Robert Lanctôt

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 14th, 2001]

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

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

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

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

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

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what a beautiful follow-up when, after having spoken myself on a bill described as technical, I hear a general explanation such as the one my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois just made.

This debate today is very important on very important legislation about the environment. The government has trivialized it, but my colleague really put it into perspective to show how important and urgent it is and perhaps show, as we heard, how dishonest the government is.

As the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was saying, a bill like this one is once again an encroachment. This is done so often that we are not in a status quo situation any more. We are getting into something that might be dangerous for Quebecers.

How can Quebec counter such a bill and all those encroachments in its areas of jurisdiction? If such a measure and such encroachment on areas of jurisdiction persist, how can the Quebecers who are listening today know what will happen and how can Quebec counter these attacks?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the example is simple. These are provincial jurisdictions, these are Quebec's jurisdictions. The two levels of government co-operated when the agreement on the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was signed. The question begs the answer.

Duplication on the government's part will be twofold. It is trying to take over lands that belong to Quebec, lands that come under provincial jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution Act, 1867. It is duplication to try to take over lands by using such a noble piece of legislation, a bill dealing with marine areas and wildlife conservation on certain lands.

I have been asked to give examples. Well, it is all the pitiful attempts by the government to use the environment to get hold of some land. This is unbelievable, in my opinion.

We must protect the environment, but through co-operation with Quebec and in the respect of existing jurisdictions. The federal government did it once. The Quebec government was very co-operative and this allowed for the protection of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine conservation areas. That agreement was made possible thanks to Quebec.

Why is the government now putting this in the hands of Heritage Canada, when there is overlapping even in that department? We wonder about the reasons for such duplication. Just imagine. This government already has experts in the Department of the Environment and in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the sponsor of this bill is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We wonder why. I am asked “Where is the duplication? Where is the overlapping?” Nothing could be more obvious.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today before this House, not only as a member of parliament, but also as a citizen concerned with protecting the environment.

Like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I am in favour of legislation aimed at protecting the environment and of measures focusing on environments at risk, be they land or water.

Is it necessary to remind this House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? Our support, however, is neither blind nor naive. We will continue to support pro-environment bills, but not at any price nor in just any way. Hence our opposition to Bill C-10.

Our primary objection is that the federal government's intention is to use this bill to appropriate lands that are under provincial jurisdiction by making orders concerning the creation of marine areas.

The federal government would contravene section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that the management and sale of public lands are a provincial, not a federal jurisdiction. The federal government cannot use an environmental protection measure to appropriate provincial lands. It should seek the provinces' co-operation, instead of resorting to its usual steamrolling and centralizing approach.

This is yet another example of the federal government's stubbornness about a process that works well. Again, the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the result of co-operation and partnership. Why does the government refuse to listen to reason?

It is the case with the young offenders legislation. The Quebec approach, which is based on rehabilitation and reintegration, has proven effective, but the federal government continues its push for a hard line approach. Today, I realize that the government is using the same process with this bill in that it wants to pass it first and then look at the issues.

I fear for the future of intergovernmental relations because we cannot trust a process that does not respect the public interest and, more importantly, because we cannot trust a government that does not respect its own departments. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a program of marine protection zones in place. I stress the fact that this program is already in effect.

The result of all this is a state of confusion, and particularly of lack of respect. This is a case where the winner will be the one that will manage to gain the upper hand. Within the same government, we could end up with a duplication of tasks and skills.

Why do we want duplication? How can the government justify this duplication? Why is it necessary? How many levels are required? How far will the federal government go in its quest for duplication?

What worries me about this scenario is the rivalry that will result. On the one hand, we have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has expertise in this area. There is the Department of the Environment, which also has expertise in this area. On the other hand, we have Heritage Canada, which has a mandate to promote Canadian unity. Which of them can we trust? Which of them should we trust: Heritage Canada, which uses the environment for national unity purposes, or Fisheries and Oceans, which manages our marine natural resources? Can we trust the federal government to make the right choice in this case? Sometimes, I wonder whether the government has any judgment left, let alone common sense.

My main concern about the bill is the flagrant lack of co-operation within the government itself. I strongly doubt whether such behaviour would reassure the other levels of government regarding the introduction and enforcement of a bill which intentions are noble, but which really boils down to unhealthy rivalry.

This brings me to another question: Who will have the upper hand in the event of conflict? Which department will have the last word? If the federal government answers this, it will be tantamount to revealing its true objective and its true nature as far as the purpose of this bill goes. This could easily become a two edged sword. On the one hand, it insists that the environment is a priority, while on the other it takes advantage of this fine principle to flog national identity, using Heritage Canada which, I would remind hon. members, possesses no expertise whatsoever as far as the environment is concerned.

The result is regrettable. Even if we do not go so far as to call it a downright dangerous appropriation of funds and resources, there is confusion, total and insurmountable confusion. There is such confusion that even those in charge of the various departments are lost themselves.

If there is confusion among the departments, it is easy to imagine what confusion there would be among the key stakeholders. Which department will be the one to really administer this protected zone? Which one will really administer the stakeholders? Which will penalize those breaking the law? All these questions remain without answers, and no answers will be forthcoming, for there is no one capable of answering without sinking into a morass of duplicating and overlapping policies.

With this much confusion within the federal government itself, it is easy to imagine the confusion there would be at other levels of government. To whom would a provincial government such as Quebec go in connection with the administration of a protected zone? I have no idea.

This confusion gives rise to another problem as well. The problem is a fundamental one. If the ministers of a government cannot work together, how can we expect the provincial governments and Quebec to collaborate? It is understandable why the Government of Quebec would refuse to collaborate in this project. The federal government is unable to tell us clearly and precisely why this bill comes from Canadian Heritage, when Fisheries and Oceans Canada already has a marine area protection program. The Bloc Quebecois cannot but oppose such an incredible administrative muddle as this.

The way this bill is to be implemented is not clear and cannot be because of the nature of its objectives.

Canadian Heritage is assuming jurisdictions that are not its own. It is also trying, with this bill, to take over areas that are not its areas and thus to meddle once again in provincial jurisdictions and in Quebec's jurisdiction, under cover of the environment. How far will the federal government go in taking over Quebec's and provincial jurisdictions?

I reiterate my opposition to Bill C-10 on protected marine areas for several reasons, including the overlap of the responsibilities of departments and, more particularly, because of the indirect approach taken in appropriating jurisdictions that belong exclusively to the provinces and Quebec.

Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that ignores action already taken, and successfully.

I fear for the future of people who believe in this government, which takes no account of their interests. I fear for the future of our environment when the objectives of a bill put before us ignore its primary focus, the environment.

[Highway Infrastructure, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services recently confirmed that construction work for the two bridges and the completion of Highway 30 would begin at the earliest opportunity.

Since that meeting, the Quebec Minister of Transport earmarked the necessary funds to complete Highway 30 and he has said that he is ready to share the costs on a 50:50 basis.

Since this project dates back a few years, will the minister follow the example of his Quebec counterpart and immediately allocate the funds required to build the two bridges and complete highway 30?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the House earlier, Quebec has been working on draft regulations since June 19, 2000. A final draft designed to make standards far exceed those being proposed for Canada will be submitted to the Quebec cabinet.

It has already been proven that Quebec has the best water management system. What scares me about this motion, as noble as it may be, is that programs already exist. Again it will look like duplication. Even experts will not know where to turn, and we will be dividing this concentration of expertise. Who will be the looser in all this? The environment.

I also heard the member for Toronto—Danforth tell us earlier that the government wanted to respect this jurisdiction, because water was too important. Something else is important, however, and I am talking about respecting jurisdictions provided for in sections 91 and 92 for over 100 years. These jurisdictions have already been divided, I am supposed to believe that there is no danger of opening the door to encroachment when water is a provincial jurisdiction, therefore Quebec's jurisdiction, and the establishment of national standards is being proposed.

How are you going to convince me that these national standards will not create the same situation we saw in other areas, such as the millennium scholarships, education and health? How are you going to assure me that the government will respect this jurisdiction? I do not believe it will.

In light of what I just said, what do you think about these remarks?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

I have a little trouble with the statement that they will respect jurisdictions and that that is what must be done. I have a problem with that because it involves the consensus just mentioned. They come along and step in and we have a national standard. When it comes time to raise these standards or change them, Quebec will have its hands tied in its own jurisdiction. Would the member for Richmond—Arthabaska comment on this?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie to explain or clarify his thoughts. When he says that Canada could copy, is he talking about Canada or the provinces?

Second, he talks about adopting Canadian standards? Could the hon. member also indicate whether this would not lead to conflicting expert advice? Would this not be a new case of duplication?

I would like the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie to answer these questions.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, once again from another party we are hearing the argument, as we always do when concerns are expressed about jurisdictions and when we are looking out for Quebec's interests, that we are raising party differences and being militant. That is not true.

The jurisdiction is ours. Underground and surface water is indeed the property of Quebec or the provinces. Enough of these accusations of being partisan just because we want certain things or do certain things. That is not true.

What I am saying is that what we are doing right needs to be looked at. Quebec already has in place the strictest standards for drinking water. As hon. members are aware, we have been working to improve those regulations since June 19, 2000 and the bill has almost reached the cabinet stage. The final version has been drafted.

So we do not want to hear any more about our not being concerned about water quality, or not looking after it properly. Perhaps there are some places where the job is not being done as well as it might be, but the responsibility is there. This is another attempt by the federal government to trample over provincial jurisdiction, no matter for how noble a cause. It must be known that water quality is the responsibility of everyone, Quebec included.

How can the hon. member again suggest such an incursion, especially since he comes from a party like the Canadian Alliance? I am sure his province too has programs or regulations. Areas of provincial jurisdiction must be respected. Let the necessary transfer payments be made and let us stop cutting back on the funds that have to be passed on to the municipalities.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I find it incredible to hear the member state that only water is sufficiently important for standards to be set and provincial jurisdiction to be respected, including that of Quebec. This is incredible. Besides, there is nothing more important than water, and it is basically the jurisdiction of Quebec.

What I would ask the hon. member is whether he believes this is a matter of respecting jurisdictions by calling for standards that, while possibly different, will respect provincial jurisdiction, and will Quebec or any other province not be forced in any way to adopt standards that may not even be any better than its own? This is already the case in Quebec and besides, Bernard Landry is already preparing to bring in a new drinking water bill and regulations far superior to what they want to establish as standards here in Canada.