House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

PovertyOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, poverty is an issue that has tremendously preoccupied the government since coming to office. This is precisely why our government introduced a number of measures specifically to help these people out of poverty.

We are putting $1.7 billion in the national child benefit to help children in low income families. This is on top of the $5 billion that the government is already investing toward families with children.

We also believe the best way to help people out of poverty is to help them get into the labour market. This is why we introduced the Canadian opportunities strategy to help access. We have the transitional jobs fund—

PovertyOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

That will bring to a close our question period for today.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Liberal

Joe McGuire LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled “Capturing the Advantage: Agricultural Biotechnology in the New Millennium”, which was tabled in the House of Commons on June 9, 1998.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

November 2nd, 1998 / 3 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition to the House today.

Whereas a majority of Canadians understand that the concept of marriage is the voluntary union of a single unmarried male and a single unmarried female, the petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act and the Interpretation Act so as to find in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

I agree with the petition.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member knows he cannot say that. I would invite him to comply with the rules at all times. I know he would want to do that.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The first one is signed by 83 constituents from the surrounding area. It is on Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act, which as we all know would support that a marriage should only happen between a man and a woman.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am pleased to present to the House is again on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It relates to private member's Bill C-304, which is again a fundamental principle that needs to be propped up in our society. It would strengthen the protection of property rights and the Canadian bill of rights.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to present a petition on behalf of about 66 constituents of Prince George—Peace River. The majority of Canadians understand the concept that marriage is the voluntary union of a single male and a single female.

They further pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. I know I cannot say it but I agree with this petition.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member has surely heard my rebuke to his colleague already. I would hope he would comply with the rules in all respects.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from several residents of the municipality of Stornoway in the riding of Frontenac-Mégantic.

Proposed changes to the calculation of the income security benefit are creating much concern and dissatisfaction among Stornoway seniors. This new bill that would base this benefit on family income will be particularly harmful to women.

We consider this as discrimination against most women. The people of Stornoway ask parliament to show more concern for the interests of seniors by withdrawing Bill C-36.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by many Canadians. In particular, it is signed by people from Bellefeuille and Montreal, Quebec; Thunder Bay, Ontario; and other places.

The petitioners are very concerned about the Liberal government's GST plans and the fact that it has broken its promise to eliminate the GST.

They also oppose the creation of the super tax collection agency, which is the privatization of something that is very near and dear to the pocketbooks of every Canadian. They are asking the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform of the system.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of about 7,000 constituents who are calling for a major overhaul of the tax system.

They have all probably filled out their income tax forms recently and are reminded about the goofy nature of our tax system. They are suggesting that it should be revised from top to bottom.

It is a pleasure to present the petition on their behalf.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, on an unrelated topic, the petitioners again from throughout British Columbia are calling upon the government to consider international trade agreements like NAFTA that make it difficult for governments to pass legislation to protect the health of Canadians.

They specifically imply the MMT and the PCB issues facing the government.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by young people from various schools and others in the Kamloops region who are concerned about the lack of proper sentencing against people who commit offences against animals. They point out a number of offences against animals.

The petitioners feel that the judges simply do not understand that people who inflict cruelty upon animals ought to be receiving a good smack, or perhaps more than that. They do not elaborate.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present a petition from people in Minden, Kinmount, Kirkfield, Tory Hill and other places,

They are calling for the repeal of Bill C-68 to redirect the money to a more effective reduction of violent crime, improvement of public safety, more police on the street, more crime prevention, more suicide prevention centres, more women's crises centres, and other things.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by some 32 residents of Calgary and other parts of Alberta.

They are calling on parliament to take note of the need to reform our laws with respect to child support payments and child custody to ensure that all parents are guaranteed access to their children and that non-adversarial means be used wherever possible in mediating co-parenting situations.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, question No. 125 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 125—

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Of the 2,224 minister's permits issued by the immigration department in 1997 to individuals who would otherwise have been inadmissible to Canada for technical reasons, the 1,797 inadmissible for criminal reasons, and the 275 inadmissible for medical reasons, could the government please indicate the 10 most common reasons for the issuance of a ministers' permit for each of these three categories?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

a) In 1997, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued 2,244 minister's permits to persons inadmissible for a variety of reasons other than criminal or medical inadmissibility. The department does not have a list of the 10 most common reasons for which these permits were issued on behalf of the minister because data is not collated in this manner. However, the majority of permits issued for technical reasons were issued to members of the family class to allow early admission to Canada before all of the processing steps were concluded. An example would be the issuance of minister's permit to a spouse of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who is unable to undergo the required immigration medical X-ray due to pregnancy. A minister's permit may be issued to allow her to be reunited with her family despite the fact she has not met the medical requirements.

In such cases, the X-ray is normally completed after the birth of the child and the processing of the spouse's application for permanent residence is then completed in Canada.

Minister's permits may also be issued to facilitate the entry to Canada of highly skilled workers or business immigrants where Canadian jobs are at stake. An example would be that of an applicant for permanent residence destined to work with a Canadian high-tech company. The worker is key to the implementation of a project or the ability of the company to honour its contractual obligations. Hundreds of Canadians will be laid off if the company is not able to bring in the skilled worker immediately. The prospective immigrant cannot be issued an immigrant visa because the medical examination or criminal or security screening have not been completed. A minister's permit may be issued to allow the prospective immigrant to enter Canada and to start work immediately while processing of the immigration application continues abroad.

b) In 1997 the department issued 1,497 permits to persons inadmissible for criminal reasons. The department does not have a list of the 10 most common reasons for which these permits were issued on behalf of the minister because data is not collated in this manner.

However, an example would be that of a prospective visitor who admits to a minor criminal conviction several years ago, such as driving under the influence, possession of marijuana, or shoplifting, but wishes to come to Canada to visit family. After determining that the individual presents no danger to the public, a minister's permit may be issued to facilitate the visit.

c) In 1997 the department issued 275 permits to persons inadmissible for medical reasons. The department does not have a list of the 10 most common reasons for which these permits were issued on behalf of the minister because data is not collated in this manner.

An example would be spouses and dependent children sponsored by Canadian citizens or residents that are found to be medically inadmissible. Minister's permits may be issued in such cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in order to facilitate family reunification. Departmental officials consult with provincial health officials before issuing minister's permits in such cases. Another example would be minister's permits issued to medically inadmissible visitors, including children, coming to Canada for medical treatment where the treatment is not available in the home country and the treatment has been prepaid by the visitor or the visitor's family in Canada.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, be read a second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-48.

This bill is entitled “An Act respecting marine conservation areas”, and its purpose is to provide a legal framework for the creation of 28 marine conservation areas representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems. The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but is not governed this legislation since it has its own legislation.

Bill C-48 follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada to the World Conservation Union Conference held in Montreal in 1996. At that time, as in 1994, the union passed resolutions asking all coastal nations to act quickly to put in place conservation measures for marine areas.

The year 1998 was designated the International Year of the Ocean by the United Nations. Among the most important initiatives to mark this event we should mention the World Exposition in Lisbon, Portugal and the signing of the Ocean Charter, prepared by UNESCO, in September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.

The creation of marine conservation areas fulfills the objectives of many international forums and documents like the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the 1991 report entitled “Caring for the Earth”, prepared by the IUCN, which is the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, which is financed in part by the Government of Quebec.

Of course the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment. More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that it supported the legislation creating the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is also pursuing initiatives to protect the environment and sea floors in particular.

The Quebec government is also open to working together with the federal government, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.

However, the Bloc Quebecois has to object to the bill before us for a number of reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.

Second, Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new structure, that is the marine conservation areas, which will simply duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine wildlife reserves. In a nutshell, believe it or not, the federal government has found a way to divide itself into three components to better invade Quebec's jurisdictions.

At this stage, I would like to elaborate on our objections to this bill. First, let us look at the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, which is a model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This legislation led to the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area, and one of the main features of this legislation is the fact that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any land changing hands. Both governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The legislation also states that the park is made up entirely of marine areas. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.

In addition, in order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by Quebec and by Canada confirm the creation of a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly by both governments, at least once every seven years.

As well, any exploration, utilization or development of resources for mining or energy related purposes, including the building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park boundaries.

Finally, by means of regulations, the governments of Quebec and of Canada will be able to determine measures for protecting the park's ecosystems and resources and for protecting the public. More specifically, they will be able to define how each category of area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.

The Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas.

Another model it could have followed is Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Canada and of Quebec announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development 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. Phase III follows on the first two phases, in which both governments invested over $300 million.

Let us now examine Bill C-48, which unfortunately fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established. This land, let it not be forgotten, belongs to Quebec.

Subsection 5(2) of the bill stipulates that the minister may not create a marine conservation area unless “satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada”—this of course being the Queen of England—excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada”. A highly complicated way of putting it.

It must be noted that section 92.5 of the Constitution Act, 1867 recognizes that the administration and sale of lands in the public domain are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the 1867 Constitution says that Quebec is the exclusive owner of its territory. There is a kind of contradiction here. As I asked earlier, is what we are dealing with here expropriation in disguise?

Moreover, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies—and I invite the public to listen carefully, as well as this House—to all crown lands in Quebec, including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence River, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

I am not making this up. It is there, clearly written. Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. I repeat, Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it can do within this legislation is to authorize, by order, the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction

However, 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.

According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, marine conservation areas are planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Also, co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St. Lawrence River under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which was signed by all federal and provincial departments concerned and which provides for an investment of $250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.

Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of permitting bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?

I would like to say a word about environmental matters in the context of shared jurisdictions. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the governments of Canada and Quebec share responsibility for the environment.

Under paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91, the federal government has control over the following areas:

  1. —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:

  2. Navigation and Shipping.

  3. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.

  4. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

  5. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.

Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in the following sections of the British North America Act of 1867:

  1. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

  2. the Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;

  3. Property and Civil Rights in the Province;

  4. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

Section 92A(1) is also interesting.

92A. (1) 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.

Therefore, Quebec's Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife specifies the role to be played by the Quebec Minister of the Environment and Wildlife. Section 2 reads as follows:

  1. The Minister of the Environment and Fauna ensures the conservation and development of wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has authority to appoint conservation officers.

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 is behaving, as Robert Bourassa used to say, like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.

Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it intends to create marine protected areas. Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves. This means that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category.

The Department of Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine conservation areas in the preamble to the bill. It is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine areas; provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and provide opportunities within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities.

As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it is proposing the establishment of marine protected areas. However, in a discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January 1997, the purpose of marine conservation areas is described as follows:

These zones are established to ensure the conservation of commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources and their habitats, endangered or threatened species and their habitats, unique habitats, productive ecosystems and biodiversity, any other marine resource.

In both cases, we are told that local people will have a significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected areas. The Bloc Quebecois wonders how many information or organization meetings local people will be invited to, serving bureaucracy instead of democracy.

As for Environment Canada, it is proposing to establish marine conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine reserves, expanding the concept of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 nautical mile limit. These areas are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but require a different set of regulations.

Under these various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection areas and natural marine reserves. The same territory could, according to Fisheries and Oceans, be zoned in various ways and subject to various regulations. Welcome, folks, to the complex world of Government of Canada bureaucracy.

The minutes prepared by the Fisheries and Oceans officials following the consultation meetings on marine protection areas held by the department in Quebec, in June 1998, state, and I quote:

There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas—The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.

The Bloc Quebecois shares the views of those who participated in these meetings and feels that this is bureaucratic overkill that will not serve the public's interest, in the end. The existence of an interdepartmental committee of these various departments is no reassurance.

We know from experience that having a number of departments involved in the same project makes it difficult for them to work together and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money. The government would have been better advised to have a single department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating their respective responsibilities.

As we can see there is confusion but there is more. The bill provides that each federal department will retain jurisdiction over its own marine conservation areas. However, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate it may, in co-operation with the department concerned, adopt regulations regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the existing provisions.

In this case, the change agreed to between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the department concerned takes precedence over other regulations under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the Aeronautics Act.

Briefly, I would like to add this. Consultations were held. Of all the answers given by participants and obtained by the department, only one was in French. As we do not have access to the names and addresses of respondents because this information is confidential in accordance with the Act respecting the protection of personal information, we can only conclude that Quebec did not have the opportunity to take part in consultations.

I say this, the Bloc Quebecois, on behalf of the population of Quebec, will stoutly defend the right to territorial integrity.