beginning of the afternoon. Once again, it would appear that a very important issue is being used for other purposes.

Nowadays, the environment is so important for our future generations that we should ensure that it is a primordial issue and a priority and that it is not used for other purposes by the Department of Canadian Heritage, which wants to manage things it has no jurisdiction over.

We are talking about the environment. We are not talking about nationalization or even about propaganda. We do not want this issue to be used for unity purposes either. This is about management of the environment and of public lands.

Section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is clear on this issue: this is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces. This is a jurisdiction of Quebec, and the federal government is trying indirectly to show that it is easy to use such an important bill.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Québec what she will say to her constituents, to the Quebec people, about the infringement on provincial jurisdictions, through Bill C-10.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, which replaces the now defunct Bills C-48 and C-8 dealing with the creation of marine areas, more specifically 28 marine conservation areas.

The Bloc Quebecois is not against protecting the environment, but it is against Bill C-10 for several reasons I will list now.

First, we are opposed to the bill because the federal government is grabbing the power to create marine conservation areas without any regard for provincial jurisdictions. Why is the federal government not consulting the provinces on this, more specifically Quebec, as it did for example with regard to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? Why in the case of Bill C-10 on the establishment of marine conservation areas is it not consulting Quebec and working together with it?

There is another example, phase 3 of the St. Lawrence action plan. There were consultations. Why is it that when it comes to Bill C-10 there was no consultation, which would be desirable and would benefit the population? Although it is being said that the federal government wants to establish marine conservation areas for the benefit of the people and their social life and to help the economy, it is ignoring the government of Quebec and provincial jurisdictions in this area.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes any attempt to duplicate and trivialize Quebec's jurisdictions over the environment, fisheries and oceans.

Again, this goes to show the bad faith of the federal government. When Canadian Heritage is involved, not too much attention is paid to Quebec's jurisdictions and to shared jurisdictions.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has just announced an investment of $500 million in culture. It is typical again of this department: no consideration for provincial jurisdictions and no consultation. It just goes ahead without examining the action plan, if only on culture, with Quebec. Here again, in the marine conservation areas issue, the federal government's way of doing things is there for all to see.

Several witnesses appeared before the committee and said that there would be duplication and that there would be a new structure. The government wants to duplicate even within its own bureaucracy. We are wondering how consistently this bill will be applied.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment are both involved in the protection of the environment. When I talk about duplication inside the federal government, I am referring to these two departments.

How can we accept such a bill when several witness have told us there will be inconsistencies in the way it will be applied and in the management of marine conservation areas? A number of witnesses told us that this made no sense. Among those appearing before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was the vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada.

The Fisheries Council of Canada is a trade association representing provincial fisheries associations in Atlantic Canada and Ontario. He told us:

If there's a need for legislation to establish marine conservation areas, it is our view that such legislation should be incorporated into the recently passed Oceans Act under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is simply inefficient—

These are his words, not mine.

—cumbersome public administration to bring forward this MCA initiative in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department.

We can therefore see that there is duplication, inconsistency and inefficiency to come, if Bill C-10 sees the light of day. He goes on to say:

The fishing industry, for example, is working with the Fisheries and Oceans minister and Fisheries officials regarding development of an oceans strategy for Canada and an approach to the introduction of marine-protected areas. These tasks are the result of the establishment of the Oceans Act in 1996, an act that states that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.

He went on:

Bringing forward this MCA initiative at this time under the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to be administered by officials of Canadian Heritage, undermines the oceans leadership role assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act.

If the challenge for Canadian industry in the milieu of globalization is to be streamlined and efficient, we should be able to demand government structures that are also focused and streamlined. Regardless of the merits of MCAs, of this initiative, the manner in which it is brought forward will lead to confusion, duplication and conflicts in its implementation.

This witness testified at the committee hearings on the defunct Bill C-8, and the government has not really made any changes in Bill C-10. This is nearly exactly what was found in C-8. The witness called for the withdrawal of the bill and added:

The bill should be withdrawn. Discussions should be initiated with officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with a view to bringing forward an amendment to the Oceans Act to specifically provide for the establishment of marine conservation areas, where warranted, as part of Canada's oceans strategy.

Another quote comes from Marc Kielley, the executive director in Newfoundland of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, in February 1999. This is an association representing the interests of regional and sectoral aquaculture associations and their members, who raise fish and shellfish. He said:

Overall, while we respect the need for conservation, we object to the bill for a number of fundamental reasons. At issue: The coming into force of an act to create the national marine conservation areas will result in unnecessary and expensive duplication of existing legislation, specifically the Oceans Act, 1996, as well as the National Parks Act as amended in 1988.

Again, a witness representing the aquaculture industry felt that Bill C-8 should have been withdrawn. Therefore, if Bill C-8 should have been withdrawn, so should Bill C-10, because it is basically headed in the same direction, except for a few changes. The French version of the preamble of C-8 provided that marine areas had to be “représentatives et protégées”, whereas in the new bill, they must be “protégées et représentatives”. This is a very cosmetic amendment that does not deal with the core issue, namely duplication, overlapping and the ineffectiveness of this legislation.

In a number of departments, including two in particular, it would be hard to be consistent in implementing the law. The organization also stated:

So with regard to the implementation of the integrated management plans, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall develop and implement policies and programs with regard to matters assigned by law to the Minister, and shall coordinate with other ministers, boards, and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies and programs of the government with regard to all activities or measures in or affecting coastal waters or marine waters.

Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that Bill...is redundant legislation and, if passed, would only serve to confuse and complicate issues relating to the protection and conservation of marine resources and marine ecosystems.

To empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the MCA initiative effectively undermines the authority and mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as provided for under the provisions of the Oceans Act. This should not be permitted to occur.

What is the difference between a marine protected area and a marine conservation area? How do these two seemingly similar elements fit into the overall tapestry of integrated coastal zone management? What about marine wildlife areas?

So, there are several issues here. It is somewhat in that spirit that we can emphasize the inconsistency of such a bill and its ineffectiveness. A number of people may have difficulties making a decision.

When the minister tells us that this is for the good of people, for the good of the community, from an economic, cultural and social point of view, we wonder.

When credible people, people with a certain amount of expertise on the issue, come and testify, we as parliamentarians are there to analyze the experience behind and the relevance of their recommendations. We always listen in good faith. However it is always disappointing when we see the government dig in its heels with a bill. The government has gone back to the drawing board three times and each time it has come back with a bill that is no different. It has ignored what the witnesses had to say.

I wish to cite what Tom Lee, the Director General of Parks Canada, told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He said:

The marine conservation areas fall under a partnership with other federal departments, basically, under the general direction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes leadership in putting in place the protective and management measures for Canada's oceans. That involves a number of federal departments, and the two other major ones are noted here, Environment and Canadian Heritage.

Once again, there are doubts about Heritage Canada's effectiveness in managing marine conservation areas.

I have here more testimony, this time by Marlon Quinton, a project co-ordinator who appeared before the committee. He said, and I quote:

This brief is submitted to the House of Commons standing committee on behalf of the Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay National Marine Conservation Area Advisory Committee Cooperation.

As a committee, we have held a series of stakeholder meetings to exchange information and obtain feedback on the suitability of the proposed marine park, to date.

He continues:

Stakeholder workshops have been held on commercial fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and mistrust of government and how to build trust. In our deliberations we have taken a careful look at what impact this initiative would have on the Newfoundland people who earn a living on the water and at whether Bill C-48 and the proposed NMCA could negatively affect traditional and existing livelihoods, incomes, property rights, and freedoms.

He added, for another reason:

We are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of legislation.

We were presented with about two pages full of objections in connection with Bill C-10, should it ever see the light of day.

There is another. I wonder how all these recommendations came to be ignored, when they simply suggested that Bill C-10 be withdrawn and not proceeded with, as there were so many witnesses who were opposed to it.

Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, also indicated the harmful nature of the bill. He spoke of the alliance membership, describing them as primarily inshore fishers who generally use fixed gear and fish along the coastline.

He went on to say that, for all manner of reasons, he would:

—not be interested in seeing a marine conservation area as intended by the spirit of the law. This is unlikely to be accepted by those industries or communities that depend on the sea for their livelihood. It will clearly have to be acceptable to stakeholders.

Once again, we see economic concerns expressed.

In light of the inefficacy Bill C-10 would have, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to going ahead with and supporting, this bill.

Then there is the matter of Quebec jurisdiction. Why in this bill did they ignore Quebec jurisdiction over marine areas? We find it regrettable that Bill C-10 did not respect the integrity of the territory. Why did we set up the Saguenay marine park in consultation with the community, the federal government and the Quebec government?

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park would have been a model to follow. In 1997 the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed to pass legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. That legislation established the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any transfer of territory. Both governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities.

There was also the St. Lawrence action plan, another example the government could have followed. The environment ministers of Quebec and of Canada announced phase 3 of the St. Lawrence development plan, representing a total bill of $230 million. How did they manage to agree in these two examples, and in the case of Bill C-10, which is on the table, and in the establishment of the 28 marine conservation areas, the government ignored Quebec's jurisdiction?

The government also knows that jurisdiction over the environment is shared under the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal and Quebec governments share jurisdiction over the environment. Here again, we can see the federal government's bad faith in this matter. The Constitution Act provides that: “in each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to: exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom”.

When we see the lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions, which pertain to the exploration for natural resources, development, conservation and the management of natural resources, we see the government is ignoring provincial jurisdictions.

By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model and by making title to the territory an essential condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas, the federal government would be able to establish marine conservation areas on submerged lands to which it claims to have title and thus bypass Quebec's environmental jurisdictions.

We are very disappointed with what the federal government did with the recommendations made by various witnesses, including with regard to the protection of provincial jurisdictions.

There is more. The witnesses came to tell us that marine conservation areas should not be the responsibility of Heritage Canada because of duplication within the federal government, with Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada both having a certain role to play with regard to the protection of ecosystems.

National parks come under the responsibility of Canadian Heritage, which is not necessarily doing its job. There are serious problems in some national parks. I could mention the case of Forillon park, where a cliff is threatening to slide and collapse. Nothing has been done to reinforce it, which puts the life of tourists and workers in danger. In the case of Mingan Islands park, money is needed. Several islands are threatened by erosion. Witnesses raised several problems in national parks.

Why does Heritage Canada not fulfil its responsibility in this area instead of dealing with problems that are not its concern? If it wants to do things right, it should start by doing the things for which it is responsible.

Business Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that the House is eager to give unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the decision taken by this House earlier today with respect to the third reading of Bill C-26, when debate on Bill C-10 is completed this day, the House shall revert to consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-26, provided that, at 6.30 p.m. today, Bill C-26 shall be deemed to have been read a third time and passed.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. The Canadian Alliance supports sustaining and developing national parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. The Canadian Alliance also supports sustainable development and environmental protection regulations that have been fully debated by parliamentarians.

The bill is bad legislation in that it strengthens the power of cabinet while diminishing the effectiveness of elected representatives. No valid argument exists at this time for the need for the legislation.

It is obvious the government is not fully committed to the file, as legislation has been allowed to die on the order paper at least twice previously. We know it is unnecessary in that the regulatory framework already exists to accomplish what the bill purports to want to achieve. To sum it up, it is a power grab by the heritage department, and other government departments are not saying anything when they should be.

I have a living example from when I was in the Atlantic provinces last week with the fisheries committee. There is a fisheries department with its set of regulations for marine conservation. There is a lot of offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Newfoundland and off the south coast of Nova Scotia. There is a board called the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board which has full representation from the province and from the federal government for joint decision making. Its job is to issue the leases for oil and gas development.

If there is one thing that would be at complete conflict with oil and gas development, it is obviously the creation of a no-go marine conservation area. One would think that would also have joint federal and provincial administration and decision making. Guess what? It does not.

Where is the natural incentive for the province if it is fully represented on the offshore petroleum board and unrepresented on marine conservation areas as envisioned under the Fisheries Act or under the fisheries department and by this legislation? Obviously, it sets up a federal-provincial problem and an incentive that is unbalanced in favour of offshore oil and gas development at the possible expense of the environment. It is hardly a balanced approach to take and an obvious shortcoming of this and other marine conservation legislation.

In my question to the Bloc member for Trois-Rivières I spoke about my concerns regarding knowing where these 29 parks contemplated by the marine conservation legislation of the Department of Heritage existed. The legislation should describe the location of the parks it intends to create and insert the information into the schedule.

There was lots of time to do it. If the department did not have time when it first submitted the legislation to the last parliament, it certainly has had time by now to fill in lots of the gaps. However it does not want to because it might mobilize even more people concerned about the legislation.

Right now if the government was going to create a land based park, a new national park, it would have to bring it to this place. If the bill goes through and it wanted to create a new offshore park, order in council or cabinet could make that decision. It never has to come here. That is totally inappropriate. However, if we ever wanted to reduce or remove one of those areas from that status, then it would have to come back here. That is what I call hypocrisy, a double standard and any other number of negative terms.

I spoke on the bill before in its previous form. It has not changed a whole bunch. There are things that are not well known to the public that need to be known. For example, fishing activity, aquaculture or fisheries management, marine navigation, marine safety plans are all subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage under this bill. That is a power grab.

One can see there is already difficulty, and I saw examples of this last week, between the agenda of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the agenda of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in terms of which one is the lead agency, which one deals with the stakeholders and all that when it comes to offshore oil and gas development on the east coast. We are going to get there on the west coast in terms of oil and gas development. The debate and the discussion is going to move forward. Quite honestly, it is a mess. We do not need this piece of legislation.

Right now it is very clear whose mandate and responsibility some of these activities are. It is going to become diffuse, subject to competing agendas. We are going to see the special interest groups and the lobbyists using leverage on various government ministers and departments. They can go to one department and ask for their wish list. If they do not get it, they can threaten, cajole or do other things to go to the other department. They can handout their Brownie badges to whoever they think is appealing to their special interest, and the greater good gets lost. This is a way to fudge the ability to act in the national interest. It compromises the ability to act in the national interest and increases the viability of special interests to win the day rather than the greater good.

The bill, without any social economic studies, could for example prohibit exploration or exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic material.

Let us think about what I just said a few minutes ago. To set up one of these areas which excluded or prohibited fishing, the minister of fisheries and the minister of heritage would have to say it was okay. Why would the minister of heritage be asked if it was okay for fishing to be allowed some place on the British Columbia coast, or off the coast of Nunavut or off the coast of Nova Scotia? This is a problem. Any stakeholder that has looked at the legislation is very concerned about the implications. Those are all problems.

What is the lead agency? If we have a marine conservation area, which agency? With this we would have three federal departments that could set up marine conservation areas. Which department would set it up? How would they make that determination? Which would be the lead agency of the three to help chair this discussion?

I asked those kinds of questions last week in Halifax of fisheries officials and others. There were no answers. We are debating legislation that would change the status quo, which has been long contemplated. Nobody is even trying to respond to this kind of request in the public domain. This is nuts. The government members should be embarrassed at the mess it has created on marine conservation areas.

I have a major problem too in that provincial responsibility is potentially being completely co-opted by the federal government. I already talked about the natural incentive for the provinces when it comes to the offshore petroleum board, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. However it has major implications. Let me talk about west coast oil and gas again.

We will have a new provincial government this week. The election is on Wednesday and I think even the governing party has conceded of which is unheard. So we will have some new directions.

British Columbia worked long and hard and fought the federal government over who owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland coast. It went to the supreme court. This was a very long, detailed, expensive debate and proceeding. Guess what? The province won, it owns the seabed.

There is nothing in the legislation that excludes the ability of the Government of Canada to pre-empt that provincial jurisdiction by creating a marine conservation area in that area. That is a very clear conflict of jurisdiction and one that should be automatically clarified in the bill but it is not.

However the other parts of the coast where the province does not own the seabed are still problematic in terms of a federal power grab and a federal administration that is largely out of touch, particularly with remote coastal concerns on the British Columbia coast. I can speak to that with great authority, so can virtually all of the municipal level politicians and many of the provincial politicians from that part of the country.

We will have a major debate and a major initiative on things like what we will do on west coast oil and gas development. We do not need this piece of legislation hanging around in the current format to muddy that whole debate.

We know the heritage department has an agenda, but it will not fess up and tell us what it is. I have already said why it will not. One reason is because it does not want to stir up people who would be very upset with the specifics of what it is contemplating. Therefore, it wants to keep it general and broad, then it will only have to deal with the large, urban based groups that will look at the legislation more as a framework or a legal document rather than as something specific that is affecting a bunch of stakeholders. Somebody called it the mushroom syndrome, and that is right.

The bill requires provincial governments to obey it. The bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways. It will prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas exploration workers, local anglers, recreational boaters and others from being able either to earn a livelihood or enjoy themselves, at the possible expense of achieving almost nothing. If this were truly going to do something for the environment we would be more than happy to support it. The reality is quite different.

I did attend some of the heritage committee meetings. I was party to helping bring some witnesses to that committee. I was embarrassed at the treatment they received from some of the government members. The chief of the Campbell River Band was at the committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there. West coast fishermen were there. Rather than hearing the committee accept their legitimate face value concerns, what did we hear? We heard a lecture from the chairman of the committee. Quite frankly, I was amazed at the treatment meted out to people who had travelled so far. I expressed my great concern at that time. Now, much later, I am still out of sorts about what happened on that particular day.

This is a sloppy piece of legislation. As I said, we would have three federal departments that could protect marine areas, two being Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill would put Heritage Canada into that picture as well. Any time we have more than one party responsible for managing something, we get diffused management and diffused objectives and things tend to fall apart. I learned that during my long working career. I think most Canadians would understand that precisely.

Also we have provincial governments that have legislation. Believe it or not, we have had provincial governments far-sighted enough to create marine conservation legislation. I ask members to guess what they have done under that legislation. They have actually created marine protection areas. We have quite a few in British Columbia that have been set up under the provincial government. Is that not marvellous, Mr. Speaker?

The legislation does not appear to deal with all of that. Yes, the government has had a very complicit government in British Columbia to deal with in the last 10 years. Hopefully we will have a new government in British Columbia that will set some new directions and new initiatives in terms of dealing with the federal government on a much more equivalent basis rather than in terms of the mushroom syndrome.

We are very concerned that we will be pre-empted from an opportunity to fully develop industry in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions by legislation that blindly creates parks without taking a lot of stakeholder interests into account. It is clear from the way this bill has been developed that those things have not been taken into account.

We recommend that the municipal level of government be put into this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a decision making role in whatever these specific areas are that municipalities are interested in. There has been no movement in that regard.

In summary, this is a bad bill and we should kill it.