House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 34
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams St. Albert, AB

For the following categories of items purchased either by Public Works and Government Services Canada for departments, agencies and crown corporations, or by the individual department, agency or crown corporation in fiscal years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, namely, (1) teapots, (2) televisions, (3) briefcases, (4) umbrellas, (5) sewing machines, (6) microwaves, (7) flatware, (8) clothes hangers, (9) wine glasses, (10) cameras, both regular and digital, (11) golf balls, (12) golf tees, (13) beverages, alcoholic, (14) jams, jellies and preserves, (15) land mines, (16) games, toys and wheeled goods, (17) phonograph records, (18) perfumes, toilet preparations and powders, (19) nuclear bombs, (20) nuclear components, (21) nuclear demolition and depth charges, (22) nuclear projectiles, (23) nuclear reactors, (24) nuclear rockets, warheads and warhead sections: ( a ) by department, agency or crown corporation, how many in each category were purchased; ( b ) what was the total cost spent by either Public Works and Government Services Canada or another department, agency or crown corporation on each category?

Return tabled.

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams St. Albert, AB

For each of the following items listed on page 3.25 of volume II, part II, of the Public Accounts of Canada 2000-2001, under the rubric “Losses of Public Property Due to an Offence or Other Illegal Act” for the Department of National Defence, namely, (1) 384 cases of “theft of military kit” totalling $117,596, (2) 15 cases of "theft of transportation equipment" totalling $34,373, (3) 5 cases of “theft of construction engineering equipment” totalling $11,386, (4) 15 cases of “theft of military specific equipment” totalling $1,822, (5) 26 cases of “theft of non-military specific equipment” totalling $5,342: (a) what was stolen; (b) what was the value of each individual item; (c) where was the location of the theft; and (d) were there any charges laid?

Return tabled.

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

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

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 75
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it agreed that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for Papers
Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions government orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park
Ontario

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the third reading stage of Bill C-10. I am sure members will admit that it has taken a long time for us to finally get to this stage. In fact, we started third reading stage of Bill C-10 a week before the recess and unfortunately we were unable to conclude it at that time. An amendment was proposed to the motion, along with a subamendment.

I would like to thank all members of the committee for their participation at report stage and for their amendments, because I think members should realize that by the time the House got to third reading of Bill C-10 substantial amendments had been made. There were 25 amendments proposed by the government and only one of those was ruled out of order. The rest of the amendments echoed the concerns of members from all parties and also of witnesses because they were working together to make this legislation the best legislation possible.

It is important for everyone to realize what the history of Bill C-10 is. If we look at its legislative history, we find that the first marine policy was established way back in 1986. That was the first time the thought of where we are today actually came about. It was not until 1994 that the national marine conservation areas policy was established, in consultation with Parks Canada, which would take a role in ensuring that the marine conservation areas actually would come about and would manage them.

In 1995 the marine system plan, “Sea to Sea to Sea”, was released. This document described the 29 natural marine regions of Canada and the status of planning work to identify potential national marine conservation areas. It is very important to understand that these 29 regions are representative by the fact of science itself. This was work done with scientists to establish these 29--

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but I have been advised by the Table that she has already spoken on the bill. Unfortunately she cannot do it twice.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I wish to indicate that we will vote against this bill because it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions since it would require that provinces transfer their submerged lands to the federal government for the establishment of marine conservation areas.

It is one of the main irritants, and the Bloc Quebecois had proposed an amendment to correct it. Quebec already has legislation establishing a marine conservation area, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Everything was in place for the establishment of marine conservation areas in Quebec, with legislation that did not require the transfer of provincial submerged lands, but rather called for a true partnership with Canada.

Under the Constitution, submerged lands belong to the provinces. The government was perfectly aware that this was a major irritant for the Bloc Quebecois.

We are here to defend Quebec's interests. Why should Quebec transfer its submerged lands to the federal government for the establishment of marine conservation areas? The Government of Quebec passed legislation on this, in co-operation with the federal government. We do not see why Quebec should transfer its submerged lands.

I still wanted to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois is very sensitive to environmental issues. The environment is a shared jurisdiction with the federal government. We are against this bill not because we are not in favour of protecting our ecosystems and our environment, but because we have a way of doing things in Quebec and the federal government could simply have said “Okay, Quebec already has legislation, we respect that; you will not have to comply with the legislation currently before Parliament”.