Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1998

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf for such a good speech showing how complex this bill is.

This is like shooting one's self in the foot. The member clearly showed the overlap between three departments that want to be sure to intrude into an area that is outside their jurisdiction.

The Liberals' federal government has been shouting from the rafters it has met all of Quebec's demands. In its speech from the throne it claimed it was putting an end to overlap and intrusion into areas under provincial jurisdiction. However, it has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle in our affairs and invade an area that comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.

I would like our colleague to demonstrate how three departments overlap to be sure, in a roundabout way, to interfere in our affairs.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is this: there is a river bed along the St. Lawrence and a seabed in the gulf. Shellfish and plant life can be found there.

Questions will be asked: to whom do the shellfish and the plant life belong? Does Fisheries and Oceans have jurisdiction? Is this a heritage issue? Should the environment minister determine whether the river bed and seabed where the plant life and the shellfish are to be found is contaminated or in good condition? All this is done on Quebec's territory.

In other words, it is as if I were at home, on my property, and someone came to tell me how things must be done. Is my lawn in good condition? Are the ants developing well? Am I taking good care of the environment? All this, without asking my permission, without talking with me, without trying to reach an agreement, without trying to have a dialogue, without trying to agree on terms and conditions, without taking my own concerns into consideration.

What we have here an invasion of territory through legislation. There is no physical invasion, just legislative invasion. This is not the first occurrence. Let us look at the millennium scholarships, an extraordinary example.

We know that, in Quebec, there has been a sound policy on scholarships for the last 35 years. This is why Quebec students have the smallest debt load in Canada, about $11,000 per person; for the rest of Canada, it is $25,000.

Quebec made some good societal choices about thirty years before Canada did. Now, Canada takes a part of our money, about $600 to $700 million from Quebec, and puts it in the millennium scholarship fund to provide us with something we already had but that the rest of Canada did not have.

We often face this situation: the federal government invades our jurisdictions, duplicates the efforts, walks all over us without any concern for what it is destroying. With an attitude such as this, I am increasingly proud to be a sovereignist and increasingly anxious for our people to say yes.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the quality of his research on this subject. I like to hear about the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence River.

In 1984, Parks Canada and the federal government did not have one single document about the Saguenay fjord. When I was elected as a young member in 1984, one of my main priorities was to do everything I could to have the fjord included in the Canadian national parks system.

When I was re-elected, I was happy to be able to co-operate with the minister on this issue. That co-operation led to the creation of a new national marine park by the federal government. It took 14 years. Millions of dollars were invested in research. It must be said though that environmental issues were an important part of the government's agenda at that time, which led to the treaty on acid rain, the St. Lawrence River action plan and the green plan. All that to illustrate the fact that it was an ongoing concern of the government.

I can tell my colleague that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not only will it contribute to the preservation of our marine resources, but it will also help bring our region to the fore nationally and internationally.

I am a little bit surprised that my colleague would want to focus on frictions between the two levels of government, because the establishment of the park, which required the co-operation of several departments at the provincial and federal levels, was a success.

Are there any documents or statements by the Quebec government or the federal government that show disagreements in the negotiations related to this bill?

I would like to be made aware of these disagreements, because the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was a complete success. For the next hundred years, it will allow us to preserve our resources and also to be known in the rest of the country. Knowing that Parks Canada advertises all over the world, one can see why this is important for our region.

I would really like to know the source of these frictions between both levels of government.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this excellent question. He has given an example of exactly the right kind of situation.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a project that is working out just fine. It has been designed and developed thanks to the co-operation of the Canadian and Quebec governments. Both levels of government have passed mirror legislation to create that park. It has been a real success. That is a good approach, but the Canadian government does not seem inclined to use it again.

If it had been a disaster, I think the government would use that approach again, but since it was a resounding success, it does not want to. It does not want to copy what has been done in the past. It is designing a new system to which the Quebec government is not a party, in which it is not involved as an actor or a negotiating party. Quite differently, the feds are just intruding, and that is what is wrong.

When something is working just fine and we have a good approach, when we find the right move and the right procedure, with respect for the jurisdictions of both levels of government, co-operation and harmony, why not use the same approach? We have a good model. My colleague told us he is proud of that achievement. All of us are.

We have a good model, but they will not follow it anymore. They refuse. They are designing a new one, in which they will be trampling on Quebec jurisdictions and, through three departments, impose legislation on the marine floor in Quebec without asking for any permission, without negotiating any agreement, without asking any question. They make themselves at home.

But the Canadian government is not at home in an area of exclusive Quebec jurisdiction recognized by the Constitution.

Once again, we are going to oppose most vigorously this federal encroachment in an area that, constitutionally, is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity this afternoon to address the House with respect to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. The proposed piece of legislation is designed to protect and conserve the areas of Canada's marine landscape for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians and the world.

My constituency of Fundy—Royal straddles the beautiful and scenic Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy has the largest tides in the world. Many beautiful beaches have evolved throughout the Bay of Fundy region following centuries of constant pounding delivered by these often unforgiving tides. Tourists from around the globe have been attracted to the Fundy region to witness the record tides while also revelling in the opportunity to enjoy down-home maritime hospitality.

This region has also been the focus of many environmentalists who are drawn to the area to study our unique marine ecosystem and the Fundy escarpment. Like many of our local residents, these individuals are deeply concerned with the often callous indifference for our environment.

The Bay of Fundy has been the lifeblood for many of my constituents, just as it has been for my neighbours across the bay who are effectively represented by our party's Canadian heritage critic, my colleague from West Nova.

The Bay of Fundy is home to many different species of marine life. For instance, the right whale, of which very few breeding pairs exist in the world, call the Bay of Fundy home every August. For years Fundy fishing grounds supported the very prosperous inshore scallop fishery. Groundfish used to be found in abundance, helping create a very lucrative fishing industry.

Today many of the species fishermen depend upon for their livelihoods are disappearing due to overfishing. Only the lucrative lobster fishery remains. This is also threatened. From that perspective I am very concerned for the individuals from St. Martins in my riding who earn their livings by fishing.

We support Bill C-48. We feel it is time politicians started to take a leading role in helping to preserve our environment so our next generation will enjoy the scenery and the beauty that exists throughout the country. This is another reason why I look forward to the introduction of the Canadian endangered species protection act in February.

A lot of individuals when they talk about protecting endangered species do so in order that we can protect those for future generations. Some people believe that piece of legislation is rather complex. It comes down to a number of points.

First, when it comes to endangered species we do not kill them. We do not destroy their home and we give them a habitat in which to live. We also look after those concerned Canadians who are land owners so that we can provide them with economic instruments with respect to stewardship. Obviously when that piece of legislation comes in I will have more to say at that time.

We can only achieve the goals by taking immediate action through protective measures as outlined in this bill. Education must play an integral role in helping raise Canadians' awareness of our environment.

Having been born and raised along the Fundy shore I can certainly appreciate the importance of our natural environment and the importance this environment plays in our everyday lives. Many of my constituents depend on the ocean for their livelihoods.

Our aboriginal peoples fished these great waters long before the arrival of any European settlers. Fish were an important staple in their everyday diets. They recognized the importance of this natural resource for their survival. Even today their leaders respect and appreciate the value of maintaining a viable fishing industry. Aboriginal peoples recognize that conservation measures must be of paramount concern whenever discussions surround the allocation of fish stocks.

Deriving one's living from the oceans is a cultural way of life for many individuals on all the coasts of this great country. We depend on the preservation of this large habitat for our survival and for the survival of our next generation. It is incumbent on all to begin taking immediate steps toward protecting our ecosystem.

On this note I am also very proud of the leadership which was displayed recently in my riding near the town of St. Martins in the development of the Fundy trail parkway. In this park we have an opportunity to view the Bay of Fundy.

Through the leadership of the hon. Gerald Merrithew, a minister for the province of New Brunswick at that time, I must compliment provincial colleague Stuart Jamieson and some other stewards such as Mitchell Franklin who actually had the foresight to develop this park to view the beautiful Bay of Fundy.

Recently our coastal regions have been facing another menacing attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have been pillaging the ocean floors almost unabated by officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The lucrative lobster fishery can be in danger if strong measures are not immediately taken to put an end to this illegal activity.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986 the PC government approved the national marine park policy. In 1987 the country's first national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay was established.

In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement with British Columbia to create a national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

On April 6, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed a historical and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay estuary in the St. Lawrence River.

I am proud to have had the opportunity last summer to visit this park in the Saguenay fjord. I must say that this is an incredible region and a great park.

I am proud to say that the government and provincial governments collaborated to build such a wonderful park along the Saguenay area, Lac-Saint-Jean toward Tadoussac and into the St. Lawrence River.

We have outlined the ecosystem leadership the government at the time had. I think that is an indication of the vision the Progressive Conservative government had during its era between 1984 and 1993.

I point out some of the initiatives that were brought forth which dovetail in terms of our commitment to ecosystem development and protection and respect for the environment. Under our government in 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was brought forth by the minister of the day, the Hon. Tom McMillan and the Hon. Jean Charest.

During that time it was prime ministerial leadership under Brian Mulroney that developed the Clean Air Act which took on the Americans and brought forth a national accord that addressed acid rain. The same prime minister cared enough about the environment and showed leadership at the Rio earth summit with respect to biodiversity and climate change.

The commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party with respect to our national parks and our conservation areas and the environment is unprecedented.

It is important to note that although the proposed legislation is designed to establish and manage a system of marine conservation areas respective of the 29 marine areas, it does not specifically identify a precise geographic location to be protected.

These sites will have to be chosen through much consultation with members of the general public, provincial governments and obviously those individuals who earn their livelihoods from our distinct waters.

I mentioned our aboriginal peoples' dependence on these waters for their food fishery. It is important that aboriginal peoples be involved in the negotiations. With many land claims still to be resolved, it is imperative they be consulted on creating any new marine reserve areas.

There are restrictions on non-renewable resource extraction. I believe careful examination of any proposed site must be explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration in a very sustainable way.

Nova Scotia is finally going to reap the economic benefits of Sable gas. This economic boom would not have been possible if the Sable area had been designated a marine protected area. That is why we must exhaust all opportunities for constructive consultation sessions with all those who have a vested interest in our ocean floors.

We must immediately begin the process of identifying appropriate locations for inclusion within marine conservation areas. This bill will help provide the framework for creating these much needed conservation areas.

We are very excited about trying to identify at least 10 marine parks by 2000. I applaud the government for actually setting a goal because I fundamentally believe what gets measured actually gets done. Let us make sure we take our time to do it in a very prudent, consultative fashion and that we locate those ecosystems that should be preserved the most.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue on behalf of our critic for heritage, the member for West Nova, and to participate in this afternoon's debate.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I also want to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois is absolutely in favour of protecting the environment and taking the necessary measures to ensure that we live in an increasingly cleaner environment.

However, the Bloc Quebecois is totally opposed to Bill C-48, because it is yet another federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

If the government wants to create marine areas, regardless of which department does it and regardless of the names given to these areas—because we now know that three departments are interested in creating such areas—it must first appropriate the ocean floor. But the ocean floor comes under the sovereign right of the provinces.

The federal government is once again showing its bad faith. There can be no better proof. The hon. member said he visited the Saguenay—St. Lawrence park last summer. It is a beautiful park co-managed by Canada and Quebec.

As my colleague, the member for Portneuf, pointed out, the Government of Canada has once again interfered in an area of provincial jurisdiction in attempting to create marine conservation areas on our territory.

I would like to know whether my colleague is aware of this problem of the federal government again charging into an area of provincial jurisdiction, and whether he does not share our impression that once again the Liberal government of the Prime Minister, the member for Shawinigan, is doing everything it can to pit the provinces against the federal government.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of my colleague's question surrounds issues not as related to this piece of legislation as to other ones. I agree with her concerns that the government on too many occasions has interfered in situations that have provoked provinces into some very difficult positions.

In my critic's position I noticed it in terms of when the federal government chose to turn its back on the agreement established November 13, 1997. At that time it made an agreement with respect to climate change. The very next day the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources said that is not necessarily our position.

It was a provocative move what the government chose to do with respect to the supreme court. This country was actually formed from an act of will. We did not go to any lawyers, judges or courts to determine whether we should have a country or not in the first place. It was an act of will on the part of the political leadership of the day.

With the millennium scholarship fund it is clear interference with respect to provincial jurisdiction. It would be more prudent for them to actually inject the moneys into the CHST which would pay for health care, post-secondary education and social services. Those are the things where we should be working in partnership with the provinces as opposed to taking provocative steps.

With respect to this legislation there are very valuable ways we can have some very positive provincial-federal relations. We see that with respect to the park I had the pleasure of visiting this summer along the Saguenay River. It is one of the most picturesque areas of the world. There are very few fiords where people actually have access. We see it in Norway and we see it in one of God's most beautiful areas in this country along the Saguenay.

The federal government on occasion has interfered in areas where it should not have. I do not think this is necessarily applicable with respect to this piece of legislation because it is very possible to build some very positive partnerships with the provinces in protecting our marine areas with respect to having better conservation for everybody.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also live in a riding which has an extensive marine ecosystem. I probably have ten times more coastline than highways in my riding.

I have five Gulf Islands among numerous other islands. Those islands are all frequented by daily ferry service. I live in a very sensitive marine environment with all kinds of marine life from pods of orcas to grey whales.

We in the Reform Party also support protecting ecosystems. We want to make that very clear. We are very concerned about ecosystems and it is important that we protect them.

This legislation has all kinds of problems with it. I will focus and demonstrate to this House how this legislation is very typical of the type of legislation we see in this House. We have a hollow piece of legislation.

There is absolutely nothing in it. I will demonstrate that to the House with numerous specific examples which will make it very clear to see. We have a piece of legislation brought forward by the government suggesting that it actually wants to protect an ecosystem, but in effect it is hollow.

Furthermore it does not bring in other groups such as the provinces. It does not bring in the resource base to ensure that there is active participation in the management of parks and to ensure that the resources can be removed safely so that we do not trample on the rights of the people who are already there.

Members opposite do not agree with what I am saying. Let me give an example. Schedules I and II of the legislation describe the lands that are to be set aside. We have a bill that is for marine parks, the Marine Conservation Act. I ask members to get out their legislation. Schedules I and II describe the areas that we are thinking about.

However, when we look up schedules I and II we cannot find them. They are not there. This is just a hollow piece of legislation that provides broad powers to the minister. The government will decide this later.

I emphasize the problem I have with the legislation. I am a strong advocate of conserving our marine life. I would fully support legislation specifying pockets that should be set aside for marine parks. I would even go further to say that the small pockets should be class a marine parks that we cannot even touch. That is not what we have. We have no idea what we are getting ourselves into.

I have watched the example set by the government. The current minister of fisheries talks over and over again about his three priorities: conservation, conservation, conservation. However what happens when the actual practices come down? For example there is the Makaw whale hunt that is happening outside my riding. The minister supports the Makaw whale hunt. He is supporting the slaughter of whales in Canadian waters.

I have to question whether the government is serious when it asserts that it wants to protect our ecosystems. It can be done but this is not the legislation to do it. It is hollow.

My experiences in the House have shown that we do not have openness and transparency. The government would like to bring in legislation where all these decisions would be made by orders in council or after the fact. We have no idea. Will there be a consultation process if there is an abundance of shellfish in a marine park?

Furthermore, the only way I found out about the legislation and what the government was intending to do was through government press releases. My riding is one of the ridings that would be most affected by the legislation. I have had private meetings with the people in the bureaucracy and have asked them about it. It is only after I pursue and dig into it that I find out what is going on.

The government does not come forward and inform all members of the House, as we have seen over and over and over again with the bills that are brought forward. It operates in a vacuum, this little tight-knit group, this handful of people who surround the Prime Minister. What we have is a dictatorship.

I could go on. The legislation does not even identify which areas will be designated as marine parks. We have no idea what is happening. I know the minister has announced a couple of small areas, his wishes for marine parks, but the reality is that the legislation leaves it wide open.

There are broad, sweeping powers for the minister. We have no idea whether the provinces will have any participation in the marine parks. We have no idea whether the resource based industries in British Columbia, the fishing sector or the forestry sector, will have any input regarding how they will be affected. Both the forestry and fishing sectors are in a very difficult situation in British Columbia. I could safely say in the House, after speaking with those representatives, that they are also very strong supporters of maintaining our ecosystems. Bringing in legislation that will not consult with them to ensure that all these people can be brought on board to make sure it is done in a very economical and positive way is not the way to go.

It enlarges the minister's jurisdiction. There are all kinds of examples of this in clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 which enlarge the minister's jurisdiction. They effectively empower the minister to designate whatever areas he or she feels fit, depending on the time. Right now it comes under the minister of heritage. She would have the power to do as she sees fit. It has raised concerns among the residents of British Columbia. Many of them are strong supporters of our ecosystems.

They raise flags with me in discussions. They are somewhat amazed when the government comes out with this kind of legislation in flashy press releases with no substance. Then, only hours later, they find out that the minister of fisheries, Mr. Conservation, is about to allow the slaughter of whales on our beaches. Whales will be floating up on the beaches of Victoria in his riding. This has caused them great distress. He has taken absolutely no initiative to stop it. I have approached him and the Minister of Foreign Affairs with no success, asking them to lobby against the the unnecessary slaughter of the Makaw.

Even more disturbing is the Canadian government's giving the Makaw tribe permission to slaughter these whales in Canadian waters. It is absolutely unacceptable. Then the government tells us that it is bringing in marine parks to preserve our ecosystems.

I listened to the Conservative member from Nova Scotia. I agree with him it is very important that we protect our ecosystems and our marine parks. However the legislation is not the vehicle that will do that. We have a hollow, empty piece of legislation.

I question why it is there. I question what the government is doing. It imposes upon the provincial governments, as was pointed out by my hon. colleague in the Bloc, without their active participation. If we are to succeed in doing something meaningful and in providing something that would preserve some of the ecosystems, the provinces should be brought on board as effective partners and not just have a dictatorship against them.

I will conclude my remarks. This is but another example in the House of the Liberal government bringing in legislation which is absolutely hollow. It does not give us specifics. I repeat that it is not worth the paper it is written on. It does nothing to give us any specifics on preserving ecosystems, a process which I support. The government should look at the record of what it is doing and get the Canadian public to agree before it starts bringing in these types of bills.

I understand the minister of fisheries would like to designate some areas in Victoria, but he creates his own problems when he allows the slaughter of whales in Canadian waters. He should be ashamed of himself for supporting that initiative and suggesting that he also wants to come out with legislation for marine parks.

On that basis I will be voting against the legislation because it is a scam against Canadians to suggest that the government is in any way concerned about our marine environment.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment a bit and then ask the member a question.

I refer the member to section 8.(4) of the act which talks about agreements with provincial authorities. There is no forcing of anybody to do anything. We are talking about agreements with provincial authorities and other agencies, as has been the case in the establishment of parks throughout our history. Let us not get carried away by inventing motives that do not exist.

The member started his speech by parrying for more consultation. There are ample elements built into the proposed legislation to guarantee consultation in designating 28 of the 29 conservation areas the legislation intends to establish. He rightfully requests more consultation. Then he said that he would vote against the legislation because it is hollow. To determine that, he referred to the annexes where the conservation areas are not listed. Of course not, because they have not been selected.

There has been a mapping out of the 29 areas in Canada representing the 29 ecological zones we wish to protect with the marine conservation area legislation. The locations within these areas have not been selected and that is the subject of consultation. Which is it? Should we decide there should be no consultation and make these decisions unilaterally? Of course not.

The government has indicated its intention once the legislation is approved to establish 10 such areas, hopefully by the millennium year, in consultation with the relevant authorities and not unilaterally as the member would rightfully object to.

We cannot possibly list them in the annexes. The member cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Does he want consultation or does he want us to go ahead and pick unilaterally? I do not think so. That is the question the member has to answer.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to the government's record. The legislation contains numerous Henry VIII clauses. We all know that a Henry VIII clause will allow a minister to designate new areas under the act without having to steer the amendment through parliament. That is an absolute given.

I can only go on the performance of the government over the last year and on what it has done in the House. I do not have confidence in the government at all. We have seen that dwindling among Canadians over the past month. The Liberals are going down and down and down and they know it.

That is why I say the legislation is hollow. How can we possibly sit here and believe when the minister of fisheries is allowing the slaughter of whales by Americans in Canadian waters? Those whales could potentially wash up on the beaches of Victoria. How can we expect the government to mean that it will consult with industry, the provinces and the different sectors? The government's record is dismal in this area. We have had a dictatorship. We have seen it over and over again.

I can give them all kinds of examples. We could look at the EI fund. Every member on this side of the House has demanded consultation, and all we hear is the Liberals saying no. There are a hundred examples. The record speaks for itself. Their performance has been absolutely dismal.

They are sighing over there because they have nothing better to say. They know it. It is a fact. The legislation is very clear. It gives broad sweeping powers to the minister. We would like to know exactly what we are passing in the House before we vote on it. We will not vote on a hollow piece of legislation which will give the minister the ultimate say on where the parks are.

Let us not forget there are all kinds of resources attached to these parks. There is the fishery which the government has destroyed. The Liberals can talk to their own member from Gander—Grand Falls in Newfoundland. He has been very open in the House and is a big defender of the fishery. He will talk about how the government has destroyed the resource over the last 10 years. It has been an absolute dismal failure. The auditor general has confirmed this in numerous reports. Now the Liberals are coming out and are to be the great saviours of the ecosystems and the environment. It does not add up.

We would like to support something that would truly protect the environment and the ecosystems and would include these people in the process. This legislation clearly does not do that.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Reform Party colleague and congratulate him on seeing, as I do, the tragic aspect of this bill, with its sham consultation.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Briefing sessions were held. We were told that the federal government had consulted Canadians; we read in the Minister of Canadian Heritage's notes that 3,000 organizations had received questionnaires and mailed back little scraps of paper, which were put together into a magnificent document that was presented to us in a folder. A sham consultation.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Members opposite are upset because they do not like having their negligence brought to the attention of the people of Canada. It is high time that the public knew that this government is arrogant beyond all belief; it pretends to consult and spouts fine rhetoric.

I would like to know whether my Reform Party colleague also thinks that, in addition to conducting a sham consultation, this government has gone too far with its interference in provincial jurisdiction.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I think it has been made quite clear by the members of this House that in fact the consultation process—and again I will use the word—is hollow. The government can send out questionnaires, but there is nothing in the legislation except empty schedules.

The member asks whether it will trample the rights which the provinces have under section 92 of the Constitution. She makes a valid point. I think it is open for debate. I believe that the bill gives the government broad powers over our inland waters in creating parks. That, without question, I would agree is provincial jurisdiction. The only area that we may question is the waters which are shared by two provinces. That could be open to interpretation.

The waters of the Lac-Saint-Jean and Saguenay areas which I visited this summer are very beautiful. I think it is up to the province of Quebec to impose provincial legislation to protect and to choose the waters in their provincial parks. Similarly, with respect to the inland waters of British Columbia, it is up to the province of British Columbia to implement legislation.

The last thing we need is different levels of government and bureaucracies all trying to do the same thing, which we have seen over and over again in this country. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Again I would agree with her comments, with the exception of waters which are shared between provinces. That would be open to debate.

However, regardless of the jurisdiction, this is a hollow piece of legislation. Looking at the government's record, we have to question whether it is really sincere about actually protecting the ecosystem, considering its past performance and the fact that it is allowing Americans to slaughter whales in Canadian waters which are potentially going to wash up bloodied on the shores of Victoria in the riding of the minister of fisheries.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, and the amendment moved by the Reform Party.

Before getting into my presentation, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a legal framework for the establishment and future development of 28 marine conservation areas, including eight in Quebec, representing each of the ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and Canada.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill because it is covered by ad hoc legislation both in Canada and in Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment. I want to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support the government when it suggested passing mirror legislation to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park and to establish a legal framework to ensure it would be jointly managed by the two levels of government.

Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor.

The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation or in partnership with the federal government on any project designed to ensure or promote the protection of the environment, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.

However, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-48 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 irrespective of Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to the protection of its territory and environment.

Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas.

The federal government, which proclaims from the rooftops that it has met all of Quebec's demands, and states in its Speech from the Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one way or another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.

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. Bill C-48 does not, therefore, respect the territorial integrity of Quebec and the other provinces. What is more, Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. What a setup!

Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has already created marine protected areas. Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves.

It should be carefully noted 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.

Heritage Canada is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; to establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; to ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a world-wide network of representative marine areas; to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and to 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 proposes the establishment of marine protected areas.

A discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January 1997, entitled “The Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act” indicates that the areas are created to protect fishery resources, commercial and others, including marine mammals and their habitats, endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats, unique habitats, marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity and any other marine resource.

As the result of discussions held in Quebec in June 1998 by Fisheries and Oceans on marine protection areas, the report prepared by public officials states, and I quote: “There remains a lot of confusion among stakeholders about the various federal programs on marine protected areas,”—these are not our words, but the words of government officials—“marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas, marine fauna reserves, and so forth. The departments involved should get together and collaborate in establishing marine protected areas”.

Now, Environment Canada is proposing to establish marine conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine reserves, expanding the notion of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 mile limit within the exclusive economic zone under the Canada Oceans Act. These zones are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but require a different set of regulations.

In short, let us summarize, because the triple federal overlap at the federal level—setting aside its overlap with provincial jurisdictions—becomes almost a federal maze where people can get lost.

Therefore, under the various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection zones and natural marine reserves. According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the same territory could find itself with several different zonings under different regulations that could confuse the user.

Yet, an initiative such as the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park could 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. This resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area.

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.

The federal government should have used this first partnership initiative as a model for the creation of other marine conservation areas. Instead of using a policy of openness and co-operation, the federal government has used arrogance, aggression, invasion and overlap, everything we need to make us want to leave at the next opportunity.

In conclusion, unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against the amendment moved by the Reform Party, because it did not identify some points that we consider really important. Our interpretation of the bill leads us to believe that the reasons it gives are unacceptable.

This bill invades the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces involved, and Quebec cannot and will not operate within this system. We showed the Canadian government great openness when it came to managing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and we regret that the government has not learned its lesson.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to make a very specific point and I appreciate the opportunity to ask this question of the member.

I have been listening to the points that the government has been making across the way. Hon. members are always using the word “consultation”. It is a word that we hear all the time in the House. “Just pass this legislation and we will consult with all of the provinces and the stakeholders” in whatever issue they are putting forward in parliament.

One of the things that this bill will do will be to enlarge the minister's jurisdiction. That should be of concern to all Canadians. Power is being taken away from the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, and it is being given it to a bureaucracy which will tell the minister what needs to be done.

To make my point I refer hon. members to something that I said previously. I asked some lawyers in the House of Commons to do some research for me with regard to a number of bills that were coming before the House. I asked them this simple question: “Which one of the current bills before the House of Commons takes power away from parliament and gives it to the bureaucracy?” I received a very shocking answer. They did research on six separate bills and every one of those bills took power away from parliament and gave it to the bureaucracy. In other words, the people of Canada are losing control of the agenda. That control is being concentrated in the hands of a very few.

As we look at this bill we see the same thing happening. We are losing control through this bill which seems to be so nice and so wonderful and so compassionate in expressing concern for the environment. It actually does not do anything like that.

When government members go about using the word “consultation”, we have found by experience that they do not really and truly consult. They may have a dog and pony show and go around the country making it appear as if they are, but they do not really listen. What they call consultation is putting on a show, but not really putting into place what the people of Canada genuinely want.

This bill gives the people behind the scenes more control over the agenda. I am wondering if the member does not have a concern about this. I realize she is not supporting Reform's amendment, but we are very concerned about what is going on. Giving bureaucracy more power and taking it away from the people of Canada is what is going on. Once this bill is passed, no matter what the government says about its consultations and its process, it is gone forever. The next thing government members say will be “Parliament passed this bill. We have the power to do this. What are you complaining about?”

I would like the member to comment on what I have just said.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform member for his very relevant question which we take seriously.

Yes, we are concerned, because we fear that these consultations will be a sham. Under clause 9, the minister can consult whoever she wants whenever she wants. She transfers these duties to her staff without consulting, informing or bothering to get input from the public in general or even its elected representatives.

We are democratically elected to this House to represent our constituents and we have to inform them. As legislators, we should also be able to represent them well.

We are shown this bill and then told: “The minister will carry out some consultations.”

We are very concerned about this type of consultation, because, as we know, by and large these consultations always turn out in favour of the government or of the minister introducing the bill. This is why we think these consultations are a sham.

This is truly a tragic situation, because the government is trying to hoodwink us and would have us believe that the people have been consulted, when it is not so. It is also tragic because, once again, it is trying to impinge upon provincial areas of jurisdiction.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-48 at second reading.

This federal bill entitled an Act respecting marine conservation areas is aimed at establishing 28 marine conservation areas representative of various ecosystems in Canada. As we all know the Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill because it is covered by its own legislation.

I stress that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures aimed at protecting the environment. I should know since I was in charge of this issue for over a year. Also, as I recall the Bloc Quebecois supported the establishment of the Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park. I remember it well. I believe this must be very clear; there is a difference between the bill and the marine park.

We are opposed to Bill C-48 respecting the establishment of marine conservation areas because, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the marine park, the federal government wants to impose marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its own territory and of the environment.

Moreover Canadian Heritage is proposing to put in place new structures, marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. Simply put, the federal government is using three departments to infringe upon areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

What is more, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor. The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation or in partnership with the federal government on this, as it has done for phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.

Why then is the federal government behaving once again as if Quebec did not exist with regard to this issue, proposing a national project that does not take into account Quebeckers' wishes concerning environmental protection?

I am asking this question while knowing this approach by the federal government is increasingly commonplace. Since the Prime Minister became convinced he met Quebec's traditional demands, his government has been introducing one centralizing bill after another.

We have, in fact, several objections. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed on an act to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. The two pieces of legislation resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area. Allow me to explain the main features of the legislation.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any transfer of territory. The two governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The park includes only marine areas and covers 1,138 square kilometres.

In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by the Quebec and federal governments 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 the two governments, at least once every seven years.

By means of regulations under their respective legislation, 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.

This first partnership initiative should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas. There is also one other example to follow, Phase III of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, of which I shall now speak.

On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Quebec and of Canada 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.

Third, this phase III follows the two previous ones in which both governments invested over $300 million.

There is something which should concern everyone in Quebec. It is the fact that Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. If I may, I would like to mention six factors which show that Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec.

First, 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. Clause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister can establish a marine conservation area:

—only if he is satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in Right of Canada, excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Third, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies 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.

In addition, this legislation provides that 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 to 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.

Why is Heritage Canada now arrogantly demanding ownership of the ocean floor in order to create marine conservation areas, rather than allowing bilateral agreements between Quebec City and Ottawa that would let Quebec maintain its jurisdiction?

The answer is that this is the new approach to federal-provincial relations. This is what they did with the millennium scholarships. It is what they want to do with new health programs and the new young offenders legislation. It is what they are doing with the personal information protection bill. And they are doing it today with this marine conservation areas bill.

This Liberal government has decided to put Quebec in its place and that is why it is ignoring the promising experience of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would rather make a comment than ask a question of my colleague, the member for Rosemont, whom I thank sincerely, especially for helping out the Reform Party colleague who is wondering why the Bloc Quebecois does not support his party's amendment.

As you no doubt know much better than I, Mr. Speaker, with your broad experience and generally recognized expertise, there are different procedural tactics for delaying the passage of a bill at second reading.

First, a motion may be moved that it be postponed for six months. Second, a motion may be moved that it not be read the second time but that the objectives of the bill be referred to the committee under whose jurisdiction it comes. Third, and this is the approach of our Reform Party colleagues, a motion may be moved that the bill not be read the second time because of the absence of fundamental principles.

This is the approach the Reform Party has taken. It has invoked the absence of principles from the bill and, when I spoke last week, I was even surprised that the amendment was deemed votable. I was very surprised at this, given that our reading of the bill is not at all the same as that of the Reform Party. The principles the Reform Party is raising do not seem to us to be absent from the bill.

The fact that we cannot support the principles, which the Reform Party claims are not to be found in the bill, is the reason we in the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support the Reform Party's amendment to the effect that second reading not take place.

It is unfortunate that we could not come up with one single amendment for the opposition. We will still not support the amendment, but we will not be supporting the bill either. As all of our colleagues here have pointed out, this bill blocks any progress on environmental matters, because before we can get to protecting the environment we have to battle over who has jurisdiction here and who has jurisdiction there, when it would have been so simple to follow the example of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

In closing, I would ask my colleague, who was involved in environmental matters, whether he can enlighten me a bit on the differences between provincial and federal jurisdiction over the environment.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the federal and provincial governments together negotiated a harmonization agreement with the Government of Quebec, an agreement Quebec did not sign. Why did it not sign? Quite simply because the federal government refused to recognize that the environment was under Quebec's jurisdiction.

So long as the harmonization agreement and the bills—and I am thinking, for example, of Bill C-32, which is currently being examined and which changes the entire Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as the CEPA—interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, Quebec will reject such bills.

So, Quebec is clear, we will not sign a harmonization agreement so long as the federal government will not give this recognition.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, APEC Summit.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is so important I had to rise today and speak to it.

I do not often find myself in agreement with members of the Bloc Quebecois but on this particular bill they are absolutely right.

What on earth is the federal government doing dictating to the provinces what their marine conservation strategy should be? These are provincial jurisdictions. They always have been. I do not understand where the federal government gets off thinking it is going to somehow make our national unity problem easier to resolve when it keeps forever intruding into provincial jurisdictions on a more and more draconian basis.

I come from northern British Columbia. I have lived all my life there. I think I represent the point of view of most of the constituents I represent who live in northwest British Columbia. I am a skier, a boater and a recreational fisherman. I do a lot of hiking in the back country. I am a hunter. I spend a great deal of my recreational time in the great outdoors. I for one am very concerned and very interested in seeing that it is there for my children and their children, but in Canada we have gone completely overboard in pursuit of this radical environmentalist and preservationist agenda.

One of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party who spoke earlier was lauding the accomplishments of the previous government in the creation of South Moresby park in the Queen Charlotte Islands. That certainly waved a red flag in front of me. It is easy for that hon. member to pontificate on what the creation of South Moresby park meant because he lives 4,000 miles away. He is not the one who has to go out in the middle of the night when some poor family is moving out, taking everything they own in the back of a pickup.

People have been forced out of work. There are no economic opportunities left for them any more. The logging industry was shut down on the strength of a bunch of lies and half truths and mistruths on the part of the radical environmentalist and preservationist agenda.

The Queen Charlotte Islands are an archipelago comprised of two major islands. South Moresby is the large island on the south part of archipelago. In the mid-1980s radical environmentalists, preservationists and others with a hidden agenda made a concerted effort to convince ordinary decent Canadians that something which should not be happening was taking place on the Queen Charlotte Islands. They tried with the help of the media to persuade Canadians that clear cutting was taking place, the Queen Charlotte Islands were being decimated, the environment was being ruined, wildlife was being driven out and there was going to be no future if something was not done.

In 1986 the Government of Canada under Brian Mulroney and the provincial government created South Moresby park. The effect was that it stopped all logging in South Moresby. People were told that there was going to be—

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would greatly appreciate it if you could ask those members across the way, who want to talk and shout, to go and do so in the lobby.

I would like to hear what my colleague from the Reform Party has to say. If they want to shout, they should go there. There is a member there, all by himself. We will hear them less and they will be less disruptive; or else they should step out in the lobby, because our colleague deserves some respect.