Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parks)]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in the debate and deal with some of the issues the Bloc has raised, particularly the critic who made the original intervention, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, who has worked hard with our department on a number of issues to try to enhance our protection of special places in this country.

I am very disappointed to hear the Bloc's opposition to this bill. The previous speaker from the Bloc tried to suggest to Canadians and Canadians in Quebec that it is not opposing an environmental bill, legislation that will help protect our marine ecosystems.

People should be absolutely clear that they are opposing just that type of legislation, they are opposing the protection of the marine environments in that part of the country. Why are they opposing it? They are opposing it because they put up a situation that does not reflect the reality of what this bill would do or reflect the reality of the conditions as they exist today.

As the member for Rimouski—Mitis said, there are eight potential marine conservation areas around the province of Quebec. I believe six of those areas are exclusively federal jurisdiction and the province of Quebec accepts that. There is no issue about infringing on provincial rights or provincial prerogatives. Those are accepted by all parties, by the province and federal government, as being exclusively federal.

When parks are established in that area, even though they are federal, as has been our practice in the past, we will consult with our host communities and the host province, but they are clearly federal jurisdiction.

There are situations where the jurisdiction could be provincial and I think we should look at the record when that situation existed. When we went to Ontario to establish Fathom Five, a marine conservation area, the first one in Canada, we worked with the provincial government and came to agreement with the provincial government. We are working today in British Columbia in Gwaii Haanas. Again we work with the province and have come to an agreement with it.

We are working in terms of some feasibility studies, one in my hon. colleague's riding of Gander—Grand Falls. It is the same thing when we are working in the straits in British Columbia.

When we worked in an area of the province of Quebec where there was clearly provincial jurisdiction, as we have with the other provinces, we developed a model to work in that area. That model was reflected with the Sagenauy-St. Lawrence bill.

The suggestions by the Bloc that this legislation is somehow a massive intrusion on provincial authority is just not consistent with the facts. Not only is it not consistent with the facts, if one looks at the practices that have been carried out by Parks Canada one will find that is not consistent with what is actually taking place. They are creating a controversy, a reason to oppose, and that reason is not based on the reality of the situation today.

It is very disappointing to see in the House that they are taking a piece of legislation which will help protect the environment, the special places of the marine ecosystems around that province, as they are around the rest of the country, and for parochial reasons that have absolutely no basis in fact they are going to throw away or oppose this very important piece of environmental legislation.

It is really disconcerting to see them do that. It is disconcerting to see them fighting a provincial election on the floor of this House and to find excuses for opposing an important piece of legislation. They know full well this legislation does not infringe on provincial jurisdiction.

They know full well it has been our practice in the past to work with the provincial governments in establishing marine conservation areas. The hon. member from Vanier made it very clear that was going to continue to be the policy of Parks Canada and of heritage Canada. They are simply creating opposition based on something that is not a fact, that is not true.

It is important that all Canadians understand that. It is particularly important for those Canadians who live in the province of Quebec to understand clearly that Bloc members in the House are opposing a piece of legislation which will help protect the environment of that area of the country. They are opposed to it for reasons that are simply not as they state. This is not an infringement on provincial jurisdiction. I thought that point needed to be made.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I generally say that I am pleased to speak on a bill, but today I must say the emotion I am experiencing in taking part in this debate is anger. I hope that the hon. members across the way will open their ears.

The hon. member who has just spoken claims we enjoy land squabbles, any old squabble. He was unable to prove legally that what the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis says is untrue.

I will give him two more good reasons for understanding common sense. I will try to avoid references to the provincial election, since I know that gives members opposite hives. The hon. member will, however, have a clear understanding, from the reasons I am going to give him, of why Quebeckers are going to choose a Parti Quebecois government.

The first reason, and this is indecent, is that they come here boasting of wanting to establish marine conservation areas via Heritage Canada. We have been living through a fisheries crisis, one that is still going on. Do members think the Liberal Party of Canada could be re-elected if it were to traipse around Newfoundland or Nova Scotia telling people “Well, gentlemen, we are going to protect your marine areas”. But who is taking care of the fishers who have lost their livelihood? Who is taking care of the plant workers who have lost everything? Who?

It is an absolute shame. If I were a Liberal, I would be ashamed to show my face again in the maritimes on the weekends. I would be concerned for my safety. I can understand wanting to protect everything from the marine floor up. But in between there are no fishers, no plant workers. All this to protect one species or take tourists on a boat ride. This is all very well, but what tourists will see on their arrival on the coast will be hungry people with nothing to eat, people who will have lost the dignity work brings. This is unconscionable. What members opposite are saying is downright asinine.

Second, when the government comes up with something intelligent I try to co-operate. We did it in the past. One of the most recent legislation we passed regarding fisheries and oceans was the Canada Oceans Act. One of the main thrusts of the bill was to put an end to the confusion in the management of fisheries; the fisheries minister was ordered to assume the lead role in managing all ecosystems. This bill, which has been enacted, ordered the ministers to talk to each other. However Fisheries and Oceans was still to be the lead department for everything concerning our waters.

I do not understand how the Liberal Party, the current government, can contradict itself by allowing the heritage minister to create more marine conservation areas. I remind the House of the existence of three different names. With have the Department of Canadian Heritage's marine conservation areas; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. All of them talk about conservation.

You will easily understand why fishers and plant workers are so desperate since every single time the government attempts to protect or manage something, the results are disastrous. A case in point is the collapse of the groundfish fisheries.

I urge the government. If it is really serious about preserving marine resources, the heritage minister should keep her hands off it.

DFO's biologists failed in their attempt to protect our cod. Imagine what the heritage minister's bureaucrats will do. I am scared.

I would be ashamed if I were in the Liberals' shoes this morning. What will the Liberals from the maritimes do? I have a lot of respect for my colleagues who are not afraid to speak in the House, but I have not seen one member from the maritimes rise to defend this bill. I am telling them they should get out through the back door. It is ridiculous. There is no excuse.

What will they do when they go back home? Christmas is fast approaching. There are just two weeks left before we adjourn. Those people will go back home and say “Well, gentlemen, we protected your ecosystem and, thanks to us, everything will be fine”. But what will they answer when someone stops them on the street and says “Could I have a Christmas present like everybody else? Will I have something to eat this Christmas”? It is a shame.

There were 40,000 people who benefited from TAGS. The government abandoned 20,000 of them, and it gave a cash payment to the other 20,000 and told them to go home and shut up.

With this bill, the Liberals are saying that they want to protect marine resources, but nobody is protecting these workers, nobody is protecting our fishers. It is really a shame.

I would like to say some words in English because I have some friends in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I would like to address some comments to those people.

I would like to be sure that fishermen will call their members in their areas today and the next day to be sure that those members remember that nobody protects fishermen and plant workers now. They have to make those calls. It is incredible. We cannot let the minister do this in the fisheries areas.

Things never change. This is an unprecedented attack against provincial areas of jurisdiction. Despite what the parliamentary secretary may say, there is a conflict. When we want to solve problems, we need dialogue.

I liked what my colleague, the hon. member from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, said earlier, namely that you have to be two to tango and that he had the feeling that he was dancing alone. I have the feeling that the heritage minister wants to tango, but she is stepping on our toes. This is much worse than someone who does not want to dance with a partner. She might do better sitting this one out.

What should the government have done? We saw the squabbling that went on last summer. If the minister really wanted to protect the resource, why did she not insist in cabinet that the government, through the fisheries minister, decide once and for all how the resource will be shared among the provinces? Because there were squabbles all summer long.

I remind the House that Canada is part of an international management system called NAFO. Under that system, once scientific data are received, since the method for calculating total allowable catches is already known, every country transmits its biological data and, in the end, quotas are established, because they are pre-established as a percentage, taking into account the history of each member country and proximity to the resource.

Such discussions would get things going between Canadians and Quebeckers and we would stop squabbling. Instead of doing that, the government introduces a bill that will turn everything upside down. No one here in this House is defending workers at this time, and this is unacceptable. I may have an opportunity to repeat again, because I do not recall what stage the bill is at right now.

[An hon. member]

Second reading.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Oh good, it will be coming back.

Someone has to put a stop to this farce. This will never bring peace.

Members should try to imagine, just for one moment, that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, tomorrow morning, goes to Shelburne, in Nova Scotia, or to Cap-aux-Meules on the Magdalen Islands and says “We will probably establish a conservation area in this region”. I truly hope that everyone on the islands is asleep on that day, otherwise I could not guarantee the minister's personal safety. After the whole industry has collapsed, it is unacceptable for the government to tell people that it intends to protect fish and that they have no say on the issue. This is utter nonsense.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at second reading of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, and the amendment proposed by the Reform Party. We will not support the bill, and I will explain why.

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 the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and over environmental matters.

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 marine areas.

In short, the federal government, which claims to have met all of Quebec's demands, and which 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 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec and the other provinces.

This is another example of interference and duplication. As my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was saying, the situation is especially complex in Canada, and even more so when bodies of water are involved.

I will tell you a story. A fisherman wants to go fishing on the St. Lawrence River. So far, so good. This fisherman has to ask the provincial government for a fishing licence. He will go fishing in a rowboat he bought in Quebec, on which of course he paid federal and provincial taxes. In order to launch his rowboat, he needs a federal registration.

Before launching his rowboat, he gets ready on the shore of the river. He is on a territory under Quebec jurisdiction since the shores come under provincial jurisdiction. However, the moment he launches his rowboat, he changes jurisdiction since his rowboat is now on water, which comes under federal jurisdiction.

However, for clarity, I must say that the bottom of the river is still under provincial jurisdiction. The fish that swims in the water and that the fisherman will try to catch is under federal jurisdiction. But its friend, the crab, which is crawling on the bottom of the river, is under shared jurisdiction, even though the bottom of the river is still under provincial jurisdiction.

The fish swimming in the water comes under federal jurisdiction. But, once it is caught and lying at the bottom of the rowboat, it comes under provincial jurisdiction. Due attention will then have to be paid to regulations, because there are federal quotas for that kind of fish.

Moreover, if this is commercial fishing, there are federal and provincial laws and regulations with regard to food, the environment, public health, equipment and so on.

As if things were not complicated enough, Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. This makes no sense.

Three federal departments will drag their standards into an area of provincial jurisdiction, creating overlap in an already thoroughly complicated situation. It borders on the absurd.

Through Heritage Canada, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the federal government has already created marine protection zones. Through Environment Canada, the federal government wants to create marine wildlife preserves. How can anyone make sense of this?

For its part—there is more—Fisheries and Oceans is proposing to set up marine protected areas. Following DFO's consultation meetings on marine protection zones in Quebec in June 1998, federal officials wrote the following in their minutes of these meetings:

There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas (marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas, wildlife marine preserves, etc.). The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.

This is not the Bloc Quebecois talking; these were the comments of federal officials.

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.

Such overlap and duplication is ridiculous. Who will know what belongs to whom? But we know what this government wants. It wants to get its hands on the St. Lawrence River. This is how it hopes to invade our jurisdiction. This is how it thinks it will bend us to its will, but we are not having any of it.

Yet an agreement could have been reached, as it was in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This initiative could have served as a model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed to pass mirror legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area.

This first partnership initiative should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas. Rather than demonstrating open-mindedness and co-operation, the federal government is still taking an arrogant, aggressive, invasive approach that creates overlap and will only feed our desire to leave as soon as possible.

Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan could have served as another model. But the Government of Canada is not happy when everything is running smoothly. They prefer to stir up trouble and sow discord. They do not understand that Quebeckers have had it with their arrogant policies that cost a fortune, and the people will let them know unequivocally in a very short time.

The bill is an intrusion into the jurisdictions of Quebec and those of the other provinces, when they are concerned. Quebec cannot and will not work in this kind of system. We were very open with the federal government in dealing with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is unfortunate that the government has not learned its lesson.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to take part in this debate. We have to, because enough is enough.

I will add that, fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here to see what is going on and to point out loud and clear that federalism as it is practiced here has nothing to do with what we learn, in political science books, about this type of government.

Federalism as we see it here is becoming a continuous struggle between two levels of government, two departmental levels, while the federal government is using the surpluses that were taken so cruelly from the unemployed and from those who have suffered as a result of cuts in health care, in education and in welfare.

It takes a great deal of arrogance, ignorance or insensitivity, or maybe all of these, to introduce such a bill at a time like this. My colleague, the member for Drummond, pointed out the federal government's inconsistency—it could almost be funny if the situation were not so sad—in wanting at all costs to have the final say on the environment. As if the government of Quebec and the other provincial governments could not take care of this adequately or were not reasonable enough to agree on a joint program.

This goes completely against the spirit of federalism, but the federal government is convinced that it is the only one that can adequately defend or protect, with the taxpayers' money, health care or any other right of Canadians, Quebeckers and people in the other provinces.

In fact, these repeated attacks make so little sense that, when we talk about them, it looks like we are exaggerating. It looks like what we are saying does not make sense. It is, however, the plain and simple truth. That is the problem.

Again, we have to fight. Many times, I condemned the fact that Bill C-54, now before us, constitutes such an intrusion in areas under provincial jurisdiction that all the provincial and territorial ministers of justice of all provinces have asked that it be withdrawn. But the federal government seems to be carrying on as if this were unimportant. They could not care less about the law of the land. They thumb their noses at constitutional interpretation. They just make laws or use their spending powers.

In the case of concern to us here, the Bloc Quebecois has once again tried to get the bill withdrawn. We find ourselves faced with a bill that looks innocuous, with its title of “an act respecting marine conservation areas”.

Its objective seems most praiseworthy: to ensure—and this was a promise, an international commitment, by the Prime Minister—the protection of natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity. The problem is that the Prime Minister did not turn to the provinces to ask them how they could help to achieve this international commitment. No, that is not what was done.

They proposed a bill in which they say “We will look after this. We will pass a law. We will establish marine conservation areas, and in order to ensure that they fit in with what we want to do, Her Majesty in right of Canada must have clear title to the lands in question”. This is what appears in clause 5(2).

Clear title to the lands in question means three specific areas, three large and significant areas, as far as the St. Lawrence is concerned. The present Government of Quebec, which it seems will also be the next one as well—and this will come as no surprise to anyone who has read this morning's papers—had already initiated consultations on this matter.

It is outrageous, after having made an international commitment, to turn around and say “Now I am choosing the locations where I am going to create areas, and if I am going to invest in this, I have to have ownership”.

Something stands in the way, however. The National Assembly passed legislation on crown lands which applies, and I quote, “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”.

It is fortunate that the Quebec National Assembly has passed this legislation. It provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it can do under 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. The Government of Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future, as the member for Rimouski—Mitis reminded us.

The identified areas are under Quebec's jurisdiction and Quebec has no intention of giving them away because, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for fisheries pointed out, the fishing industry is in dire straits. The only prospect villagers who are starving, young people who see no future and seniors who have difficulty making ends meet have is that bureaucrats will come swarming into this area to handle fish conservation, without co-operation and without preparation.

Heritage Canada and its minister may want to follow up on the Prime Minister's commitment, but they cannot do so without taking Quebec and Quebeckers into consideration. The only way to meet this international commitment, whose objectives the Bloc supports, is to do what was done when the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was established, in other words, to have similar legislation passed simultaneously at the federal and provincial level and dealing with a joint management.

I repeat, it is fortunate that the Bloc Quebecois is here, it is fortunate that Quebec has passed an act respecting crown lands to protect territorial sovereignty, which is guaranteed under the Constitution. Quebeckers will not sit idly by.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to several speakers from the Bloc, I have to say a few words about the inaccurate assessment of the second reading of this bill given by some of the opposition members.

Second reading is about the principle of the bill. What is the principle of this bill? The principle is a particular type of conservation, marine conservation.

If I went to the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and asked fishermen what was the most important thing affecting their livelihood, they would say marine conservation. In what area were the greatest errors made by the federal government over the years? It was in the area of marine conservation.

If I went down to the Gaspé and talked to the people there they would say the same thing. If I went up to Blanc-Sablon and talked to the people there they would say the same thing.

Why am I able to say that? I was part of a committee that travelled in the past year and held public hearings. We had group after group telling us that the greatest disaster in their lives was created by policies of the federal government in the past that destroyed their livelihood. They were very specific.

The hon. member for Drummond stood in her place a moment ago and made a sarcastic reference to the fact that the Prime Minister was concerned about the marine resources from the land right out to 200 miles. Let me correct her. The Prime Minister is concerned about the resources that go right out to the end of the continental shelf, not just 200 miles but 350 miles.

I will tell this House why. Go to the Quebec north shore and ask the fishermen there what happened to their mackerel. It is the greatest spawning ground in the world for mackerel, as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the hon. member who represents Iles-de-la-Madeleine know, because they are very knowledgeable in the fishery. The greatest spawning ground for mackerel is the coast of Quebec.

What happened to that resource? In the 1980s licences were given. To whom? To Norway, Sweden and some other European countries. It was to block the spawning run where the mackerel were headed to the coast of Quebec to spawn in late May. That was poor fisheries management on the part of the Tory government of the day. It was the most outrageous thing that destroyed the spawning ground of the mackerel. In one year there were seven Norwegian vessels right between Sydney Bight and Port-aux-Basques. The next year there were nine and the year after there were eleven. Why? It was because of poor fisheries management of non-conservation of our marine resource.

If we asked the fishermen what perhaps was the second worst policy of the government of Canada then, they would refer, as the parliamentary secretary knows, to the policies of former governments on squid where unfortunately squid cannot get to the Quebec coast if blocked by foreign nations off the coast of Nova Scotia. Why? Because of poor management of our marine resource. If we ask fishermen on the coast of Quebec what is the third worst marine conservation measure ever taken by the government of Canada in the past, they would say the policy on capelin. Why? Because that is perhaps the most important food of salmon that go up the rivers in Quebec and other provinces. It is the food of northern cod and turbot that the people in Quebec need as fishermen.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I know the member for Gander—Grand Falls, and because I know him, I would like to give him the opportunity to come back to the issue, which is marine protected areas.

He is talking to us about migrating species—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls is well aware that this bill deals with the management of conservation areas. I am sure that, during his discussion on fish, we will soon get to marine area management.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your wise judgment that marine actually means something that is in the water. Of course marine management means management of something in the water.

Apart from the other things I mentioned that were missing prior to the advent of this government, if we ask the fishermen of Quebec what the next worst thing in marine management and conservation that affected their lives has been in the past, the biggest error ever made by a former federal government, they would say the non-protection of the sea bed. They would say that for a very good reason. We have over the years allowed the massive destruction of our ecosystem and allowed intensive dragging of the ocean floor in our commercial fisheries.

I will give an example of the importance of marine conservation. Last year there were 123 draggers that took part in the shrimp fishery on the continental shelf. There were 6 Canadian vessels and 117 foreign vessels. These were 350 foot vessels with huge plates on either end of a drag, 10 feet long, 8 feet high, 4 feet thick, iron and steel that drag the bottom of the ocean and create a virtual vortex of sediment in the middle like a sand storm on the bottom of the ocean, destroying everything in its path. That is why the Government of Canada, in referring to what the member for Drummond said, is not only interested in what takes place inside the 200 mile zone, but is interested in extending our jurisdiction. Before the next federal election the government is also intent on extending jurisdiction in order to stop this massive destruction of the bottom of the sea floor.

The parliamentary secretary was there when we had our public meetings in the province of Quebec, all along the shore from Blanc-Sablon down to the Gaspé coast. These fishermen and fish plant workers want to make sure the Government of Canada stops the destruction of the food supply of our cod, salmon and turbot.

The Government of Canada is firmly there to say no to these totally destructive methods of fishing that have taken place in the past which former governments have been guilty of, especially the former Progressive Conservative government which ruled the fishery in those days.

It is very unfortunate that the Bloc is not in favour of the principle of marine conservation. The Government of Canada will make sure we advance in the future to protect our marine environment.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at second reading of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

This bill seeks to define the legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, so as to protect and preserve natural marine areas that are representative of the oceans and of the Great Lakes, to promote public knowledge, appreciation and enjoyment of this marine heritage, and to preserve it for future generations. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which is the 29th marine conservation area and which was officially established on June 12, is not included. It is not covered by the bill, because Quebec has its own legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois finds it perfectly normal and legitimate that Quebec would apply its own legislation to the marine world. After all, our province has been assuming for 15 years already its legislative responsibilities regarding the land along the Saguenay fjord and a large part of the St. Lawrence estuary.

The Bloc Quebecois has always cared a great deal about environmental protection measures. I know what I am talking about, since I was my party's critic on the environment from 1995 to 1997. The Bloc Quebecois supported the government regarding the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

That being said, my party will oppose this bill. We cannot support Bill C-48 which, instead of relying on dialogue, as was the case with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, does just the opposite.

With this bill, the federal government is trying to unilaterally create marine conservation areas, regardless of Quebec's jurisdictions, particularly over the environment. This is the main reason the Bloc Quebecois will not support the bill.

We feel that this legislation is an unacceptable infringement by the federal government on jurisdictions that are already under Quebec's strong and effective control.

The Government of Quebec has a proven track record and it has taken measures to protect the environment, particularly the marine floor. So why does the federal government feel the urge again to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction? It is always the same old story.

I would like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to explain to me why she does not want to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model.

By making ownership of the territory an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is behaving like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of Quebec's jurisdictions. This is no surprise coming from this government.

This kind of interference is nothing new. Paradoxically, the federal government has often used the environment as the perfect example of progressive, open and decentralized federalism.

On other occasions, this same government invoked the notion of national interest as well as international commitments stemming from the globalization of environmental issues, as if Quebec were incapable of facing this new reality on its own. Let us be serious.

Here are a few flagrant examples that show this government's bad faith and its insatiable appetite for interfering in Quebec's affairs, particularly with regard to the environment.

The first example is the implementation of the ecogovernment policy in which Ottawa totally ignored provincial powers by favouring a partnership with representatives from industry, municipalities and agriculture. It deliberately ignored Quebec's involvement.

The second example is the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which infringes in an unprecedented way on provincial responsibilities and creates considerable duplication with Quebec's legislation in this area. Now we have Bill C-48, an Act respecting marine conservation areas, and there are many other examples.

Speaking of duplication, this bill tops it all. It is an unthinkable administrative mess.

Bill C-48, proposed by the Department of Canadian Heritage, will establish 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. That does not take into account the overlap with the Quebec department of the environment and wildlife. What a fine example of federal bureaucratic inefficiency. Amazing.

In addition, the bill disregards Quebec's territorial integrity. We need only look at the wording of the bill. Clause 5(2) specifically provides that the minister may not establish a marine conservation area, unless he, and I quote:

—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 area of Canada.

Quebec is not for sale. Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec legislation on crown lands 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 same legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. It can, within this legislation, only authorize, by order, the federal government to use them under its 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.

To top it off, Heritage Canada intends to unilaterally launch three projects to establish marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence River, its estuary and gulf, all three being areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

What justifies such arrogance on the part of this government, which claims it owns the marine floor where it wants, to establish marine conservation areas? Why does the federal government not promote bilateral agreements between the Ottawa and the Quebec government instead, so that Quebec may maintain its areas of jurisdiction?

This government loves to go it alone and show the rest of Canada that it is the one laying down the rules of the game, ignoring its own laws and those of the provinces in the process. This is another example of how unfairly Quebec is treated in this federal system.

How stupid and ironic at the same time. Not only is the federal government duplicating what the provinces do, it is also opening the door to overlap in its own court.

How can people believe and trust it, when it shows so little determination and strength in their legislation? Quebeckers will figure it out and be all the more convinced that pulling out of the federation is the right thing to do.

Bill C-48 on marine conservation areas is an unacceptable attack on a predominantly provincial jurisdiction. It will result in duplication, challenge and the subordination of provincial processes, as well as large and unnecessary expenditures and many court challenges. These are becoming more frequent in the federal system and are becoming unbearable.

Once again, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill after the federal government has made the wrong decision.

As I said at the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. On November 30, Quebeckers will make the right decision for Quebec, they will be vote for the Parti Quebecois.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, probably one of the problems in the country is that politics get involved in what would be considered a very good idea.

Our party supports the marine protection act, although we have some reservations about it. Allow me to digress for a moment, as my critic area is fisheries and oceans and I would like to relate that to this argument. There is a bank off Nova Scotia's shelf called the George's Bank, which by the way and for the public record is not named after the member for Gander—Grand Falls. I mention that because I know he is watching and listening intently to every word. The Americans have put an oil and gas moratorium on their side of the George's Bank to the year 2012.

This is a prime fishing area for all the east coast. Although it has not been accepted and there will be hearings and reviews of it, Canada is considering the possibility of allowing a discussion of oil and gas drilling within the George's Bank, one of the prime fishing areas of the world if not off the coast of Canada.

For us to even consider having a review, talking to companies like Shell, Mobil, PetroCan or whatever is unbelievable. We should not try in any way, shape or form to destroy a resource to exploit another resources. By the way, the resource we are talking about in the fishing industry is renewable. If it is done sustainably with an environmental message behind it, it can be renewable and bring economic wealth not only for future generations but for generations to follow.

If we destroy that and allow oil and gas drilling on the George's Bank, we will have economic wealth for our generation and nothing for the future, absolutely nothing for the future.

The problem with part of the Bloc, Liberal, Reform, Tory and even our debate by allowing politics to get involved is that we can only see in four year terms. I am a new politician. I know that politicians are a reactive bunch. They are not very proactive.

The hon. member for Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan is Metis. His culture and his people look a lot further than the current generation. The input they have on the land and the impact they have on resources is for future generations, not just their children or grandchildren but children hundreds of years down the road, so that they will be able to access and live with the species and resources we currently have.

We have some particular reservations about the bill. We would like to see some refinements, but it is not a bad bill in terms of what we have done with land. The current Prime Minister is very proud to say that he has produced more parks in Canada than any other minister before him. Unfortunately, as in the case of Banff National Park, we trumpet that success and then allow coal mining or strip mining on the border of that park for economic gains right now, but nothing for the long term future of the country.

I remind all parliamentarians and those people who are watching today that we are not the masters of the globe. We share the planet with many other species. For us to exploit a particular species to its extinction is a detriment to all mankind. It is a disgrace that we have a list a mile long of species that used to walk on this planet which are now extinct because of our short term thinking.

Marine parks just add to the parks in Canada. When the provinces get involved, they start introducing legislation which may allow discussions about entering into mining or development inside the parks. Call me old fashion, but my interpretation of a park is a park that we can share in, walk around, canoe in and camp in. It is not necessarily to play golf in, to have saunas, or to exploit mineral resources, fishing resources or to cut down all the trees. I would like to think I could move myself in space 500 years and come back and find the parks just like they were before.

That will not happen because we are looking at these parks and areas of our country and our world as avenues in which to exploit. There is a piece of pie out there and we will take every last bit of it and not share it with anyone else. Unfortunately we do not have enough parks and wilderness areas that are protected. The marine parks act will just move what we have in Canada to our ocean coasts.

I would like to move the discussion to an area called the Gully off Sable Island. Actually there is more than one gully, but this gully, for those who do not know, is a marine wilderness. It is an absolute explosion of marine aquatic life. We are allowing, I do not think with much hindsight, oil and gas drilling in the vicinity of that gully. They say environmental assessments and everything else have been done, but the fact is I do not believe they have done enough environmental assessments on the long term possible damage which may happen not only to that area of the ocean shelf, the Gully area, but other areas there as well.

Another area is the renowned area called the Flemish Cap. As everyone knows, especially the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls and the hon. member for Malpeque, the Flemish Cap is a prime, pristine area of fishing resources. Currently, with acquiescence from our government and foreign nations, we are raping and pillaging that resource. We are using long term draggers.

It is funny that a senior official of DFO actually said in committee on the public record that dragging could be good in some cases because it turns up the soil at the bottom. I have never heard before that dragging a resource, where we exploit completely, rape and pillage the entire bottom, is actually good. It is good for very quick economic gains. It is very fast and efficient but there is no long term thinking in that regard.

If we are to protect the livelihood of fishermen in coastal communities, we require marine parks on all three coasts and within the Great Lakes waters so that fish and other species have a place to go to nurture and to grow. If we do not, there will be nothing left for future generations.

I find it a disgrace that we as parliamentarians can allow politics to get involved in something of this nature. We have to get it out of here. We have to forget the party politics aspect and start concentrating on our children and our children's children so that they can enjoy seeing what we see today.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, being a very young man in age, you must know right now that things you saw as a child your children, your nieces and nephews and their children will not be able to see because we have exploited them. We have altered it. We have changed it for our specific short term benefit but have not thought about the long term.

My party and I are in support of the bill with some reservations. Some changes need to be made and we are hoping they will be made. We are hoping that the provinces, especially Quebec, would be very interested in doing this.

Let us face it. If we take away the provinces and the people, what do we have left? We have the natural resources that were here long before we were ever here. I do not know who gave us the right to exploit them and actually exterminate them. If we do not look at this in the long term, future generations, if we have any, will look at this generation and say we were a bunch of spoiled brats who just took everything for ourselves and left nothing for them.

I will conclude my comments. I extend our support for the bill with some reservations and hope that all parliamentarians will look to the future and not just to themselves.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48, an Act respecting marine conservation areas, provides for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas in Canada.

This raises many serious questions on several issues including the division of powers regarding the environment—harmonization with the provinces—territorial integrity, the overlap among federal departments and the so-called consultations carried out by the government. I will go over each of these issues and explain why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill.

As the Bloc Quebecois environment critic, I can say that my party is in favour of any environmental protection measure that is efficient. However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-48. 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 the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and of the environment.

Moreover, 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. In short, the federal government is splitting responsibilities among three of its departments so it can meddle in an area that comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

On a different note, Bill C-48 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.

Subclause 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.

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

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 us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to the bill, 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.

The St. Lawrence Marine Park is a good model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.

This legislation led to the establishment 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 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 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.

This 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.

Any exploration, use 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.

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.

This first partnership initiative should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas.

By refusing to take the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as an example, the federal government is acting as a centralizing government that wants to control everything, regardless of acknowledged areas of jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that it supported the legislation establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows the Quebec government is embarking on initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor. The Quebec government is also open to working with the federal government, as evidenced by the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.

The involvement of several federal departments in environmental issues is a new trend that leads us to believe the government is trying to weaken the Department of the Environment.

With this bill, the federal government intends to establish marine conservation areas through Heritage Canada, marine protected areas through Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife reserves through Environment Canada. This means that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category.

The Bloc Quebecois thinks these different designations create a jurisdictional duplication problem that would be solved if the federal government designated one entity to oversee the objectives pursued by the various departments.

By taking three separate initiatives with very similar objectives, the federal government is creating jurisdictional duplication which will result in confusion among the coastal populations concerned and frictions not only between the federal government and the Quebec government, but also within the federal government.

To show the severity of the problem, the Government of Quebec has refused to take part in the implementation of marine protected areas under the Oceans Act because it believes the federal government is not respecting Quebec's jurisdictions.

Coastal populations, environmental organizations, all stakeholders must be invited to take part in the consultation process to express their views. However, that is not the way it is done in reality. We know the bogus consultation process conducted by Heritage Canada on the establishment of marine conservation areas was a failure, as was the one conducted by Fisheries and Oceans on the establishment of marine protected areas.

A background document was sent by Heritage Canada to 3,000 groups across Canada. Less than ten of them responded by sending a letter, and about fifty simply returned the reply coupon included in the document. Of those responses, only one was in French.

In view of this, it is impossible to talk about meaningful consultation. How can the government introduce a bill that supposedly has the support of all stakeholders if it is not aware of their concerns? This leads us to think that this was empty and unfounded consultation.

We suspect, moreover, that the organizations consulted were preselected. By way of example, had the ZIPs, zones d'intervention prioritaire, and the CREs, the conseils régionaux de l'environnement, been consulted, we could have benefited from all their expertise. In fact, some 30% of these organizations were consulted, and that is totally unacceptable.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill for the following reasons.

Instead of focusing on co-operation, as in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government fails to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over it own territory and in environmental matters. Therefore, there is encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction.

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 marine areas.

For all these reasons, and for a number of others, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, which, I must admit, did not make much of an effect on me when I first perused it. I figured everyone wants to do the right thing, and Quebeckers may be more sensitive than others to this kind of infringement.

I took a closer look at what the hysterical heritage minister who introduced this legislation had come up with. No matter how well-intentioned she is, it is obvious that the minister's attitude toward Quebec has not changed a bit and that she is as hysterical now as she was recently, when she asked the Canadian Olympic committee to postpone the announcement of the city selected to host the 2010 Olympic Games.

True to herself, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage has never been keen on consultation, quite the contrary. As far back as I can remember, she has always acted imperiously to impose her vision, her ideas. Consultation is definitely not her cup of tea.

This bill will establish up to eight marine areas in the St. Lawrence estuary, but there is no indication of whether they will be located upstream or downstream and how far they will extend. We simply do not know. For the sake of argument, let us say they extend to the dividing line between fresh and salt water, somewhere between Rivière-du-Loup and Montmagny. That is where the marine conservation areas would be established. But have those involved been consulted?

I heard the member for Gander—Grand Falls saying earlier that the spawning grounds for mackerel and other fish common to these regions are located off the North Shore in the St. Lawrence River. Can the inhabitants of the North Shore, particularly in the ridings of my colleagues, the members for Charlevoix and Manicouagan, be expected to foot the bill, without any compensation, for marine conservation areas in this sector?

Were these people consulted? Will these areas be open for certain periods? Will there be more control over fishing? Will they be given the chance not just to survive, but to make a living, when the bill is passed?

The minister should realize that this policy of refusing to give an inch will lead nowhere.

I would like to digress briefly. This morning, I had breakfast with someone I consider a friend, a minister from across the way.

He was at a loss and had the following question for me: “What have the Liberals done wrong in Quebec for it to have come to this? On November 30, we will take a beating in the francophone ridings in Quebec. We will keep our strongholds, of course, but where did we go wrong? What more could we do? We sent you the saviour himself to rescue the nation.” I am referring, of course, to Jean Charest. “What went wrong? What more could he have done?”

Faced with the sort of arrogance we are seeing from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Quebeckers have learned over the years. This kind of attitude, sanctioned by the present Prime Minister, who was the leading force behind the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, leaves its mark on a people. Quebeckers have become fearful. Quebeckers are not prepared to trust a government that relies on remote control, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage is doing by imposing Bill C-48 on us, having consulted no one except perhaps a few of her friends on the receiving end of hard-to-trace grants. Anyway, she has friends in this community, of course. So she consulted her buddies, who are probably the ones who inspired the negative outcome we expect from application of Bill C-48.

If the minister had been concerned about the federal government's image in Quebec, she would have first of all undertaken consultations with the Government of Quebec. She is up to her neck now—never has the expression been more apt—in total interference in legislative jurisdictions.

Yet the Fathers of Confederation were no fools. They were people who set priorities, people who had believed, in good faith, that legislative jurisdictions needed to be divided, that some things were best attributed to one level and some to the other, according to which one had shown, historically, the greatest capacity to deal with those issues.

The government possesses huge taxation powers, far beyond its real needs. It also acts based on its spending power as well as its ability to appropriate funds, for example in the recent case of the employment insurance fund.

The government is now faced with a crushing debt, but, on the one hand, the additional economic input will enable it to do away with the deficit, while on the other, it dips into the employment insurance fund and has accumulated $10.4 billion in surplus over the first six months of the current year. This is a misappropriation of funds, nothing more and nothing less.

For all these reasons, Quebeckers are apprehensive, and the backing federal governments had 50, 60 or 70 years ago no longer exist. Everything the federal government does is closely scrutinized by the people, and by members representing Quebec and the other provinces in the House. My colleagues in the Reform Party look after the interests of western Canadians. They are more aggressive when we deal with the Canadian Wheat Board and other subjects more specifically related to the development of their own region.

Opposition members have a responsibility to speak up and tell this hysterical minister who says all sorts of silly things when she is off the air that it is about time she opened her eyes and saw what is going on. It is about time she realized what is wrong in Quebec where the mere mention of the prime minister's name gives a rash to 35% of the population. There is something wrong, and it is high time the government, and more particularly this minister, realized it.

I ask her to put on hold this bill which has the appearance of a commendable bill, because its goal is to protect endangered marine species. And who could be against motherhood and apple pie? Nobody, and certainly not in my party. But the bill also has the unwanted effect of using the federal spending power to intrude into jurisdictions that are none of the federal government's business.

The federal government is forcing things over which it has no jurisdiction. If it wants to spend so badly, why does it not use the $10 billion surplus in the EI fund, and spend a little extra money to help the unemployed, who now get only 43% of the benefits they deserve?

If the minister's remarks are well intentioned, she should revise them and admit that she made a mistake when she introduced this bill. She is getting deeper and deeper into trouble.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among representatives of all parties. I believe you would find consent to defer the recorded division requested on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning second reading of Bill C-48 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, December 1, 1998.