Bill C-10 (Historical)

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The Chair does not ordinarily provide reasons for its selection of report stage motions in amendment. However, in light of the point of order raised on Thursday, May 8, 2008 by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the subsequent intervention of the hon. deputy government House leader, I would like to convey to the House the reasoning involved in considering these motions.

In his submission, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh described the particular circumstances surrounding the committee consideration of Bill C-377.

During its consideration of the bill, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development presented three separate reports. In the first of these reports, presented on April 14, 2008, the committee described procedural difficulties it had encountered in the course of its study of Bill C-377 and recommended some action that the House might wish to take.

On April 29, 2008, in its second report relating to this bill, the committee reported Bill C-377 with eight amendments. On the same day, the committee presented a third report. This report explained that having begun its clause by clause study on March 3, 2008, prolonged debate on clause 10 of the bill resulted in an impasse; and that as no further progress seemed possible, the committee turned to the consideration of a motion, the effect of which was to deem adopted the remaining parts of the bill and to agree that the bill be reported to the House without further debate or amendment. This motion was adopted on division by the committee.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh also referred to previous Speaker's rulings where motions in amendment at report stage were selected on the basis that members involved did not have the opportunity to present motions during the committee consideration stage. Specifically, he cited a ruling given on January 28, 2003, regarding Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, and a ruling given on November 6, 2001, regarding Bill C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

In his intervention on Friday, May 9, 2008, the hon. deputy government House leader also reviewed the sequence of events surrounding the committee consideration of the bill and referred to the two rulings just cited. He went on to argue that, in his view, the committee's decision to report the bill back to the House prior to the May 7, 2008 deadline represents a conscious decision of the majority of the committee not to make full usage of the time remaining and thus to forego further opportunities to propose amendments at the committee stage. On this basis, he concluded that the motions at report stage should not be selected.

Four report stage motions have been submitted. These motions are identical to committee amendments which were not considered due to the impasse, as described in the committee's report and the adoption by the committee of the motion to report the bill. The motions relate to clauses of the bill which were deemed carried at the committee stage, quite clearly as a way out of the impasse.

The Chair is now faced with the matter of selection. The note accompanying S. O. 76(5) reads, in part: “The Speaker ... will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented [in committee].”

Having carefully reviewed the sequence of events and the submissions made by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the hon. deputy government House leader, the Chair is of the opinion that we are facing very exceptional circumstances. The committee recognized that the impasse was significant and wanted to bring that situation to the attention of the House. It did so in a report which states in part:

Given the impasse, the Committee opted not to consider the remaining clauses and parts of the Bill....

Therefore, I am satisfied that these motions could not be presented during the committee consideration of the bill, and accordingly I have selected them for debate at report stage. Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I shall now propose motions numbered 1 to 4 to the House.

Pest Control Products Act

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act—Chapter 17.

Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada—Chapter 18.

Bill C-50, an act to amend certain acts as a result of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization—Chapter 19.

Bill S-41, an act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language—Chapter 20.

Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste—Chapter 22.

Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores—Chapter 22.

Bill C-59, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2003—Chapter 21.

Species at Risk Act

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will restate clearly and unequivocally that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species.

As I have said in the House many times, my wife and I lived by a lake in the Rocky Mountains where we brought up a wonderful family of three children. We are completely committed to the natural environment. We are committed to endangered species at a personal level. That is also the position of our party.

However the process has been highly frustrating. This is the third incarnation of the species at risk act. In every process, this one included, we have heard legitimate and intelligent input from stakeholders and experts who are deeply concerned about the issues and have brought their concerns to committee. In every instance the environment minister of the day has turned back their common sense proposals. On May 2 the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton was quoted in the London Free Press as saying:

Of course there is (frustration) with the system...Why do committees exist? It's to be a counterbalance, and it's fundamentally flawed, wrong and improper when the work of a committee can be undone by a minister at his own whim.

I agree with the Liberal member completely. Another Liberal, the hon. member for Thunder Bay--Superior North, is quoted in the same article. He stated:

We all go through the process at times at the committee level of getting the recommendation put in and the minister's department doesn't see fit to include them and, yeah, there's always that frustration.

There is a tad of frustration, and not just on this side of the House. A May 2 Ottawa Citizen article stated:

Environmental groups and certain MPs were focusing their efforts yesterday on winning one last concession from the government before the bill comes to a vote. They want the bill to guarantee the protection of the critical habitat of endangered species on federal land.

The Citizen article quoted the hon. member for York North who has been involved with these issues for a long time. She said:

I think it's important that we find a bill that protects habitat for species...I believe that we're moving towards a resolution of that issue and I'm looking forward to seeing that in the bill.

Interestingly, the same article quoted the environment minister who was asked if he would agree to such a change. He gave a two letter, one word answer: “No”, he would not change. What has changed between then and now? What has changed with the people involved in the issue such as the hon. members I mentioned, the hon. member for Davenport and others? Liberal backbenchers have succumbed to the pressure of the government and will permit this badly flawed piece of legislation to go through.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. However Bill C-5 would not do that. It would not even come close. Why is that? There are many flaws in the bill but one primary flaw: It would not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods.

The government wants to amend Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions taken by its own MPs on the environment committee. It is another example of top down control from the Prime Minister's office. It again shows the contempt in which the government holds members of parliament.

As I stated at the outset, in all instances there has been input by interested parties. One of the most interesting was the Species at Risk Working Group otherwise known by the acronym SARWG. The group issued a joint statement of principle. The statement was so good, profound and sound it could have been used as a foundation for any good species at risk act. Instead this diverse group had its interventions fundamentally ignored.

Landowners, land users and rural residents whom I represent would bear the brunt of the species at risk act. Motion No. 109 would eliminate the requirement to develop regulations for compensation. Compensation is not an extra. It is essential to the entire framework of protecting endangered species. For instruction on the issue we should look to countries with legislation that does provide adequate protection for landowners, which ensures that they and other land users are encouraged rather than penalized for looking after species at risk.

Compensation would not only ensure landowners and resource users did not single-handedly bear all the costs of protecting species. It would send an important symbolic message that the government understood their fears and recognized the need to take their interests into account.

The government will not even commit to developing a regulatory framework. Consistently in the House we are faced with skeleton laws made by the Liberal government, laws that have only the basic outline of what is expected. The regulations, the meat on the bones, are turned over to the bureaucracy and are completely out of the control of the people elected to this place to represent their constituents and the people of Canada.

The minister says he hopes to have draft general regulations ready for public review and comment soon after royal assent. That is not good enough by a long shot. How helpful is that? It should be available now for the House to debate. The minister acts as if providing a few regulatory scraps is evidence of his gracious benevolence. After all, it is not required. He can do it if he feels like it.

This is exactly like a bill we are considering in the heritage committee. Bill C-48 has to do with copyright. It too is nothing more than a skeleton law. We do not know what the regulations will be. The Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote letters to the committee telling it to pass it as is. They told the committee to get the bill through so it could be enacted. They said once it was enacted the government would come back to committee sometime in the next year with the regulations. That is not good enough. Bill C-10, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act which has just passed the Senate, is exactly the same thing. It is also a skeleton bill.

We are charged not only by our constituents but by all the people of Canada with responsibility for bringing forward good laws and legislation that people understand and that we can vote for intelligently. However in Bill C-5 there are again no regulations. There is no meat on the bones. The way the Liberals consistently deal with legislation is unacceptable. It holds the entire institution of the House of Commons in contempt. Government Motion No. 109 would weaken the law. Subclause 64(2) of Bill C-5 currently reads:

The Governor in Council shall--

Shall is the important word.

--make regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of subsection (1), including regulations--

What did the government do? Did it strengthen the wording? There is no way to strengthen the word shall so the government changed it to may. The government said it might get around to it. It does not care if it weakens the law.

I appeal to the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, for whom I have tremendously high personal regard, to take another look at the bill in good conscience. They should realize it would not protect endangered species, something I know they want as much as I do.

Marine Conservation Areas

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, March 24 is the 13th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In this parliament I was pleased to support Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. The bill would allow for the protection of national heritage in Canadian waters that extend the area of our huge country by 50%. It would allow the extension of our great national parks system out into the ocean.

Among other things Bill C-10 would allow the establishment of a Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area reserve proposed in an agreement that was signed in 1988, the year before the Valdez spill. This reserve, on our sensitive west coast, would allow for the protection of rare ocean species. It would be a sanctuary for them just as our national parks on land are a sanctuary for plants and animals.

I urge all members to support the extension and strengthening of our national parks system on land and offshore.

Species at Risk Act

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, for the Minister of the Environment]

moved:

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-5, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 43 on page 39 with the following:

“and in every subsequent five year period, until its objectives have been achieved. The report must be included in the public registry.”.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-5, in Clause 83, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 47 with the following:

“(b) it is used by an aboriginal person for ceremonial or medicinal”.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-5, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 55 with the following:

“36(1), 58(1), 60(1) or 61(1) or section”.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-5 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 75 the following new clause:

“141.1 If Bill C-10, introduced in the 1st Session of the 37th Parliament and entitled the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, receives royal assent, then, on the later of the coming into force of subsection 34(2) of that Act and the definition “competent minister” in subsection 2(1) of this Act, paragraph (a) of the definition “competent minister” in subsection 2(1) of this Act is replaced by the following:

(a) the Minister of Canadian Heritage with respect to individuals in or on federal lands that are administered by that Minister and that are national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas or other protected heritage areas as those expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Parks Canada Agency Act;”.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-5, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 75 with the following:

“142. Except for section 141.1, the provisions of this Act come into”.

National Parks

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on January 10, 1972, the fabulous Kluane National Park in Yukon and the Nahanni National Park in the Northwest Territories were established. They were added to the network of national parks that is the most powerful protection for natural heritage, plants and animals in Canada. I join the member for Yukon in celebrating this 30th anniversary.

More recently parliament passed Bill C-10, an act respecting marine conservation areas of Canada. The act would allow the establishment of marine national park-like areas to protect life in the 50% of our territory which is under the ocean.

I urge all members to work to further strengthen our wonderful national parks system on land and sea. Each Canadian is custodian of an unusually large part of the globe. Let us be good custodians preserving natural heritage for future generations.

Species at Risk Act

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to my amendment to Bill C-5 in the Group No. 2 debate on the species at risk act. Specifically I will address Motions Nos. 97 and 94 which deal with jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces. I will address concerns I have with the government's record on consultation as it too is an issue discussed in Group No. 2 and make reference to the problems both this bill and Bill C-10, the marine conservation areas act, have in common.

I believe jurisdictional issues in many ways are the easy issues to resolve in our country. All that is required is for the federal government to understand more clearly its role as an example setter and not a dictator. What is federal should stay federal and what is provincial should stay provincial. When an agreement is struck, particularly on finances, it should be upheld.

Creating legislation with jurisdictional concerns is nothing new for the government. I should like to compare this situation to a piece of legislation which is now in the other place, about to be reviewed by its committee. The other piece of legislation is known as Bill C-10, the Canada marine conservation areas act. The House dealt with that bill a few months ago and it too had some major problems with jurisdiction between what is rightfully federal and what is provincial.

My biggest concern with that bill surrounded its ability to create marine conservation areas in waters wherever the federal government wanted regardless of the economic potential hidden within that area. The bill tried to alleviate the concerns of fishermen by telling them that their livelihoods would be safeguarded. However reality was clear enough to them, that a marine park meant restrictions on gear types, catch sizes and even the creation of what are called no take zones.

Although in Bill C-10 the minister went to supposed great lengths to ensure that affected Canadians would be consulted, the bill lacked enough explanation and framework to allay those fears. Now that bill is in the other place and I sincerely hope it sees the huge jurisdictional problems it created with the provinces and works to fix this bill.

I cannot help but see the same thing happening with Bill C-5. Too often we see the federal government creep into areas where it has absolutely no constitutional right to be. With endangered species it is certainly the federal government's right to legislate against destruction on federal land, but to dictate measures to be taken on provincial land is completely out of its jurisdictional control.

I really do not understand why the federal government would even consider such drastic intrusions into provincial territory when eight out of ten provinces have endangered species type legislation already in place and the other two provinces are working on legislation.

As if that is not deterrent enough, what about the fact that the federal government signed with the provinces the 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada. This accord included a commitment to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada.

In short, they agreed to work co-operatively to help save species at risk and now through sections like clause 61 of this bill the federal government is taking its own word back and stomping on the spirit of co-operation reached in that accord. Allow me to explain in detail using my suggested amendments to the bill. Motion No. 97 states:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 15 on page 35 with the following:

“(3) The Minister may make a recommendation if a provincial or territorial minister has requested that the recommendation be made”.

My amendment would seek to delete much of the current subclauses 61(3) and 61(3.1) that give the minister the power to subject provinces and territories which he deems not to have effective protection of habitat of species at risk to the contents of this act. I have suggested that instead the minister should only have the power to recommend that provinces follow the federal act instead of forcing them to do so.

Furthermore, should the House reject this motion I would ask that instead of allowing the current bill to stand with clause 61 intact and failing my attempt to fix it, it be deleted altogether and replaced with the following details included in Motion No. 94:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 40 on page 34 and lines 1 to 40 on page 35 with the following:

“61. No person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of an aquatic species or of a listed endangered species or a listed threatened species that is a species of migratory birds, protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, that is in a province or territory and is not on federal land”.

At first glance it may seem that I am advocating allowing the federal government to intrude on provincial jurisdiction. However it is the exact opposite. This change in the bill would ensure that only those species already deemed under federal jurisdiction such as migratory birds, regardless of where they make their home and what province they travel through, are subject to the act. This amendment also seeks to limit the federal government's role on provincial lands to one which is directly the management of those specific species and not any other species found on provincial lands.

By supporting this amendment the House would be agreeing that the federal government has no business forcing provinces to adhere to federal acts, most particular when, as I said earlier, eight out of ten provinces have legislation which protects to one extent or another species at risk.

We have seen with health care and other federal programs like Bill C-68 that the ever popular cookie cutter or one size fits all style of governance so fondly used by the federal Liberal government is not conducive to the very different needs of our provinces. The same goes for endangered species legislation. Therefore by eliminating clause 61 and replacing it with the content of Motion No. 94 the House would be agreeing to respect the jurisdictional realities of the country.

The bill is flawed in many other areas. Motion No. 39 in Group No. 2 amends clause 32. It has been presented by my Canadian Alliance colleague. It argues for the need to prove criminal intent to cause harm to either the critical habitat or the species at risk before prosecuting for offences under the act.

As it stands right now the act makes criminals out of unsuspecting landowners and land users. Bill C-5 makes it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of the hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. Fines are steep, up to $1 million for corporations and $250,000 for an individual. The act provides for imprisonment of up to five years for an indictable offence.

Someone could commit such a crime without knowing it. The bill does not require intent or even reckless behaviour. Rather it places the burden of proof on the individual to prove that he or she was exercising due diligence should harm come to an endangered species. In this way the bill ignores one of the fundamental tenets of western legal history, that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal mind or in the Latin term mens rea.

Is it fair to convict people of a serious criminal offence when they might have had no idea they were even in danger of committing one? It would seem to me that in order to protect themselves from breaking this law they would have to become experts at recognizing the sage grouse, the barn owl, the Aurora trout or many other species. They not only have to recognize them. They need to recognize their critical habitat too just in case they disturb it while they are out taking a stroll in their back 40.

What about snowmobilers? When we think of endangered species and such we often think about the implication for farmers or landowners in the spring, summer and fall seasons and forget about implications in the winter months. Like many other members of parliament I have concerned snowmobilers in my riding of Skeena. They are concerned and rightly so that the bill could adversely affect their growing recreational industry.

Canada and more particularly northern B.C. have trails and areas for snowmobilers taking them through both private and public lands. They are very concerned that the legislation could seriously limit the number of areas available for their use and could harm that industry.

I just came back from a 500 mile snowmobile trip throughout my riding and down into Wells, B.C., in Cariboo--Chilcotin east of mine. Not only is snowmobiling a growing recreational activity but these cross-country trips add much to the economies of the small towns along the way.

All of this to say that both the Canadian Alliance and I believe in effective and responsible endangered species legislation. Bill C-5 is neither effective nor responsible.

I mentioned earlier this week the need for compensation to be built into the bill and today I state my concerns over jurisdictional intrusions. I have talked about my concern that the legislation places the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the need for the crown to prove criminal intent before prosecuting for offences under the act. Just now I have talked a bit about the bill's potential effect on tourism and the snowmobile industry in my riding and essentially all over Canada.

The bill has serious flaws. The government should go back to the drawing table and this time spend less time trying to please lobby groups and more time creating a fair, effective and responsible species at risk act. It would find that the Canadian Alliance would support that kind of legislation because we are in favour of protecting Canada's endangered species, but we will not support bad legislation and Bill C-5 is bad legislation.

The crux of my argument is that we have no problem with endangered species legislation nor with the marine conservation act. We support the concepts of these proposed acts, which would improve situations in Canada, especially for endangered species.

Our concern is with the fairness of the legislation, the possibility of this type of legislation which tends to come down with a very heavy hand on presumably innocent people. They may have no idea they have committed an act against an endangered species. To put them in the position of being criminals when they may not even know they have created a problem just is not acceptable.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-5. As was the case with Bill C-15B on animal cruelty, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that protection of our wild species is essential.

That protection must not, however, be done just any old way, nor used as a band aid solution. We need concrete measures to ensure that there is additional protection and that it is workable. We need to seek to really enhance the protection of our ecosystems and endangered species.

I could have been really committed to such a bill, because of the unique and endangered ecosystems in my riding. I am aware of the need to find a concrete and workable solution.

We believe, however, that it is possible to create standards with a view to improving and enhancing the status of endangered species and ecosystems while at the same time respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and avoiding needless interference.

As was the case with Bill C-10, we see that there is a proposal to establish additional authorities, thus duplicating what is already in place. Why do so, if not to do away with the possibility of a partnership between the federal government and Quebec?

It seems to us that it would be wiser and more appropriate to direct resources properly toward programs which already are meeting the needs. It strikes us as totally pointless to waste money creating something that already exists and is working, rather than consolidating what is already in place with some tangible and real resources.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that it is essential to point out again that these duplications are not only pointless, but also harmful in that they are perpetuating and increasing the delay, and that is precisely what we do not have: time.

The Bloc Quebecois can see that the environment is one area in which there is a shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the government of Quebec. The federal government must not, however, take advantage of this pseudo-authorization to usurp powers that do not belong to it. That is exactly what the minister responsible for implementing this bill is trying to do. This we cannot accept. This approach is both inconceivable and unacceptable.

This kind of intrusion means administrative duplication, which inevitably results in a very cumbersome bureaucracy that quickly becomes outdated. Such bureaucracy adds nothing to the objectives of the bill in terms of protection, which include, as stated in the preamble, respecting our commitments under the United Nations convention on the conservation of biological diversity, setting priorities and recognizing everyone's role in the conservation of wildlife. But it is only in the last part of the preamble that the word protection is mentioned for the first time. We see a lack of consistency and a lack of vision on that issue.

I find it unfortunate that, on such a sensitive issue, the federal government would choose to serve its own interest instead of those it purports to serve. Of course, it talks about shared jurisdiction but this so-called sharing is more of a one-way street, which is not desirable or beneficial to anyone.

Sharing necessarily implies some form of dialogue, interaction or at least discussion between the parties. However, such is not the case under this bill. In fact, one might think that with this bill the minister is trying to give himself broader decision making powers at the expense of the provinces. What kind of expertise can the minister have that would justify such powers?

I fail to see any sharing in this bill, just interference. The minister is using this bill to give himself considerable discretionary powers without showing any respect for the constitutional division of powers and responsibilities.

Interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions will not help protect species at risk. How else are we expected to react when Quebec's legislation in this area is totally ignored? I think that true sharing would require that Quebec's relevant legislative provisions be taken into account, but that is not the purpose of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that consultations would have been desirable and beneficial for everyone, but once again, the federal government would rather ignore the established facts and lists, do as it pleases and attempt yet again to centralize powers.

We support measures to provide sufficient protection for species at risk, but we cannot support this bill which denies Quebec and the provinces their unique responsibilities for managing wildlife.

We believe that we must act quickly to protect species at risk, but the federal government will not succeed by appropriating powers unduly. We believe that an active and productive dialogue between the federal government and Quebec is necessary to try to find an appropriate solution to this urgent situation. We will not give blind consent just because they have proposed legislation on the issue. This bill must meet the needs of the situation.

Given that reference is made in the preamble to national identity, I have to wonder how the bill is appropriate. I see it as an attempt by the minister to appropriate powers, thereby breaching the division of powers as defined in the constitution.

I hope and wish for concrete measures to be implemented to protect species at risk, but before I give my support, the objectives need to be clearly identified and prioritized. This is not what I see in Bill C-5.

I will wait for a bill that respects jurisdictions and contains an objective to preserve before giving my support. Because of the disrespectful wording and the underhanded objectives of Bill C-5, I cannot give it my support.

It is clear that the primary purpose of this bill is political. The first line of the preamble equates Canada's natural heritage and our national identity. Yet, natural heritage existed well before we arrived and will be there long after we are gone.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to address Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

A few days ago, I spoke on Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. My Bloc Quebecois colleagues also addressed Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, and Bill C-42, the public safety act.

I would like to explain from the outset what issues I will discuss over the next 40 minutes. First, I must point out that this government constantly displayed a confrontational attitude, despite the fact that Bloc Quebecois members were committed to co-operating regarding this bill, whether at second reading, during the review in committee, or at report stage.

The Bloc Quebecois, which acted in good faith at all stages of the parliamentary process, was always told by Liberal members opposite no, no, no.

This afternoon, I will again directly address my constituents and all Quebecers and Canadians. We feel that Bill C-27 is incomplete. It lacks transparency and it does not take into account public opinion.

Under the circumstances, we could have said no right from the beginning and made things complicated for the government, but no, we felt that we had to give our support at second reading in order to improve the bill in committee.

However, during the review in committee, when we heard witnesses and when the time came to amend the bill, Liberal members sitting on the committee said no, no, no, without really knowing what the issue was all about.

We are talking about the management of the country's nuclear fuel waste. I was stunned to the hear the Liberal member for Frontenac—Mégantic say, as he was leaving a meeting, that plutonium and uranium were no more dangerous than asbestos. The chair of the standing committee on natural resources and member for Nickel Belt also made a similar comment.

This is a serious matter. We heard many witnesses at the standing committee on natural resources. My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke and Bloc Quebecois critic in this area, has done an excellent job, with some contribution from myself, in his desire to improve this bill.

It is clear, however, that the Liberal members of the committee did not have any idea what we or the witnesses were talking about. At that time, and still today, we were addressing nuclear waste, precisely, 24,000 tonnes of uranium and plutonium which will remain radioactive for some 25,000 years. This has nothing in common with asbestos.

When I hear comments like that, I feel there is no point in talking to the Liberal MPs. They heard all the same things we did, but understood nothing. I think they were there with their ears and eyes firmly closed. The only thing they could say was no, no. That was all we got out of them.

I will therefore continue to talk to our audience instead. Despite what the Liberal committee members have said, the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec are very much attuned to what is going on as far as waste in general is concerned, and nuclear waste in particular. I feel their judgment is far superior to that of the Liberals.

What is Bill C-27 all about? The whole thing dates back to 1989, when the Minister of the Environment of the day mandated the nuclear fuel waste and disposal environmental assessment commission, known as the Seaborn panel, from the name of its chair, to come up with a concept for the permanent storage of this country's nuclear waste.

I would like to digress for a moment. It would be mistaken to mix things and say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-27. The Bloc supports strict management of nuclear waste. This is a matter of huge importance, and the government has not bothered in recent years to resolve it. The situation has continued, and today we realize that problem must be solved, but not at any cost.

The main recommendations of the Seaborn panel were that an agency be established that would hold public hearings and propose a type of management for this country's nuclear waste. It recommended as well that the cost of this country's waste management be assumed by the nuclear energy industry.

What is there in Bill C-27? Does it follow the letter of the recommendations of the Seaborn report? We must remember that the Minister of Natural Resources was drawing on the recommendations of the Seaborn report when he said he was going to draft the bill. This, however, is not what the chair of the standing committee on natural resources said to me. He said that the Seaborn report is outdated. I think the Seaborn report is very important. The Seaborn panel was independent. It lasted 10 years, cost a small fortune, but it has given us guidelines for the successful management of nuclear waste.

The management is to be independent of the nuclear energy industry. As the committee studied the matter, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments to bring Bill C-27 closer to the conclusions of the Seaborn panel. Contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources said in his speech at second reading, his bill bears no relation to the main recommendations of the panel.

Indeed, the Seaborn panel recommended that energy companies be excluded from the management committee that would propose a form of nuclear waste management.

Let us look just at recommendation 6.1.2, which advocates the creation of a nuclear fuel waste management agency. It reads as follows:

For various reasons, there is in many quarters an apprehension about nuclear power that bedevils the activities and proposals of the nuclear industry. If there is to be any confidence in a system for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste and—

I am still quoting the Seaborn panel:

—a fresh start must be made in the form of a new agency. The agency must be at arm's length from the producers and current owners of the waste. Its overall commitment must be to safety.

Bill C-27 specifies that energy companies will have to establish a management committee to propose to the minister a long term nuclear fuel waste management concept.

Such a situation is tantamount to opening the henhouse door wide open to let the fox in. As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, recommendation 6.1.2 should be fully implemented. Unfortunately, the Liberal government rejected it out of hand. Incidentally, a number of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on natural resources also asked that Bill C-27 be amended to reflect that recommendation.

I will quote a few. Irene Kock, a research consultant with the Sierra Club of Canada, testified before the committee on November 8, 2001. She said, and I quote:

The Seaborn panel recommended that an independent agency be formed at arm's length from AECL and the nuclear utilities in order to manage the programs related to long-term nuclear fuel waste management, including detailed comparison of waste management options. The waste management organization must be at arm's length from the nuclear industry. This is a very key part of the recommendations from the Seaborn panel.

It is not just the Bloc Quebecois who says it. All the witnesses said the same thing to the committee. Irene Kock added “It was a very well thought out conclusion and must be incorporated in this legislation”.

I will quote from another testimony, namely that of Brennain Lloyd, a co-ordinator for Northwatch, who also testified on November 8, 2001:

The context is that there have been a number of experiences on the part of the public with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and with the nuclear industries more generally, specific to this issue of nuclear waste management and related siting processes. They've been very negative experiences for the greatest part, and that needs to be kept in mind.

She was warning the government about certain past experiences. Ms. Lloyd went on to say that:

The resulting mistrust and apprehension on the part of the public must be kept in constant consideration...Third, the waste management organization lacks independence. Given the track record of a number of the agencies that are proposed to be involved, that's particularly problematic. The panel was clear that the waste management organization must be independent and it must be perceived to be independent.

It said an independent agency, not an industry agency. This would be an industry agency. This in fact is what Bill C-27 proposes: a management committee composed of members of industry. This can only be problematic in terms of delivery, the ability to look more broadly at the issues, and the ability to engender public trust and engagement.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore proposed that paragraph 6(2) be amended as follows:

No nuclear energy corporation may be a member or shareholder of the waste management organization.

But what did the Liberal members say? No, no, no.

We have not lost our sense of humour or our desire to see the government make this bill into something that would be what the Seaborn panel and the general public wanted. We proposed other amendments.

I could talk all day about the amendments which the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee. There were, and the member for Sherbrooke is nodding, between 40 and 45. The New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition also moved amendments.

But each time, the committee, which was chaired by a Liberal member and contained a Liberal majority, said no, no, no. At every stage of the process, they said they were right.

Earlier, the Canadian Alliance member spoke about the fact that the public had to be consulted, but it is plainly written in the bill that the governor in council “may”. In other words, it is not required. When you are told “you may do something” you always have a choice. The majority prevails. If one says “I have everything I need” or “I do not have what I need”, I am going to go ahead. In this case, what it says is that the public may be consulted.

This reminds me of the very moving times we went through in the summer of 2000, when this government wanted to import MOX fuel from Russia and the U.S. I stood up to this, all five feet, five inches of me.

The people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, hon. members will recall, were on side with me on this. A total of 99.9% of my constituents said they were opposed to the importing of MOX. Some 120 municipalities throughout Quebec and a number of regional county municipalities did the same. The Quebec government and the aboriginal peoples voiced their opposition.

Atomic Energy of Canada officials came to the region, telling us that this was just a little rod that went into a big cylinder. They made it out to be such a wonderful and attractive thing that I would have been happy to have it as a decoration in my living room.

Away we went to consult people. This is not an expensive proposition, and it provides us with an opportunity to speak to people concerned by a problem. We talked to the experts. We asked their opinions. We also consulted the Quebec department of health. We even went to a university, along with our regional environmental committee, and held an information session. We invited three experts, who told us that the concept of importing MOX and the method planned for its transportation were not safe.

According to U.S. studies, this concept was not acceptable because it was not 100% sure. Afterward, people were entitled to make comments via the Atomic Energy of Canada website, and this took some 28 days.

So 99.9% of those in our region were opposed. Nevertheless, they went ahead and did it. One fine evening, I am not sure exactly when, the MOX shipment set out. Everyone was on the alert. We have the Bagotville military base in our area. They said they were going to bring the shipment in via CFB Bagotville or an Ontario military base. Let us remember that the MOX was headed for the Chalk River nuclear facility in Ontario.

One night—and I know because I took a stroll near the military base in Bagotville—there was quite a flurry of activity. We did not know when the big day would be, but people from national defence, from public safety and from the health sector were there. There was this flurry of activity. And yet, officials from Atomic Energy of Canada told us, when they came to see us, that there was no danger.

What was all the commotion about if there was no danger and if it was not serious, as they said at the time? Everyone was on edge.

They went ahead and they took it to Chalk River. This proves the government's attitude, that they went ahead despite what everyone thought. In my riding, it was a very strong majority. I held my own consultations. Representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada were in one room and I was in another, that the hotel where the consultation was taking place graciously let me use.

Before going into the room with the Atomic Energy of Canada representatives, people came to see me and sign a petition. They would then come back from the consultation and say to me, “Ms. Bujold, if I could, I would sign the petition twice. I am not sure about what they are saying”.

So we can see just how important the issue of nuclear waste is. We must consult with people. But this is not reflected in this bill.

We must manage our nuclear waste, because it our waste. We have to store it in a way such that it remains inactive for many years to come. Most of the waste that is currently being stored is at nuclear reactors located in Ontario. There are 24,000 tonnes of nuclear waste being stored there. That is a lot of nuclear waste.

We cannot count on the goodwill of a management committee that says it is the representative of these companies that are going to manage the storage.

We, elected members who represent people, must be kept informed of what is happening. We need to challenge them and say “Show us what you are going to say and do. We will accept it or reject it on behalf of our constituents, because we have been democratically elected.”

In committee we proposed a clause to the government which stated that members would have to be consulted in the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, you are a member like me. When we run for election we say to our constituents “I am going to represent you on all issues. I am able to represent you. If I cannot represent you, I will consult with you and you will give me your opinion”.

People know that whether we are talking about domestic, nuclear or other kinds of waste, we must not become the world's dump. Nobody wants to have any kind of wastes in their backyard. We always say “Not in my backyard”.

So to reassure the public, we had asked the government that the plan be submitted here, in the House of Commons. What did the Liberals say? They said no, no and no. They refuse to be accountable to the people who elected them on a most important issue.

I do not think this is being very transparent. Since we have been sitting in this House, we have noticed that when introducing bills the government always says that it will listen to us, that it will refer the bill to committee for further study, that it will hear witnesses and be open to amendments.

That did not happen for Bill C-27. Nor did it happen for Bill C-36, Bill C-44 or Bill C-42. Who does this government take people for, particularly those people who represent all those who did not vote for the Liberals and that the Liberals no longer represent? I am talking about opposition parties.

I am thinking of people who take the trouble to appear before the committee. I recall that on the last day, before the committee began to examine the bill clause by clause, the mayors of Ontario municipalities came before it. They were involved with this issue because there are nuclear plants in their municipalities. They came to say to the committee “We have to be informed and be part of the development of management. We are involved on the front line because we have to protect our people”.

A member from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition proposed an amendment in this regard, and the members of the Liberal Party once again said no, no, no.

It was also pointed out that consideration should be given to having people representing the native communities on the committee. Some witnesses said that it was important that these communities be consulted. There are not just the experts, there are ordinary citizens as well, who have some expertise in this regard. The answer was no, no, no.

I think we should call them the no, no, no gang. This is what comes out as soon as opposition members introduce something intelligent. Initially they suggest that a bill be drafted. Officials then draft it. Then the minister or members representing the Liberal majority in committee must defend it. Most of the time, I think they do not even know what the subject is and this is unfortunate because it is extremely important.

It was not only yesterday that I started being concerned about nuclear waste and all sorts of waste that we import from the United States and elsewhere. The Bloc Quebecois even asked, through an amendment it put forward, to have the bill provide that we manage our own waste and contain a clause banning the importing of waste from elsewhere. This amendment too was rejected. The Liberal members said no, no, no and yet we know how important this is.

The Seaborn panel was set up by people who wanted to do something about an issue that had been dragging on for years. It took time to write the report. The panel made excellent recommendations. The Minister of Natural Resources, whom I really like, seemed to show goodwill. He had said from the beginning, and I believed him,“I rely on the reports of the Seaborn panel”. But over time he made an about-face.

Now I cannot make sense of the bill. There are many Quebecers and Canadians who will also be lost. Why? Because when it is passed, they will no longer be consulted. It will be the governor in council who will consult, because he “may” do so.

The first recommendation of the Seaborn panel was that the public should be consulted on any nuclear waste management principle. This is what should have been done. That was the panel's first recommendation. This is the one recommendation that should have served as a basis for all the other ones. The government ignored the one recommendation that should have been taken into account with this bill.

Had it not been disregarded, I would have told myself “At least the government is taking this issue seriously. It is not doing this to please people who are close to the powers that be. No, it is really presenting a bill that will reassure Canadians and Quebecers”. I would have welcomed this initiative.

I sat on the Standing Committee on the Environment for two years. When good things were happening, I would always say to the minister and the Liberal members “Yes, we will co-operate, because when it comes to the environment we have to co-operate to advance government initiatives”. That was always my attitude during these two years, and things worked well. When I did not agree with something, I said so.

This bill is now at third reading. Yesterday we voted on the last amendments at report stage. The Bloc Quebecois presented four amendments. They were not even examined. They were rejected out of hand. It was time to do something about this issue, but the government should act in the respect of people, of the public.

That is not what the government is doing. This bill will be studied by the other place, and I hope that they will be able to do what the Liberal government has not done.

Such a bill, such an issue, must not be dealt with casually, as we have seen. I was not present for all of the hearings, but my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, was. He told me “It makes no sense. There are so many things going on; the witnesses that are appearing are only talking about the Seaborn report. They thought that the government wanted to implement the recommendations”.

Do we bring in witnesses in as a formality, or are we there to listen to them? Most of them are experts. Sometimes, regular citizens can become experts. They came in good faith to warn this government about the problems with this bill. They came and said “We are warning you; listen to us, introduce amendments. It needs to be done properly”.

But the Liberals did what they did to the opposition: they turned a deaf ear. They turned deaf and blind. As far as they were concerned, it was no, no, no. Their answers were dictated by the minister's instructions and the overall bill.

I am very disappointed for the people of the riding of Jonquière, which I represent, and I am also very disappointed for future generations. I have grandchildren, two boys. My daughter has given me two beautiful grandsons aged 5 and 3. Tomorrow, I do not want to tell my grandsons “You know, grandma could have done something. She tried, but nobody on the other side listened to her”.

I am very disappointed because they are the ones who will have to live with the results of our lack of action on December 5, 2001. We will have failed to convince the government to change Bill C-27 into the bill that we wanted at the outset.

This is a sad situation. The holiday season is upon us, and in 20 days it will be Christmas. This is a time of celebration, a time for enjoyment, for spending good times together, but I will be using that opportunity to tell my constituents “We did everything we could to get the government to listen to us, but to no avail. It is doing as it pleases, and it is not even interested in consulting you”.

I think that this government sees itself as the one possessing the truth. Of all those listening to us today, there is not one who possesses the whole truth. When one has an idea in mind, one must take into consideration the opinion of those who want to caution us, who tell us “Take care, there, don't go in that direction. I have proof of my stand, just listen to me and I will tell you why”. We need to listen to others if we are members of parliament. Otherwise, we would be better off elsewhere.

I believe that all members of this House, be they Liberals or opposition members, should have that ability to listen to others, yet in the standing committee on natural resources, I could see that the government MPs lacked that ability.

This has been a great disappointment to me, because today we are forced to acknowledge that we could have done something worthwhile, something to advance a cause that involves everyone. Last week, my colleague from Sherbrooke told me that there were people in one region discussing bringing in waste from the United States to bury in their area. One might also bring up a matter that we settled last year.

Do you remember this, Madam Speaker? At the time, you were not the acting Speaker. They wanted to bury waste from the Toronto area in northern Ontario, near the Témiscamingue area in Quebec.

With the help of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, we set up emergency hearings. The Minister of the Environment arranged for an environmental assessment to be done. People came to tell us that there were many irritants and they were right, so the government said that this would not be done and it was not.

All the witnesses who appeared before the committee at various times told us the same thing. The city of Toronto was forced to back down.

The government could have done the same thing with Bill C-27. It could have said “Yes, there are irritants”. We never said that this bill was all bad. We said that there were things that were not what we were looking for and that the bill needed to be improved.

We are calling for consultation, management and a report to be tabled in the House. The other day, we suggested the services of the Auditor General of Canada. Yesterday she told us about what was going on with employment insurance and about the $75 that the government handed out before last year's election to individuals below a certain income. She told us about that. The auditor general is credible.

The government members refused. They said that they want an independent auditor appointed by the governor in council.

Our request for clarity demanded an answer, ut we can see beyond any doubt, and it is a shame to have to say this, and I am sad to do so, that there is no clarity. Clarity is not a predominant characteristic of the Liberal government in this issue. I am sorry to see this because I am certain that there are members across the way who would have liked more clarity too, when they realize how little there is, and that they too hear from their constituents on the whole topic of waste. They are going to start looking at the bill and I hope that they will ask themselves what questions their constituents will have for them when they see this.

We must not disappoint the people who elect us. We must ensure that issues as important as nuclear waste management are not relegated to the back burner, as a third, fourth, or fifth priority.

This is a top priority. We have done much harm to our planet in the past. Today it suffers from what we humans have inflicted upon it. With this bill, we had an opportunity to lessen the burden that we have placed on the planet.

However, we did not. The government turned a deaf ear and did not innovate. We hear the word innovate a lot. Today we need to innovate more and more. Since the events of September 11, the world has changed, I believe.

Every weekend I meet a great number of constituents who always tell me, “You know, Jocelyne, we have changed since September 11. Our values are different. We see things more clearly now and we to want to change the little day to day things that we overlooked”.

This bill was an opportunity to change the little day to day things and allow us to finally keep an open mind and consider the winds of change on this very complex and difficult issue.

Today the Bloc Quebecois can say that it is against this bill and that it will continue to oppose it. I hope that my speech will spark something in the members opposite. That is my wish.

Marine Conservation Areas

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a special thanks for the time, talent and effort of a number of British Columbians who are fighting for changes to Bill C-10, the Marine Conservation Areas Act.

I publicly thank the mayor of Kitimat, Rick Wozney; business owner Reg Stowell; mayor of Telkwa, Sharon Hartwell; mayor of Smithers, Brian Northup, and councillor Cress Farrow; mayor of Prince Rupert, Don Scott, and councillor Paddy Greene; mayor of Port Clements, Joan-Ann Allen; chairman of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine, Joanne Monaghan; chairman of the regional district of Skeena-Queen Charlottes, Ed Wampler; Phil Eidsvik of the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition; Michelle James of the B.C. Seafood Alliance; chairman of the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force, David McGuigan; and finally, the B.C. government MLA for North Coast, Bill Belsey. I thank them all for their efforts.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[The Speaker]

It being 3 p.m., the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-10.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Business of the House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

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

Earlier today when the bells began ringing on the motion on third reading stage on Bill C-10, the opposition House leader came forward to defer the vote. According to Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii), only the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip may ask the Speaker to defer a division. Therefore to ensure that things are properly and orderly done, I would like to ensure that the vote is in fact deferred until tomorrow as required under the standing orders. I would also like to ask for unanimous consent that it be further deferred until next Tuesday, November 27 at 3 p.m.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, 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--

[The Speaker]

It being 3.00 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment and the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-10.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Canada National marine conservation areas Act

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-10 one more time. I begin my comments by saying that the coalition will be supporting the bill although I do take into account some of the comments made by my colleagues from other parties on the whole notion of trust. There have been occasions in the past when the government has indicated that it would do things in a certain way and it turned out to be exactly the opposite.

When we studied Bill C-10 in committee we had the government act in a number of ways to try to include the concerns raised by witnesses, by me and by my colleagues, in particular my colleague from the Alliance representing Skeena. The government moved a bit on some of those issues.

One of the biggest concerns was the whole area of provincial and federal jurisdiction. If a marine conservation area is to be established in an area under federal jurisdiction, from the federal government's perspective there is no need for it to consult although it said it would consult. That is positive.

In an area that is under provincial jurisdiction the legislation clearly outlines that the provincial and federal governments must be in agreement with the establishment of a marine conservation area.

Generally speaking the concept of a marine conservation area is a positive one. It is a good idea to set aside 29 marine parks in different regions of the country, one representing each region and sub-region, so that we can maintain these areas not only for now but for future use and enjoyment as well.

I believe there is balance in the legislation in that other activities are allowed to occur in a marine conservation area such as fishing and others. Those items are clearly laid out in the bill.

Those who listened to the debate throughout our deliberations on Bill C-10 will know that concerns were raised by the Alliance indicating that the bill went too far and did not allow for enough consultation, flexibility or resource development.

Our friends in the NDP say the bill does not go far enough to protect the environment. Our friends in the Bloc have concerns about the bill mainly because of the provincial jurisdiction aspect. We understand that is their concern. It is a concern for all of us as well. My colleague in the Bloc previously pointed out the whole issue of trust.

In the past the government has infringed on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Even in a bill where the process is clearly laid out the way there is a bit of hesitance to accept the federal government's role in the way that it will actually carry out the process laid out in the bill.

The legislation will be passed because the government is in support of it. It has a majority in the House. Regardless of what opposition members do, if it is a piece of legislation the government wants to go through the House it will go through the House.

If the bill is to be successful and if the creation of these marine conservation areas is to go ahead in a way that takes into account consultation with local regions and with provinces, it is dependent upon the government, and particularly the minister of heritage because the bill is under her area of jurisdiction, that it be implemented in such a way that a marine conservation area will never be established against the will of local communities or provincial jurisdiction. We hope that would be the case.

The government assured us that it was not its intent and drafters of the legislation told us that as well. However, as others have said in this place, we have heard those words before. When we hear them over and over and the actions do not add up to the words, we tend to hesitate in putting trust and faith in a government that has not always lived up to its promises in the past.

We could spend some time talking about promises made by the Liberal government since it took office in 1993. There were things like the GST, helicopters and all kinds of other issues, but I will not digress.

Those kinds of things give us reason to question whether or not the government would implement the bill in the way that it says it would. It is only when the government commits by its actions and lives up to its word that it is able to move ahead and build trust not only with members of parliament from other parties but also with the people we represent in different regions across the country.

It is my hope that this would be the case with Bill C-10. I came to study the bill later than some of my colleagues. It has had several incarnations in the House and we are at the point where the legislation can go ahead.

We support the establishment of marine conservation areas but qualify our support hoping that the government will continue the consultative process with local communities and provinces before establishing one of these areas.

Once established, it is hoped that the government would stick to its word to continue with advisory committees from the local areas to monitor the implementation of the marine conservation areas and to monitor the activities in the areas. If the government does not follow through on that it will give rise to the objections we had and prove those who oppose the bill to be right. It will only be with the test of time that we will see whether or not the government delivers on the commitment of consultation.

There are many concerns about the bill. We in the PC/DR coalition do not believe it to be a perfect bill. We have qualified support for it since we support the notion of marine conservation areas. We believe there has been some balance struck in the bill, but it will only be a supportable notion if the government proceeds in a way that ensures consultation and that the conservation areas are put in locations with the agreement of those communities.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, normally I would not use the two minutes that I have left, because I had many opportunities to speak this morning. However, given the importance of Bill C-10, to which we are opposed, I will use those two minutes.

Before oral question period, I was saying that there is confusion within the government's own departments, whether it is Fisheries and Oceans, or Environment Canada. Now, in addition to these two, Canadian heritage wants to be responsible for certain areas, this strictly for Canadian unity reasons.

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 departments of a government cannot work together, how can we expect provincial governments to co-operate? It is understandable that the Government of Quebec would refuse to co-operate 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; it cannot be clear, because of the very nature of its objectives. Canadian heritage is trying to take over 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 jurisdictions that belong to Quebec and the other provinces?

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

Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that ignores action already taken, and successfully. I am talking of course about the agreement regarding the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

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.

In closing, I want people to understand what we are saying here. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of protecting the environment, but we cannot be naive to the point of agreeing to pass this bill. The government tried to get the House to pass similar legislation in previous parliaments through Bill C-8 and Bill C-48. Now we have Bill C-10, which creates overlap and through which the government is trying to use crown lands.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, following the moving of the amendment to the amendment, I would like to rise again today because I believe it is very important that I make the following comments.

Once again today I am addressing the 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, on land or under 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, not in just in 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 the lands and areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces by creating marine areas.

As I explained earlier today, for the federal government to be able to take over everything, several critical elements must be present including as a prerequisite that it has clear title on the submerged lands. But it does not own them.

This is not only because the Constitution Act, 1867 says that the management and sale of public lands are an area of provincial jurisdiction, but also because Quebec's legislation on public lands applies to all public lands in Quebec including the beds of waterways and lakes as well as the bed of the St. Lawrence river, the estuary and the gulf of the St. Lawrence river, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

The Canadian heritage backgrounder mentions three areas: the St. Lawrence River, the estuary and the gulf of the St. Lawrence. The government wants to apply the bill to three areas under provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government would contravene section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that the management and sale of public lands are within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and not the federal government. The federal government cannot use an environmental protection measure to appropriate lands belonging to Quebec and the provinces. Rather it should seek the provinces' co-operation.

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 was 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 they 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. And, now, we have Canadian heritage, whose mandate is limited to promoting Canadian unity. Which of them can we trust? Which of them should we trust?

Canadian heritage uses the environment for national unity purposes, while fisheries and oceans 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 whose 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 double edged sword.

On the one hand, the government insists that the environment is a priority, while on the other it takes advantage of this fine principle to flog national identity, using Canadian heritage which, I would remind hon. members, possesses no expertise whatsoever as far as the environment is concerned.

The result is pitiful. 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. There is no way of sorting it out. Confusion reigns among the departments.

If there is confusion amongst 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 be in charge of the stakeholders? Which will penalize those breaking the law?

All of 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.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

I very much enjoyed hearing the comments of my colleague from Edmonton North. She mentioned the pleasure she derived from driving her Honda GoldWing through Canada's national parks, always on the pavement though, not through the woods and trails. That would not be possible in one of Canada's new marine parks. While it would not be possible, it would not be politically advisable either to do it on a Sea-Doo or perhaps a pumpkin, but that is another story.

The legislation in general makes a great deal of sense. For generations we have recognized the importance of protecting our parklands and national parks. These have been a source of pride for Canadians, as we recognize the importance of protecting our ecosystem and our natural environment, not simply for the sustainability of that environment but also for the pleasure that we and future generations derive from that national environment.

We recognize that we have the same responsibility over our coastlines and our water areas as we have over our lands. If we compare our responsibilities up to the 200 mile limit with those responsibilities we have over our terrain, they are almost identical. It is only intuitive that we move in the direction of recognizing the importance of protecting marine conservation areas in the same way we protect our national parks in Canada.

This is particularly important as we enter an age where ecotourism is becoming increasingly important. Many people who travel to Canada and its coastlines are not coming for theme parks or shopping. However, with the Canadian dollar having been bludgeoned so consistently by this government, perhaps shopping would not be a bad alternative.

In many cases, tourists who come here from other parts of the world come because of our unique, important and very special ecosystem and environment.

We have seen many examples of bad environmental policy in Canada in the past, in part, because we have taken for granted the wealth of our natural resources. Canada has wide open spaces and much natural beauty. In many ways we have taken that for granted over the years. We have seen bad environmental policy ultimately become bad economic policy. The cost to fix some of the catastrophic effects of decades of neglect does not take into account the sanctity of our lands and our natural resources.

Canadians can be united under the vision that bad environmental policy ultimately is bad economic policy. This becomes increasingly self-evident as ecotourism becomes a more important industry in Canada. That is certainly the case in our national parks and their surrounding areas and is obviously will be the case in our marine conservation areas.

I heard some concerns expressed in the House today, including some by the member for Dewdney--Alouette who has stewarded this legislation at committee for our caucus.

Some concerns that I share are the degree to which the federal government has a habit of consistently running roughshod over provincial jurisdictional boundaries. Instead of working with the provinces or with some subnational governments in a pre-emptive way to develop legislation that fully respects the sanctity of provincial and subnational jurisdictional boundaries, the government tends to create the legislation. Then, during the post-implementation period, it determines exactly how far it can push and trample on the legitimate jurisdictional responsibilities of provinces and other governments.

It would make far more sense for the government to sit down with provinces and subnational governments, consult pre-emptively and develop legislation as partners, as opposed to presenting legislation and ultimately creating what would and could very easily become an adversarial environment. It is unfortunate the government does not take that opportunity and take its responsibility more seriously to consult with and work with the provinces in a more genuine way.

The member for Edmonton North made a great point earlier. She said that if the federal government took a proactive role and worked with the provinces, this could be an initiative of which all Canadians could feel proud and which would be a uniting initiative as opposed to what ultimately can be a divisive initiative of the government.

Some other concerns I have heard expressed in the House have been addressed by the government. The government has moved somewhat and there has been some success at the committee level and beyond.

In terms of order in council powers, this government, more than any government before it, has abused those powers and that authority. As the power has become increasingly concentrated, not just in cabinet any more but in the Prime Minister's Office, we have seen a significant reduction in the role parliament and in the role of members of parliament in determining the priorities of legislation like this and in helping shape this type of very important legislation. That is unfortunate not just for members of the House, but it is unfortunate for every Canadian represented by members in the House. When we reduce the rights of parliament and the rights of individual members of parliament, we ultimately reduce the democratic rights of individual Canadians.

If there is something that can unite almost every member of the House, regardless of whether they are on the government side, in the back benches or in opposition, it is the need for greater parliamentary input. This is not just lip service to legislation to make the television viewers happy when watching our deliberations. It involves genuine input that shapes legislation which will have a significant effect on future generations. Institutional reform is something to which we ought to devote far greater effort.

We support in principle the direction of the legislation. It makes a great deal of sense at this juncture to move in this direction. However we believe that the provinces and other subnational governments should have been, and should be, consulted in a more vigorous way prior to the formation of this legislation. If we expect the subnational governments to be part of the solution, we cannot impose this type of legislation on them. We need to work with them to build legislation that will impact significantly on their general business.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 is a rehash of two predecessors, identified at the time as Bills C-8 and C-48. This raises the following question: why did the government not pass C-8? Why did the Liberals, in their third mandate, not pass C-48?

There are a number of reasons why. In the latter case, it is because the Prime Minister decided to call a hasty election in order to catch his adversaries by surprise, particularly the new leader of the Canadian Alliance. He put vote-getting ahead of a number of bills, and this one, along with 22 others fell by the wayside. I remember, because one of those was a private member's bill on shipbuilding.

Now we are only a few weeks away from the anniversary of that election call, at which time that bill on shipbuilding had gone through all the stages, second reading, clause by clause examination in committee and report stage. All that remained was third reading, but the Prime Minister preferred to call an election. I know that my bill was not the only reason; it was primarily to gain political advantage, one might say.

There is another question. If the government had not yet passed this bill on marine conservation areas, it is certainly not because it was a priority. If it was not a priority during the two previous mandates, is it really a priority now? I doubt it. I would tend to believe that the government does not have much to offer to the House in terms of a legislative agenda while the anti-terrorism legislation is still in the planning and consultation stages. In the meantime, it gives us this bill to discuss.

As I recall, when we were dealing with Bill C-8 and Bill C-48, on each occasion I took part in the debate and spoke against those bills for the very same reasons.

We in the Bloc Quebecois often bring up the fact that there is duplication between the federal and provincial governments. This is another case in point. Under the Constitution, natural resources and public lands come under provincial jurisdiction. It is a proven fact.

Nevertheless and in spite of warnings, in spite of the opposition, and in spite of the result of botched consultations, we have this bill before us. If an independent firm were asked to report on the kind of consultations that were carried out on the bill, it would not be very likely that the same company would be hired again. The data is not conclusive.

Moreover, this duplication is, I do not know how to say this, “intrafederal”. We are talking about creating marine conservation areas which would come under the Department of Canadian Heritage, but we already have marine protection areas under the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We also have marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

It bears repeating: marine conservation areas, marine protection areas, and marine wildlife areas.

This, as my father would say, is a lot of hogwash. It is incomprehensible. By trying too hard to protect natural resources, the government may actually harm them, and I wonder about their motives. Apparently conservation is what they have in mind, but conservation in terms of heritage. I suppose that fish could be admired for their beauty or like any other typically Canadian item.

But these things are related and, during the consultations, people said “Yes, but there is a very distinct possibility when there is a desire to protect natural species for heritage reasons in the same areas as fisheries and ocean's marine protection areas”. But fisheries and oceans officials want there to be more fish and fisheries products to feed us, as well as provide work for people in regions such as the Gaspé or the maritimes. The Department of the Environment is also concerned because all this is very closely related.

And precisely because it is closely related, should these three kinds of areas not come under the jurisdiction of one federal body? Imagine the situation for people in Quebec or in other provinces trying to manage projects or areas under the authority of one or the other of these three departments. The federal government is in the process of inventing a weapon by which it can attack provincial jurisdictions from three different angles. One would think we were in Afghanistan, so intense is the bombardment. This will not do. It is intrafederal duplication.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is laughing, but I know that he agrees with me. He too thinks it is ridiculous. But now, he can no longer say so because he is sitting with the Liberal majority. He is obviously forced to toe the party line. But when he was on this side of the House, he was in favour. Then, he was right to support the creation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

Why was that a good project? Because there was an agreement between Quebec and the federal government intended not just to protect but to develop this beauty, which the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord could still develop.

I could give another example of co-operation that took place, but that is not moving as quickly as we would hope. I am referring to the St. Lawrence action plan, which concerns primarily the shores of the river. Many projects are waiting for funding and money. I saw the tremendous work done by priority intervention zones. The zone in my region is called the Zone d'interventions protégées de Chaudière-Appalaches. Several projects are waiting for money to develop and protect the environment, and to help the ecosystem.

But instead of that, what we have before us is a virtual bill, since it does not target a specific territory. This is an omnibus bill that would allow the government to get involved in jurisdictions that, again, belong to the provinces, this within a framework that does not include public lands alone, but also natural resources that belong to the provinces. This is being done after a rushed consultation process.

When we want a copy of the supposedly 300 pages on the outcome of these consultations, we are given 73. It is as if the protection of these areas were a military secret. It is almost forbidden to say where these areas will be located, as if this were a highly strategic piece of information. If this were a priority, the government would have included it the first time, in Bill C-8, and the second time, in Bill C-48. But it did not do so.

Now that things are quiet and that the government is not ready to go ahead with Bill C-36 because consultations are still going on, it is making us debate this issue in parliament.

I say that it is too bad for the Liberal government. Every time, we tell the government the same thing and say “You are getting involved in provincial jurisdictions. Instead of doing that, put money in your own jurisdictions, in national parks”.

Instead, a report from the auditor general talks about negligence and insufficient staff and funds, before adding that it is an ill-protected area. And the government wants to develop more areas. This just does not make sense.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Not on a motorbike, that is true. We want to be able to celebrate marine areas whether they are oceans, lakes or whatever. We have a marvellous heritage and beautiful waterways. We need to celebrate them and make sure that their safety and sanctity remain in place.

The bill would allow for the creation of future marine parks or the enlargement of existing parks by order of governor in council. Members will know that governor in council is a tremendously powerful tool. It can be used for good but it is also an amazing temptation to use for power because one does not need to mess around with all the to-do of having to go through parliament.

It is important to make sure that the House knows, accepts and endorses any changes that would take place regardless of what kind of legislation it is. We are currently working through the anti-terrorism bill after the events of September 11. We know how important it is that parliament be allowed and enabled to speak on it.

We have reservations about governor in council because we must make sure that it does not run roughshod over the democratic process.

A proposed amendment would be tabled in each House and referred to committee which would have the option of reporting back to the House. In order to defeat the proposed amendment the committee would have to report to the House that it disapproved of the amendment. If no such motion were proposed in either House after 21 sitting days the amendment could be made, thereby creating or enlarging an MCA.

It is important to bring things before the House. We are not here for the fun of it. It is not that we all love to debate although I am sure that is a characteristic most of us share. Nonetheless things should not be hived off through a backroom process and people should not whip things through. These things need to see the light of day. Canadians must be ensured that they know exactly what is going on.

The marine conservation areas could include seabeds, including the waters above them and species that occur within them, as well as wetlands, estuaries, islands and other coastal lands.

I am not a serious scuba diver. My husband and I have taken it up in the last few years and we enjoy it. How special it is to be able to appreciate not just what God has created overland and on the ocean but underneath as well. We saw some magnificent things while scuba diving in Mexico and St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They were unbelievable experiences we were allowed to share and we are very grateful for them.

We are concerned about the environment and about the ecosystem under the ocean. It is essential to make sure we protect them. When I look at the bill I want to make sure that it is safe and environmentally sound for creatures under the sea, for people who will be scuba diving, and for people who will be participating on the water or underneath it.

The concern I raised related to flight and boating patterns for people flying over or boating across conservation areas. We need to ensure that the legislation takes into consideration the concerns of commercial ventures and not simply environmental issues.

There have been some technical and minor substantive changes when I compare the bill to Bill C-8. Some of my concerns and reservations have also been addressed.

Bill C-10 includes the following changes from Bill C-8 which was introduced in the second session of the 36th parliament. There is a stipulation in subclause 2(2) that nothing in the legislation would abrogate or derogate from existing aboriginal rights. Those are things that are essential as well. We want to make sure that the aboriginal communities are consulted and not just having things announced to them. We want to ensure that the ecosystem is very balanced and in place.

There is an explicit requirement in subparagraph 5(2)(b) for provincial consent in the establishment or enlargement of a national marine conservation area. That is important because the provincial governments are the level of government that is closer to the people. Then one has municipal governments which are the closest level to the people, period.

I was at the Alberta urban municipalities association government luncheon in Edmonton on Friday talking to town councillors. All members can be assured that if a sewer backs up or if a dog is barking people do not phone their member of parliament. They phone their town councillor or their county reeve, the level of government which is most closely associated with the people.

The provincial government is just one level closer. It is essential for provincial governments to be able to buy into that. That is very wise. If a federal government ever goes over the head of a provincial government it runs the risk of ostracizing people and pushing people aside. No one stands to gain anything from that.

There is an allowance in subclause 4(4) for zones for sustainable use and for high protection of special features and fragile ecosystems within these marine conservation areas. That is good as we need to have sustainable environmental controls on it.

I will comment on the whole idea of economic development. These are essential things to a commercial airline such as Harbour Air on the west coast of British Columbia. It has been flying over these areas for years. We do not want any government going to an extreme and specifying that there can no longer be commercial flights.

We need sustainable use, economical development and environmental impact studies. All these things have to go together and they should complement each other not be at odds with each other.

There is a requirement in clause 7 for an interim management plan when government tables in parliament a proposal for the establishment of a marine conservation area. We must acknowledge how important this place is to the debate and implementation of those things and how important it is that government be wide open with its intentions.

People across Canada would then feel safer, more special and consulted. They would certainly buy into with a sense of ownership and pride any matter regarding a national marine conservation area. It is not that people are against it. They are nervous about what the government will do. They have had many experiences where an order in council was brought through and a regulation happened.

It is not as if they were asked if this was all right. They were not consulted to work something through together with government. Rather there was some great pronouncement from on high that this would be the way it was. Some claim they are from the government and are there to help them. That makes people more nervous than confident.

I am pleased to see that the government made some changes. I am looking forward to making sure that the bill is not only sustainable but that it celebrates our unbelievable commitment not just to yap about it but to look after our environment, national parks and national marine conservation areas.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the bill again. It has been in the House for quite some time, as we know.

This is Bill C-10 in its latest incarnation. Members will recall that it was Bill C-8 in a previous session. I had serious concerns with Bill C-8 and obviously concerns about this one as well. It looks like the government had some second thoughts about the bill. I am pleased to say that the government is moving in the right direction.

The bill would create four marine conservation areas representing five of the twenty-nine marine regions. I had several people in my office last year who were explaining and showing me maps of the marine regions. I know that we have national parks in the country.

I live in Alberta and we celebrate our national parks there. There is nothing more beautiful than riding a Honda GoldWing across Banff, Yoho and Jasper national parks. It is a tremendous experience. My husband Lew and I were able to do that this summer and we really enjoyed it.

If we are able to celebrate that in terms of national parks on land, we want to be able to celebrate the sea and marine heritage as well.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to express my concerns about the legislation respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, Bill C-10, which brings back the former bills C-8 and C-48 introduced during the 36th parliament.

Of course, I was not in the House when these bills were introduced during the 36th parliament. However, this legislation easily attracted my attention and should be studied in-depth because Quebec was among the first to ensure public access to its waterways, as it so desires.

Protection of the environment has been a constant concern for the Bloc Quebecois. I remind those listening and the government that the Bloc Quebecois supported the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park in 1997. That legislation provided for the creation of the first marine conservation area of Canada.

Unfortunately, this time, we cannot support such a legislation. I will only give three reasons why the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree to this legislation.

First, in Bill C-10, instead of focusing on working together, as it did in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the government is giving itself the right to establish marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

Bill C-10 does not respect Quebec's territorial integrity. My colleagues from Manicouagan and Châteauguay were saying that it is under the Constitutional Act, 1867, that we have this territorial integrity. At the time, the provinces, including Quebec, were guaranteed exclusive jurisdiction over the management of crown lands.

At the same time, Quebec legislation concerning crown lands applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including the beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

However, according to the notes provided by Canadian heritage on this famous bill, marine conservation areas are planned for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as the river and estuary, three areas where the seabed comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.

This is a very clear example of federal meddling in a provincial jurisdiction. I find it terrible that, as Quebecers, we are once again subjected to provocation and lack of respect by the government, which wants to do only what it wants.

It is clear that this government is working to create almost voluntarily an explosive climate for Quebecers. It continually infringes areas exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction and is endlessly trying to impose unreasonable legislation, whose content and effect Quebecers consider an insult to their intelligence.

There is another reason why we are not supporting this bill. Canadian heritage as is its practice all too often is proposing to put a new structure in place, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate the marine wildlife reserves of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the marine areas of Environment Canada.

Canadian heritage has done a poor job protecting ecosystems. Its decisions will take precedence over regulations already established under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Aeronautics Act.

It will be readily understood that this practice can only lead to a whole raft of problems with respect to marine protected areas, marine wildlife reserves and marine conservation area with regulations for each and other regulations superimposed by Canadian heritage.

We might quote from the testimony of Patrick McGuinness, the vice-president of the Canadian Council of Fisheries, who totally opposed this initiative because it is “ineffective and encumbers the administration of public affairs”.

Third, we could talk about Canadian heritage's great achievements in protecting the ecosystems of existing national parks and its expertise in the field along with its role as leader in protecting our ecosystems.

They are far from brilliant. I will quote a few of the findings reported by the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. This panel released a public report and urged the government to make the ecological preservation of parks a priority once again.

The same panel found that, in some national parks, the stress on the resource was so great that some species were disappearing. In Fundy park, in New Brunswick, three species have disappeared since the park was created. Only one of the 39 national parks of Parks Canada does not experience this stress. The situation is worse than what the panel of scientists expected. To make matters worse, there is a dramatic lack of scientists in national parks to evaluate ecosystems.

Allow me to doubt that Parks Canada and Canadian heritage can preserve marine conservation areas, since they do not have the minimal resources needed to protect national parks today.

A sensible and responsible government would have adopted a more logical approach, that is ensuring that only one department deals with the protection of our ecosystems and that departments involved arrive at an agreement in which they would transfer their responsibilities to the department in charge. Would that not make more sense?

In this case, I believe it would have been better to centralize all activities in one department, to give it the necessary resources to do its task and to ensure an adequate protection of marine conservation areas, administered and implemented by expert and competent people.

Moreover, the government is not only intruding unduly into provincial fields of jurisdiction—something that is extremely important for me—it is also squandering the money of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers in a tangle of complicated and endless legislative and administrative measures.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill. It is an act that is unrespectful of Quebec, legislation for which there has been no real consultation with stakeholders and that does not take into account the recommendations made by the government's own experts, who advised the government to solve the more urgent problems before doing anything else.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Manicouagan, I am pleased to rise today to support my Bloc Quebecois colleagues regarding Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

First, I want to reiterate the fact that our party supports environmental protection measures. I should mention that the Bloc Quebecois fully co-operated and supported the government when it introduced the act establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This is an example that should be followed.

Also, the Quebec government initiated actions to protect the environment and the seabed.

It only makes sense to protect the environment, but all stages must be completed in co-operation with provincial governments. This time, contrary to what it did with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government is about to decide alone the rules to establish marine conservation areas, without taking into consideration Quebec's jurisdictions over its territory and its environment.

This is one of the fundamental reasons the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill. The government does not seem to take into account the whole issue of partnership. The government, through Canadian heritage, is now proposing to set up a structure, namely marine conservation areas, that will interfere, as my colleagues pointed out, with marine protection areas in Quebec. We are talking about fisheries and oceans and marines areas, but there is the whole issue of ecosystems in existing national parks, which Canadian heritage is currently not able to protect.

This bill shows to what extent the federal government is about to get involved in provincial jurisdictions, even though the beds of waterways largely belong to the provinces. By this I mean that they belong to the provinces affected, namely Quebec.

Bill C-10 does not respect the territorial integrity of Quebec. As the hon. member for Châteauguay pointed out, the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that “the management and sale of crown lands are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction”. It could not be clearer.

Furthermore, Quebec's legislation act on public lands provides that the bed of the St. Lawrence river and gulf belongs to Quebec by sovereign right.

This act provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. As for the protection of habitats and fauna, it is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the government of Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.

Moreover, according to Canadian heritage backgrounder on the bill before us, marine conservation areas are planned for, first, the St. Lawrence river, second, the St. Lawrence estuary and third, the gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Moreover, this bill will create a real cacophony because there is a lot of overlap. The federal government wants to establish marine conservation areas through Canadian heritage, marine protection areas through Fisheries and Oceans, and marine wildlife areas through Environment Canada. We would see the establishment of several superimposed areas; it does not make any sense.

I would like to highlight the rather skewed consultation process conducted by Canadian heritage. We are told that a consultation paper was sent to 3,000 groups across Canada. According to Canadian heritage, over 300 pages of answers and comments were submitted. But when the Bloc Quebecois asked for a copy, we only received 73 pages.

On top of that, the government is planning to pass framework legislation allowing it to establish 28 marine conservation areas without referring back to parliament. Opposition parties are asking that each future marine conservation area be put to a vote in parliament.

It should also be noted that the three opposition parties put forward amendments to prevent the federal government from acting unilaterally. But the Liberal members rejected these amendments alleging that they involved a provincial veto, even when the territory is under federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois asked that the federal government be required to work with the province, which is normal, if that province has legislated with regard to the protection of marine areas as was the case with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

A number of other amendments were put forward by a coalition made up of all opposition parties. The government turned down every single one of them.

Essentially, the federal government is attempting to appropriate marine subsurfaces, submerged lands under the St. Lawrence and in the gulf.

I believe that my colleagues have amply highlighted the fact that we should be following the example set by the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which, at the time of its creation in 1997, was the first marine conservation area in Canada. This marine area was created following the adoption of what is known as “mirror legislation”, by the federal and Quebec governments. In this exemplary case, the park was created by both governments at the same time, without any transfer of territory.

As well, both governments continue to oversee their areas of responsibility. A co-ordinating committee was struck, made up of federal and provincial ministers. The Bloc Quebecois believes that this first marine conservation area should have served as a model for the federal government in establishing other marine conservation areas.

The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly sets out that the environment is a shared jurisdiction between the federal and Quebec governments. Furthermore, this bill by Canadian heritage comes at a time when there is a severe criticism of the rationalization of the fishery, which fails to take into consideration the needs and the reality of the industry and the communities affected by the fishery moratorium. I know something about this, because the people in my riding of Manicouagan depend on the fishery as one of their mainstays for survival.

Yet, the industry still remains unaware of the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean's vision as regards its future. How many people will remain employed? The government has also been criticized for its poor management of the fishery and for its responsibility in the collapse of ground fish stocks. So just how does the government intend to get coastal communities to co-operate in order to find viable solutions to establish marine conservation areas, zones and marine wildlife reserves?

In order to protect ecosystems, the government will need to have the co-operation of coastal communities, including the residents of my riding. First, the people of Manicouagan need economic assistance in order to survive and to feed their families, then they will be able to think about co-operating in establishing marine conservation areas.

This bill will not serve the interests of marine conservation areas and will only create disorder among all of the stakeholders.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the bill.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the chief environment critic for the Canadian Alliance, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-10. I will broaden the base and talk not only about marine conservation areas, but also about the environment as it applies to a bill like this one and as it could apply to other bills.

I start off by commending our critic, the member for Skeena. As a new member he has done a wonderful job of presenting the views of his constituents and of a much broader constituency of Canadians who are concerned about the environment, the marine aspects of that environment and particularly concerned about parks and the creation of parks.

I did not serve on the committee and hear all the witnesses, but I did go through the legislation. Much of the legislation is like a lot of environmental legislation. It is much like the species at risk legislation that we are talking about in the environment committee. We basically say that this is good and we like to have parks. We think we should preserve species. We think we should have marine areas set aside. The problem is in the details. When we actually get into the details of what the government is planning to do, we find where the flaws and problems are. Today I will try to broaden that base and talk about those problems from a broader environmental aspect.

First of all, there is the area of co-ordination, the co-ordination of bureaucrats and acts that are already enacted by the Government of Canada. We have heard others mention that. For the most part overall we could conclude that heritage, environment, natural resources, fisheries and a number of other departments do not really know what each other is doing. There does not seem to be a co-ordinating mechanism. Some members might argue that it is up to the Prime Minister and his cabinet to co-ordinate these activities, but that does not seem to be happening.

We have an Oceans Act that allows for marine protection areas, but obviously that comes under a different minister. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act would allow for the protection of species, for environmental impact studies and for all sorts of things. I believe that is being amended by Bill C-19 which will come before the House soon. It generally is a good piece of legislation which allows the environment minister to do a great deal when it comes to setting up areas like these.

The species at risk bill will be coming before the House for report stage and third reading very soon. The bill very specifically allows for the protection of endangered species. After months and months we have spent in committee listening to witnesses and working on the legislation it certainly is far reaching and allows for the protection of habitat and the protection of any species that might be endangered.

We have old acts such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Fisheries Act. Both are very powerful acts which are used within Canada and which can be used right across the country and certainly would apply here.

There seems to be a turf war between various ministers who have to get pieces of legislation put on the table so they can lay claim to some aspect or other. I do not know whether it is a power trip or like a university professor who has to turn out so many papers every year. That is almost what the bill appears to be. It seems to be that heritage has not done much for a while so it had better come up with a piece of legislation that can be put before the House and the minister can then take credit for it.

Most Liberal members and most people who consider themselves Liberals think they have halos around their heads when they talk about the environment. The problem is that we see very little action. We hear lots of talk about the environment, that they are going to do great things about the environment, that yes, they care about the environment and yes, they are environmentalists but then they do not do anything.

There is all this confusion. There is a lack of consultation with coastal communities, provincial governments, scientists, the aboriginal society and so on. There is all this vague posturing with halos on but we see very little action.

When it comes to the environment it always comes down to trade-offs. We talk about natural areas versus a quality of life situation. I often use the comparison that there are two extremes in environmental concerns. There are those who would say let us keep everything natural and let us not impact on anything. Of course if we really wanted to carry that to the extreme, I guess all of those people would prefer to live in a cave and not have all of the modern conveniences that we enjoy. On the other side there are those who would probably pave the entire world and really would have no care for our air, water, soil and so on. Those are the extremes. I think most members of the House would agree that somewhere in the middle is the right ground and the ground Canadians would like to have.

It is like when we talk about oil exploration. We all could say that environmentally we are opposed to that. Yet when we have strict regulations that are enforceable, when we have the new technology and are conscious of the timing and the safety precautions, probably we could allow some of that exploration which then adds to our quality of life and does very minimal damage to natural areas.

As well we have to put forward in the House that we as small c conservatives care about the environment. All too often it is said that one has to be a fanatic, or sometimes a socialist, to care about the environment. That could not be further from the truth. It is a totally wrong concept.

Looking around the world we can find major coalitions where environmentalists together with corporations and with conservatives have done a great deal and have actually formed governments. We might look to Vincente Fox in Mexico. It was a coalition between him and the conservatives that resulted in the Government of Mexico that does care about the environment and has in fact put forward a great many environmental conditions.

I got back from Germany rather late last night. It is a perfect example. The green party is in coalition. The minister of the environment, whom we met with for three days, is actually from the green party. There are various coalitions around the world which put the environment into an important role. To try to label people as being pro or anti environment obviously is very wrong.

Again the Liberals talk a lot, but the Liberals do not do very much. I have a good example. Last month I was in a city in B.C. talking to a group of citizens about the Sumas plant which is being built in Washington state. There were no Liberals present at those hearings. The project affects a great many people in the Fraser Valley and in the Vancouver area. No Liberals were there, yet that was the perfect issue where they could have been involved.

What we have then is Liberal legislation coming forward with little consultation. The Liberals basically leave the details to the regulations and very little details in the bill itself. It is a concept of trust them, trust their bureaucrats and there is nothing there.

What we really need to talk about is consultation, co-operation and compensation. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding:

“and that the committee report back to the House no later than the first sitting day in 2003”.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wants to protect the environment, but is it necessary to ensure that protection by duplicating jurisdictions and services?

The creation of marine conservation areas meets the objectives of numerous international forums, such as the World Conservation Strategy of 1980. However, how can we not turn away from such an objective, as commendable as it may be, if it has the effect of bypassing the appropriation of our respective jurisdictions? It should be highlighted that Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over the management and sale of public lands. That is what is provided in section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. Why redo what has already been done?

It is unacceptable for the federal government to use environmental protection legislation to take over provincial lands and Quebec lands. It would be better to promote and encourage co-operation between Quebec and the federal government. It is time that this government would stop using a steamroller and a centralizing approach.

Besides, in Quebec, the legislation on public lands covers all lands, including the beds of rivers and lakes. Quebec has legislative jurisdiction over this area. It is exercising its legislative power and it respects the Constitutional Act. Why then have some federal legislation that would deny the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? Is Quebec not competent enough to meet conservation objectives?

Let us not forget that the management of the bed of the St. Lawrence River is a Quebec jurisdiction by sovereign right. The protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. In this respect, the Quebec government has already acted by establishing a framework for the protection of marine areas. It is also possible to protect habitats and fauna through co-operation.

The Bloc Quebecois would rather promote an attitude of co-operation, as was shown with the bill establishing the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park in 1997. Yet, despite this successful co-operation, once again we are seeing the federal government stubbornly opposing a process that is working well. Why is the federal government once again refusing to respect the Constitutional Act, and Quebec by this very fact?

I am concerned about the future of intergovernmental relations in crucial areas like the environment. How can we trust a legislative process that does not respect the public interest, and a government that does not respect its own departments? Let us not forget that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a marine area protection program, and I want to insist on the fact that this program is already in place. Why are we creating a new one?

This bill is another example of pernicious interference on the part of a centralizing federal government in exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and other provinces, and another example of the methods used by the federal government, which ignores other partnership experiences that were very successful. Why not follow a process that has worked very well and that would certainly work very well once again? Will the federal government respect Quebec some day?

The outcome of such a bill is obvious: confusion, but above all a lack of respect. It could result in a duplication of tasks and jurisdictions, within a government that does not even see it or that sees it and acts deliberately nonetheless, which is even more worrisome. How can the federal government justify this useless duplication?

How will we find our way through all these terms to protect the environment? With this bill, the government wants to create marine conservation areas through Canadian heritage, when there are already marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife areas under Environment Canada. Again, how will we find our way through all this?

Even the government seems completely lost and conveniently forgets that programs to protect habitats and fauna are already in place.

There is a question that comes to mind: who will take precedence if there is conflict? Who will have the last word? Which department will be the one willing and able to respond to the questions and to deal with the discrepancies in application? The government will certainly not want to answer this, because that would be tantamount to putting one department on a lower footing than another. Would that be the intent of this bill?

Duplication and overlap are double-edged swords to the government. On the one hand, the government insists that environment is a priority, while on the other it exploits the environment in order to use a bill to foster national identity—imagine—and thus deny the true objective of this bill. Who, outside of Canadian Heritage itself, can tell us that Canadian heritage is defined as having environmental expertise?

The confusion that is certain to ensue will lead to a dangerous appropriation of resources, and will quickly become insurmountable. Even the staff of the various departments will be caught up in it. It is mind-boggling. We will not be the only ones to understand not a bit of it. It is easy to imagine just how this overlap is going to lead to confusion among the key stakeholders.

Who, really, will be administering the protective zones? Which department are people to contact in the event of conflict? Which department will really hold the means of dealing with offenders? Who is going to be able to find their way through the labyrinth of duplications, of overlapping departmental policies? These are just some of the questions that remain unanswered.

With this risk of confusion within one government, one can easily imagine what confusion there will be for other levels of government and for all stakeholders. If departments cannot work together within one and the same government, how will they be able to do so with Quebec and the provincial governments?

It is easy to understand why the Government of Quebec would refuse to co-operate with this bill. First of all, it is in flagrant disrespect of the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. Second, it is impossible for the federal government to provide any kind of precise answer as to the reasons this bill comes from Canadian heritage when Fisheries and Oceans already has a program in place.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because the federal government is planning to use it to appropriate lands that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, by designating them as marine areas.

In addition, this bill does not respect the division of exclusive areas of jurisdiction as stipulated by section 92 of the British North America Act of 1867.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill because it can only lead to endless administrative problems. It can truly be said at this point that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The stakes are too high to be taken lightly. The effects are serious and will, in some cases, be irreversible. Therefore, respect for the division of exclusive jurisdictions is essential to preclude all ambiguity. Co-operation must be encouraged to avoid unnecessary and harmful duplication.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill, because Canadian heritage is trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own. It is unacceptable that Canadian heritage should attempt to have legislation passed to acquire land, and under cover of the environment.

In short, the federal government, through Canadian heritage, is once again attempting to meddle in areas of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction under cover of the environment.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-10 because of the duplication of responsibilities among the various levels of government and departments within the same government.

The Bloc Quebecois wants the Liberal government to be forced to work in partnership and in co-operation with Quebec and all the provinces that have legislated in this area, thereby repeating what has already been successful, that is the Saguenay—St. Laurence marine park. In spite of all that, our amendment was turned down. It is for all those reasons that we are opposing this bill.

I would like to add that if we want the federal government to create and establish marine areas, there is an essential prerequisite. The government must own that territory.

As I already said, under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the management and sale of crown lands are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, Quebec legislation on crown lands applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including the beds of waterways and lakes.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the House is sitting today.

Everybody knows that Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of measures to protect our environment. However, they will never accept that, in doing so, Quebec's constitutional rights be reduced, particularly because Quebec, as regards the environment, is a model in several respects.

We all remember that the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park in 1997. In fact, that legislation and the one passed by the Quebec government provided for the creation of the first marine conservation area in Canada, and we are proud of that.

Through these pieces of legislation, each government continues to fulfill its respective responsibilities in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This park includes only a marine area. Its boundaries may be changed only through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard. These are some of the main legislative provisions passed in 1997.

The main thing to remember, which the government seems to have forgotten, is that the creation of this marine park is the result of a consultation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. Unfortunately, the federal government did not think it was useful to follow the same path with regard to Bill C-10. This may be a sign that when things are going well for the federal government, it is time to make some changes.

Other precedents could have been followed, like phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan, which was concluded in the following way.

In June 1998, the federal Minister of the Environment and Quebec's Minister of the Environment released phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan, the financing of which was shared equally between the two levels of government. This is another example of a project that was developed jointly, while respecting the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government.

Should the refusal to apply precedents that have been proven to work be considered as a lack of goodwill, since nowhere in Bill C-10 can we find the slightest element of consultation?

How, then, can the federal government be naive enough to believe that the Bloc Quebecois would support this bill? Instead of focusing on working together, this bill does something dear to this government, namely the unilateral introduction of marine conservation areas without any regard for Quebec's jurisdiction on its own territory and environment.

But there is more. As if this were not enough, far from limiting itself to interfering in Quebec's area of jurisdiction, and apparently believing that ridicule has never killed anyone, the federal government is duplicating its own jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, this bill will confirm the introduction of marine conservation areas, thus creating a new structure at Canadian heritage and bringing about a duplication of pre-existing federal structures, namely marine protection areas under the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and protected marine areas under the jurisdiction of Environment Canada. This means we are not through with disputes and they will all originate from the same side.

What is clear for everyone is that Bill C-10 totally ignores the territorial integrity of Quebec, given the fact that the federal government is to become the owner of the land where the marine conservation area will be created.

But there is a problem: the 1867 Constitution. Indeed, section 92 provides that the legislature of every province may exclusively make laws in relation to the management and sale of the public lands. Quebec is still a province. Quebec may only be a province, nevertheless it is still a province, nobody will dare say otherwise; a number of Quebecers though would like nothing better than to have a different status.

Quebec legislation on public lands applies to all public lands in Quebec, including the 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. But the federal government is not intimidated by Quebec legislation, it is a well-known fact. Canadian heritage is planning to establish marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the gulf of St. Lawrence, three areas in which the submerged land is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Time flies when one is speaking from the heart.

Canadian heritage wants to compel Quebec to give up its exclusive jurisdiction. What a nice example of co-operative federalism. It is very clear that the prerequisite for the creation of marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence is the transfer of property rights to the federal government. Quebec will never agree to it.

According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the same territory could be zoned three different ways and come under three different federal departments enforcing their own specific regulations, all this under three different pieces of legislation.

Only God knows in which waters fish will feel like swimming. As for bureaucrats, I believe Moby Dick's stomach will not be big enough to house them all when they try to come to an agreement.

Again, since 1993 it is not the first time and certainly not the last time I am faced with a dilemma. If federal departments are unable to work together, how can we expect the federal government to be able to work with the provinces?

Marine conservation areas served à la Canadian heritage are like ketchup: I do not want any.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

I could perhaps read a poem. It would be interesting.

I am rising today at third reading of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. This bill is sponsored, surprisingly, by Canadian heritage — which already has many other subjects of interest. With this bill, Canadian heritage wants to regulate the creation of 28 marine conservation areas that are representative of each of Canada's ecosystems.

In 1987, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park became the 29th marine conservation area. Interestingly enough, this park is not covered by the bill before us because it is the subject of its own legislation.

As this is all the time I have, I will leave off until the next time the House considers this issue.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the issue of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

Before I begin, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for Québec, who has spent a lot of energy trying to make the government understand the importance of consultation about this bill. I congratulate her and I say “Well done and continue your efforts. Sooner or later, our position may prevail.” I believe that is a positive way to work and improve bills.

Again, it is unfortunate. Members will recall that I was, for three years, the Bloc Quebecois' environment critic. A similar bill had been introduced during a previous parliament, but it died on the order paper.

During all that time, I thought that the government would have the decency to take into consideration the work done by the committee, in order to see what suggestions we might make regarding a new bill, and thus ensure progress across Canada.

We must admit, however, that this government has not listened to members of parliament, not even its own members. We had very good discussions at the time. We truly were, as is usually said, for the environment, and I believe it is important to be. We were all acting in good faith.

Yet, when I saw the new bill, I said to myself “They have changed nothing. They have changed absolutely nothing from the previous two bills, either Bill C-8 or Bill C-44”. In other words, they have learned nothing.

Consequently, I wish to say to Quebecers and Canadians that this bill, introduced by this government, does not contribute, as my colleague from the New Democratic Party said, to creating harmony favourable to the environmental agenda, namely marine conservation areas. The Liberals are not acting at all, but they are trying, through fine words, to interfere in jurisdictions that do not belong to them.

We must remember that, under the Constitutional Act of 1867, the seabed comes under provincial jurisdiction. That cannot be denied, it is in the Canadian Constitution. With this bill, however, the government wants to take over areas where it should act in harmony with the provinces and talk with them as it did in the case of the agreement it signed with the Quebec government concerning the Saguenay—Saint-Lawrence Marine Park. That was a model to follow.

It is too bad. I was rereading this agreement the other day and I wished the Liberal member had it in his hands. This agreement was made years ago. It has evolved and has now reached phase three. Each government put money in a concerted fashion to advance an issue.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if you have been to my neck of the woods to visit this marine park. I invite you to do so because it is an example to follow. I have always cheered at the fact that we had finally an example of co-operation, of mutual respect, in order to promote very important issues for present and future generations. Instead of taking this agreement as a model, the government is now trying to reinvent the wheel.

This semblance of willingness to do things for the advancement of a society saddens me. As my colleague was saying, I think they are deceiving the population and are deceiving each other. With this bill, not only are they invading areas that are not under their jurisdiction, they are not agreeing with each other.

All the departments concerned with this bill, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Parks Canada, have specific jurisdiction and their areas of responsibility clash.

I do not know whether members have read the Auditor General of Canada's report. I read it with interest myself. Nothing has changed, so the 1996 report still applies. The Auditor General of Canada published chapter 31 on the management of national parks by Parks Canada. I would like to highlight what he said in this chapter. It is very important, because Canadian Heritage is the department introducing this bill.

He said:

—in the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete except for La Mauricie.

This is the auditor general. He also said:

—that, on average, the management plans for the 18 national parks were 12 years old, when they should have been reviewed every five years.

He added that:

The park management plans provide the strategic direction chosen for the protection of park ecosystems.

The auditor general also added:

Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks.

I could go on reading quotes by the Auditor General of Canada about Parks Canada all night. I will quote another passage from his report:

We are concerned that Parks Canada's ability to preserve ecological integrity in national parks and ensure sustainable park use will be seriously challenged.

This was the auditor general's conclusion.

There is another reason, which Quebecers and Canadians should know about, with regard to why we in the opposition are opposed to this bill, and that is that there was no consultation. The minister said they sent 3,000 consultation documents to groups in Canada. That is quite something. I was really happy when I heard that.

Sixty-two people replied. Most of them did not comment on the bill; they gave their address so that they could be reached in future. That being the case, on what grounds can the Canadian government say that there was consultation? They will have to try again. Is this consultation?

Nowadays, there is great interest in the environment and ecology. I think that, right now, there are several groups in society interested in really being consulted on issues that will affect future generations. But if this is the kind of consultation they do, I can only say that it falls far short.

When young children fail in school, what do they do? They open up their notebooks again, they open up their textbooks and they start studying again. The Government of Canada should have said, "You are right, we failed. We are going to do our homework over again. We are going to look into why our consultations did not provide us with the results we were looking for. The answer we put down was incomplete for such an important question". But the government did not do this. They continued. They moved forward and said that they consulted.

What is important to say about this bill is that it has nothing to do with partnerships, nothing at all; it does not involve governments; it does not consult with the population as a whole.

Back home, people use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. People go to see it. This opportunity to create a park came from the grassroots.

I would like everyone to come and see it. We are talking about extraordinary spaces. It is a wondrous area. It is like being in another world. There are valleys and mountains that connect with the St. Lawrence; it is incredibly beautiful. We have no reason to envy other countries given what we have.

This came from the needs of the grassroots. People got together and called on governments and the governments sat down with them, which led to a phenomenal success.

Why not do the same thing with this bill? If the government wanted to draft another bill, why did it not use this model? This was a success. I am sure that for the 28 marine conservation areas that the government wants to create, there would surely be 28 local groups that would have sat down with them to keep their identity. That is important. We managed to maintain the identity of our beautiful little piece of country in Quebec. That is what we managed to do. But this bill works against any real consultation.

Today, November 19, is my colleague's birthday, the member for Châteauguay I wanted to take this opportunity to wish him happy birthday.

Today, we realize that what this government is doing is inappropriate. Sometimes, I ask myself if it is there to fulfill its election promises, to bring about progress in society or simply to reintroduce old bills and to ease its conscience.

It is not true that we should ease our conscience on environmental issues, particularly it they concern marine conservation areas. I do not go into the forest, I am not a fanatic, but I have an only daughter, and it is important to her. Madam Speaker, I am sure it is important for your children to preserve our natural sites, to develop them in their natural environment that evolved during many generations.

That is not what this bill is doing. I have seen and heard so many things. My colleague, the member for Québec, told me what happened in committee. What did the people who appeared before the committee say? That it is impossible that three departments can say that they have the same job to do.

Heritage Canada wants to look after marine areas. Environment Canada is also in charge of ecosystems, and DFO is involved in this as well. The fishing industry is now in a state of great turmoil in Canada. DFO and HRDC have a project that creates an uproar over the nationalization issue, a project that is ill adapted to the real needs of the industry.

With all this going on in the fishing industry, they would like to do the same for conservation areas. The government will have to do its homework, as the Canadian Alliance member is asking in his amendment, which provides that the government should withdraw this bill, and send it to committee so that it can do its homework. I do not agree with this amendment because I support their position, but because the government should do its homework.

Ministers keep talking about September 11. Every time they are asked a question in the House, they talk about September 11 and say that everything has changed since then. It is true everything has changed. So maybe this bill should be approached differently, in a different light.

Let us have discussions to come to an agreement so that all members end up saying more or less the same thing. The Canadian Alliance is defending a certain position. The Bloc Quebecois cares about the environment and wants to protect the exclusive provincial jurisdiction over submerged lands. The New Democratic Party agrees with our views to a large extent. That is our position.

So, how is it that all of a sudden the truth is in the hands of the Liberal members? I do not think anyone knows the truth after what we experienced on September 11. No one knows the truth anymore. I think we have work to do in the communal sense, for the people and we must make it known to this government, not because we do not want marine areas.

It is not that I do not agree, because we succeeded in Quebec, in partnership with the federal government. The agreement is there. I will get you a copy, Madam Speaker, because it is important. You are a member of the Liberal government. I am sure you wonder about this bill. I think many of your colleagues do so as well. I think we should base ourselves on texts people spent years drafting to ensure we reach a positive conclusion.

I never dismiss out of hand an initiative from the community. That community had an idea and, over the years, was able to get the attention of both levels of government. The governments said “Your idea makes sense. We must sit down together to put that plan into action”. That is what they did, and I congratulate them for having succeeded in doing that.

But why then is the government doing the opposite with this bill? I think we have not seen the last of this government's tricks. One day it says yes, the next day it says no. It is too important. There is a lot of money involved in environmental issues.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is totally against this bill and is asking the government to go back to square one. It has plenty of time to do so; this is not an urgent matter. It will have to resume consultations. It will have to speak to stakeholders and to come to an agreement with the provinces. It has a lot of work to do.

At this time, it is impossible to make any progress. There is simply too much division. I think we should be able to talk and to agree. If the government does what it can to achieve that, I will be the first one to congratulate it.

But congratulations are certainly not in order today. On the contrary, I am accusing the government of being a source of confrontation, of interfering and of not doing what should be done to protect our environment.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. Once again, with Bill C-10, we are faced with what can be considered as a characteristic of the present government, that is a total inability to work in co-operation. Once more, this government will interfere in areas outside its jurisdiction to take over and to show the maple leaf flag, and to pose as the great protector of the environment.

I agree with my colleague when he says that this bill is not about the quality of the environment. I would still like to hear his comments on a topic that I am really concerned about.

Many departments are concerned with marine conservation areas and bodies of water. Fisheries and Oceans Canada deals with the marine protection areas and so is Environment Canada. And Heritage Canada is now joining in.

How can we justify the fact that three different departments are dealing with the same issue when we all know that the government can not work in co-operation with the provinces, and I am not talking only about Quebec, but about all provinces?

I would like my colleague to explain to me how this government could try to act in a united and intelligent fashion to protect the environment.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for the way in which he analyzed the bill and the things he told the House.

There is one point that comes through loud and clear and I would like him to elaborate on it further. It has to do with the word balance, the balance between economic development and exploration of natural resources, in this case oil and gas, and the preservation of our ecology and our environment.

The hon. member opposite raised some very real questions that were similar to the ones I had. We do not want to destroy the environment. It is so easy to take the position and say that if one is opposed to Bill C-10, one is against the environment and one is against all that sort of thing. That is not the point at all, at least I do not think so, but I would like the hon. member to respond.

How does the hon. member bring about a balance and put that balance into legislation so that every possible step is taken to get that balance in place rather than to have the consultation going one way and the decision going the other way? The power then rests out here, which has nothing to do with the consultation in the first place. Would he care to comment on that?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, is my colleague from Athabasca aware of the number of marine conservation areas that have been slated for British Columbia? He speaks as if marine conservation areas will be established on every part of the coast of British Columbia so that no oil and gas exploration will be possible. Nothing is further from the truth. He talks about international investment being driven out by Bill C-10. What a terrible exaggeration.

Maybe I should quote from the correspondence between the present minister of energy and mines in British Columbia, Mr. Neufeld, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in which she explained that there were only three areas of interest for marine conservation areas along the Pacific coast.

The first one, Gwaii Haanas, has been a fait accompli since 1988. The second one, the Strait of Georgia, is the subject of a federal-provincial agreement and a matter of joint study in the coming years. The third one of interest is in the mid-coast area.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has assured Mr. Neufeld that she will work together with his government as the item is studied. It takes eight years to set up one of these marine conservation areas.

The heritage minister's correspondence goes on to say:

It is not the federal government's desire to establish marine conservation areas in areas of high potential for oil and gas discoveries. We will work with you to avoid potential future conflict in this area.

The bill is full of caveats about building these new marine conservation areas. There are only three in B.C., two of which are now a matter of joint study. The third one will be a matter of joint study. In any case, clause 5 would require total agreement by the province. Clause 10 would impose consultation on the federal government with the province and there is referral to both Houses and to standing committees. I think the member will agree that his case is one of total exaggeration of the facts.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10. Certainly I have been following the bill for months and months and it seems I have not had the opportunity to address the bill from my perspective and from the perspective of my critic area, which is oil, gas and energy.

I believe it is very obvious that Bill C-10 has the potential to have a very negative impact on the rights of British Columbians to explore and develop their offshore resources to the benefit of all British Columbians. It is indeed a privilege to be able to explore that side and those aspects of the bill.

Having listened for months and months to the debate around the bill, there are any number of clauses and intentions of it that I could spend a lot of time on. In particular, I find it difficult to understand how the bill ended up under the heritage portfolio. We could talk about that literally forever, in exclusion of everything else.

I would like to focus on the issues that are within my specific area of interest, that being oil and gas development and how that development is treated in these potential conservation areas. Clause 13 of the bill states:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic manner within a marine conservation area.

As the official opposition critic for natural resources, I cannot help but have my attention drawn to that one clause. The more research we have done on it, the more I am convinced that the bill, and particularly that clause, is bad legislation. It really does not require any more description than that. It is just bad legislation.

The bill gives the minister of heritage the right to designate certain areas within the Queen Charlotte basin, beneath Eastern Graham Island, the offshore shelf of Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the Dixon entrance as marine conservation areas and by doing so blocks forever more the possibility of those areas being explored for oil and gas.

It is true that there have been federal and provincial moratoria in place in these areas for 50 years. However the province, particularly the new Liberal government in British Columbia, has been looking at the possibility of removing the moratorium to allow for exploration. Bill C-10 will remove the need for the province to even consider their actions as the government will simply designate the area a marine conservation area and so it will remain forever.

While unilateral decision making is nothing new to this government, this decision should at least be shared with the province as it could have dramatic economic results in a province that is already teetering on the edge of becoming a have not province thanks to the federal government's handling of the softwood lumber issue.

It should also be noted that the Geological Survey of Canada has estimated that the undiscovered potential for all of the plays in the west coast basins of Canada is between nine and ten billion barrels of in place oil and 40 trillion to 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That means that the potential of the region could rival that of the east coast, an area where industry is well under way with extremely successful results. In fact the west coast could produce some of the largest gas fields ever found in Canada and with demand for natural gas sources increasing, such a potential provides exciting possibilities.

Using usual median projections multiplied by October 2000 world prices, specialists estimate that the value of oil could be as high as $55 billion U.S. and gas at $40 billion U.S. Furthermore, the total downstream value of the resource, including the additional wealth that would be generated in or attracted to the region by the arrival of an offshore oil industry, could be close to $500 billion U.S. Spread over a 30 year period or longer, the annual revenues to British Columbia might be as high as $3 billion U.S. directly from production and $15 billion U.S. in total downstream benefits.

These figures cannot be ignored during a time when British Columbia is experiencing devastating layoffs and cutbacks due to the decimation of the softwood lumber industry there and the years of NDP extravagance and financial mismanagement, as well as the collapse of the softwood lumber industry.

I would like to give the House a few examples of how oil and gas exploration development could impact upon some of the local communities. Prince Rupert is a likely choice for the headquarters of any infrastructure that would need to be built to support the exploration and drilling phases. A report that was commissioned by the B.C. government and released in October of this year stated that the community of Prince Rupert, with a population of 17,000, had a 10 year growth rate average of .2% and that 25% of the district of Skeena, Queen Charlotte, which includes Prince Rupert, relied on forestry as its primary economic support.

Obviously forestry can no longer be counted on for economic growth as mills all over the province of British Columbia are closing, leaving workers and families without any means of financial support.

Another example of an area that could certainly use an injection of resource dollars is the community of Port Hardy, located within the regional district of Mount Waddington. With a population of 5,228, Port Hardy accounts for 35% of the region's population. In total over the last 10 years the region has experienced a .3% growth. The economy of Port Hardy relies heavily on forestry and will no doubt struggle in the coming days to find an alternative industry to support the community.

Certainly the discovery of offshore oil and gas resources would provide desperately needed economic injections into communities like Port Hardy and Prince Rupert. While the communities would not see any immediate financial improvements in the exploration phase, should the resources be found, the production stage could certainly see these communities flourishing from the various associated benefits such as infrastructure and training.

Within British Columbia, and particularly in the northern coastal communities, there is definitely public support for exploration of oil and gas. A recent general poll found that 64% supported offshore exploration. The number was even higher in the northern coastal communities. Obviously the support is there, but with this piece of legislation the government will permanently remove the possibility of exploration.

At this point I should not be surprised when the government turns its back on the needs and potential of western Canadian communities. I had hoped, however, that with such desperate hopes hanging on the possibility of oil and gas development, the government might at least have kept the door open rather than slamming it shut on all the families who live in Prince Rupert, Port Hardy and so many other British Columbia communities.

Since his election, the American president has been making noises about a continental energy plan with the intention of reducing American dependence on Middle East oil. The events of September 11 and the war that has followed only gives further impetus to the plan of President Bush. I would imagine that the Canadian government will face enormous pressure from the U.S. in the coming days, months and years to meet its energy demands.

As we saw in the softwood lumber talks, the Liberals have a long tradition of rolling over to the demands of Americans. No doubt when the Americans come knocking, this Liberal government will be falling over themselves to find a way to meet those demands. Obviously the potential resource off the British Columbia coast could be a key component to that plan, but once the bill has passed the Americans will have to look to other communities for oil and gas resources.

I am certainly very proud of the contribution my riding of Athabasca makes to meeting the North American energy demand. However, as the potential resource of the oil fields exceeds the entire reserves of Saudi Arabia, I think we are in a position to certainly share the wealth. However, if the government decides that it will turn its back on potential community and provincial development for British Columbia, despite the many pleas that have come from those community representatives, there is little that we on this side of the House can do to stop it. After all, I am sure that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in her role of advancing Canadian culture, celebrating our heritage, embracing our identity and her hectic schedule of hosting visiting dignitaries, has found the time to consider the plight of struggling northern coastal communities.

Except on November 21 perhaps she will not have time because she will be too busy celebrating world television day, which is certainly vital to those communities on the northern coast of British Columbia.

I am sure there are members in the House and environmentalists who will accuse me of ignoring the potential environmental threat that exists with our offshore exploration and development. I can say with full confidence that I am aware of the dangers of exploration having been involved in the industry myself for many years. If it is done in a manner that does not account for the particular ecosystem of the area there certainly could be some dangers.

However there have been exhaustive studies on the aquaculture and bioculture of the area in question and, evidently, unlike the Liberal government, I have the faith in our regulatory system and Canadian industries' ability to act in a responsible and sensitive manner.

Environmental concerns are certainly par for the course when we talk about exploration and production of oil and gas, yet worldwide, scientists, industry and governments manage to form partnerships that ensure the survival of the marine ecosystem. Canada has one of the best regulatory structures in the world and has a tremendous track record.

The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board both require environmental assessment before any authorization for exploration is given and further assessments are required for every stage of the development and production process. The assessments are all triggered by the regulation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so obviously the CNSOPB and CNOPB have the interests of the environment at the core of their activities.

While the operations on the west coast would be monitored by the National Energy Board, the National Energy Board would have similar structures in place to ensure the environmental integrity of the British Columbia coast.

The strict approach of the two offshore petroleum boards to all environmental issues have ensured that Canada's east coast development leaves the smallest footprint possible, and obviously the knowledge and ability exists in Canada to make sure that the same thing happens on the west coast.

Industry also willingly takes on the challenge of operating in a fashion that will not destroy sensitive environment, and the oil and gas industry in particular has a stellar reputation for developing technology to accomplish environmental goals.

The sharing of technology worldwide ensures that when exploration occurs, it is done with the most technologically advanced, environmentally friendly methods possible. I will not get into the various challenges that would certainly be faced on the B.C. coast but I would like to point out that in all reports that have been done off the B.C. coast, every single one states that there is not a single reason that would prevent industry from going ahead with exploration as long as it is done in a responsible and sensitive manner.

If Canada can drill off the east coast in a sensitive ecosystem that includes challenges, such as massive icebergs and terrible infrastructure crushing storms, and do it in a manner that is environmentally sensitive, I certainly have confidence that we can do the same off the west coast.

The report released in October by the British Columbia provincial government makes particular reference to the rapid technological advances that have been made in the last 20 years by the oil and gas industry. It also makes reference to how safety and environmental records of the offshore oil and gas drilling have improved significantly in recent years. It goes on to urge regulatory agencies to avoid excessive reliance on prescriptive regulations because such regulations could restrict innovative solutions.

It seems to me that Bill C-10, and in particular clause 13, is an excellent example of what could be called prescriptive legislation. The bill ignores the needs of communities that are literally dying in northeastern British Columbia. It ignores the advances in technology, experience and knowledge that allows the oil and gas industry to drill in a responsible manner. The element that disturbs me the most is that it totally disregards the advances that could be made in the future.

The government is always making noises about how much faith it has in the future of Canada and the ability of Canada to compete in a world market that progresses at breakneck speed.

The legislation would drive all international interests out of British Columbia because it would remove the potential for exploration in B.C.'s offshore forever and should foreign investors wish to take this as a sign of Canada's position on foreign investment spells even more difficult days for British Columbia and Canada in the future.

Furthermore, by refusing to allow the possibility of drilling for huge oil and gas reserves at any time in the future, the government is closing the door to business with the U.S.

Finally, I believe that clause 13 essentially tells Canadians that the government does not believe that our industries, in partnership with all levels of government, can operate in a responsible, progressive and environmentally sound manner despite evidence to the contrary that is proved every day off the east coast of Canada and around the world.

My colleague from Skeena has worked very hard to try to make changes to this bill that would ensure that it does not permanently cripple the offshore oil and gas industry off the coast of British Columbia and various other improvements to the bill. Unfortunately the government is not interested in the excellent ideas of the members across the floor. Instead, we have a piece of legislation called Bill C-10 that, thanks to the usual legislative tactics of the government, will pass whether it is good or not. Certainly that is typical of how the legislation goes through the system here. It is no different from other bills that I am dealing with and that we have dealt with in the past.

Therefore I certainly will not be supporting the legislation and I urge other members of the House to reconsider the value of the bill and the damage it could do to the economies of British Columbia and Canada and also oppose the legislation.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again I am honoured to stand in my place and enter into what I believe is a very important debate on Bill C-10.

This is an environmental bill. As people who have been paying attention all day know, it has to do with marine areas. We are speaking of water and the land underneath water bodies. The purpose of the bill is to establish some of these areas as being protected in a similar way to our national parks on land.

I begin my intervention today by expressing a bit of sadness at the stereotyping which has occurred in many instances regarding members of our party. We have been characterized in various ways. The generalizations that have been made from time to time by various members of the governing party are very offensive. I think particularly of during the election campaign when the minister of immigration made very scurrilous remarks regarding all and any members of our party, attributes and characteristics that just were not true. It was done very flippantly and was designed to have an electoral effect. I was very offended by that.

The same thing has happened with respect to environmentalism. There is a myth that if one is a fiscal conservative, if one is a social conservative, then by definition one does not give a hoot about other people or about the environment. Both of those statements are patently false.

I did not run as a member of parliament for any reason other than the fact that I care about people. I care about our country. I care about our future. I care about our environment. To be characterized, as we are from time to time, as being opposite to this is very unfair, inaccurate and does not give proper respect to members of parliament on this side of the House who have deep concerns in these areas.

I have mentioned before that I have taken the opportunity to do what I could to preserve the environment. Some members may have heard me relate some of these things before. I used to ride a bicycle to work. Members may think that would be quite a sight, a guy my size riding a bicycle, but I did it before it was fashionable to do so. When I first started riding my bicycle to work a number of years ago, there were no bike racks on the campus where I worked. I had to park my bicycle up against a power pole and lock it with a chain so that some vandal would not take my method of transportation.

I always felt very good about that. I was saving money. With the huge taxes we were paying I had to do everything I could in order to provide for my family. But I was also reducing the amount of pollution and the use of the non-renewable resources in our country.

That is one example which shows that I am an environmentalist. I believe in preserving a healthy and safe environment for future generations and for our present generation, not only for Canadians but for inhabitants right around the world.

All my life I have driven energy efficient vehicles. I should not say that; I had a few vehicles that were guzzlers way back. I have driven the little econoboxes that yield much less pollution and are very preservative of the non-renewable resources because they are very small and practical. I drove a motorcycle for a while which gave me 100 miles per gallon for the same reason.

I say that in preamble simply to say that I do believe very much in conservation and in the care of our environment.

Bill C-10 proposes to preserve both the cultural and the environmental attributes of some of our water resources. It is a marine conservation bill and the bill is designed to actually set up and enforce rules governing that. The preamble states:

to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate and enjoy Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage,

I accept that as a purpose. I sometimes wonder why the bill has been sponsored by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose record in this regard is less than stellar. I think of some of the land parks in Canada where many attempts have been made not to educate and help people enjoy the environment there, but actually to exclude them from it.

Believe it or not, the government has used the club of high entrance fees to prevent ordinary citizens from enjoying our parks. Some of the entrance fees in our national parks are at the point where ordinary citizens, single earner families with three or four children and a tent in the back of the vehicle cannot afford to even go into the parks.

There is this phenomenon in Alberta where increasingly families are camping outside Banff National Park and Jasper National Park. Why? They cannot afford to enter the parks. It is too expensive. The costs per day are excessive. It is the government and its mismanagement and sometimes its misguided priorities that have driven the costs up in such an exorbitant fashion.

When I was a young man with a young family, we took vacation trips into the parks. It was affordable. We could not afford to stay in a hotel, but we could afford to camp and we did it. Now I look at similar families, including our own children who now have their children, our wonderful grandchildren, and they are finding it very challenging and difficult to stay in the park for more than a day or two at a time, simply because of the increase in fees.

Even though the preamble says that the reason is to provide these areas for the enjoyment of Canadians and people from around the world, it seems to me that hidden behind that wonderful sounding statement is the true objective of the government, which is to fleece Canadians who go into these areas and make it impossible for those with average or low incomes to enjoy them.

I will also say on the whole issue of establishing these parks that in principle it has merit. There are some people and perhaps even some businesses that would abuse our environment in pursuit of profit or other objectives. I have a problem when instead of sticking to that theme, the legislation before us differentiates between the groups of people who might want to make use of the designated area. We ought to make very sure that things are done equally and fairly for all Canadians.

I am speaking particularly of clause 2(2) in which there is special emphasis made that:

--nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I appreciate that we are trying to be fair to the natives of our land, but we ought to be very careful, when we have rules and regulations which protect our environment and the enjoyment of these areas for future generations, that we not put into bills and acts clauses which would allow one portion of our population for whatever reason to be exempt from part of those regulations and laws which are passed for the benefit of us all.

Furthermore, I hope that our aboriginals would wish not to be excluded. I hope they too, and in general I believe they do, participate fully in conservation efforts. From time to time we hear, read and see on television examples of total disregard for true scientifically based conservation principles being applied by aboriginals.

I would ask the government that: first, it not make rules that exempt aboriginals; and, second, it appeal to the natives to willingly, forcefully and fully participate in the protection of our environment for the future. This means that they have to not only respect their culture, heritage and history, but they also must respect the scientific data which occasionally shows it is necessary to comply with certain prescribed behaviour to achieve that result.

I am looking at other parts of the act. When I scanned it, I saw some things that were rather significant to me. I took great interest in the administration section which begins at section 8. I will read the first few words of a few subsections in sections 8 to 11. They goes like this: subsection (1) says “The Minister is responsible”; subsection (2) says “The Minister has the administration”; subsection 3 says “The Minister may maintain and operate facilities”; and subsection (4) says “The Minister may enter agreements”.

Every phrase for about two and a half pages of the act begins with “The Minister may” or “The Minister shall”. I have a large concern about the degree to which we are reverting the control of these things to the minister without proper accountability. Obviously, the bill gives him the authority but there is no accountability. Some of these things I find expressly offensive.

It says for example:

The Minister shall consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies, with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate...

Then it goes on to say of course that it has to do with the development and designation of the conservation area.

I have no problem with consultation, but too often we have just observed. I personally have observed over the last eight years that the government consults in name only.

It is a formality it goes through. I will put it this way. It is there but it does not hear. It listens but does not hear and does not act on what it hears.

It is regrettable that the clock says I need to quit because I am just on a roll and I am just really on the first part of the things that I wanted to speak about. I presume when this resumes I will be able to get the rest of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member from the fabulous riding of St. John's West. I would like to discuss today the intent of the Government of Canada with this piece of legislation. Preserving our natural legacy and national heritage on land is fundamentally important, as are maintaining and preserving the biodiversity that we have in our oceans. We can concur that those are noble objectives that Canadians support from coast to coast to coast.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have had the same situation in your caucus as we have had in our caucus. There are always divergent opinions each and every time a piece of legislation comes forward that relates to environmental protection, the preservation of the fisheries, natural resources or agriculture. There are concerns about trying to find an appropriate balance by ensuring that we protect our environment and natural heritage.

This is the third attempt that the Government of Canada has made to bring forth a bill with respect to preserving our natural heritage through the creation of marine conservation regions. The government brought the bill forward in the past. However each time it called a premature election a bill that it said was of fundamental importance died on the order paper. This took place leading up to the election in June 1997 and again last November 2000.

The bill would give the Government of Canada the capacity to declare marine conservation regions. It also has an obligation beyond a mere declaration to consult. Stakeholders may be concerned about a particular region being chosen, as it may have an economic cost with respect to offshore development of oil and gas or it may relate to the preservation of a viable fishery. Members of parliament are only representing their constituents when they flag those concerns.

There is a consultative process in the bill where stakeholders would be asked to make a contribution when the establishment of a marine conservation region was being considered. It must respect the interventions of the provinces. They should be taken seriously. Those consultations must be substantive in nature and not merely lip service.

Given that a consultative process is in the bill I am comfortable with it, but I am sending a signal to the Government of Canada in that regard. It is getting the support of members of parliament on this side based on the aspect that a consultative process with stakeholders will be taken seriously.

Individuals concerned about a marine conservation region being selected should be aware there are permanent provisions in the bill where the minister can permit activities to take place in conservation regions which take socioeconomic implications into play. Enabling the Government of Canada to establish marine conservation regions is positive.

I would wager we would be having the same kind of tug and pull debate if we had absolutely no national parks in Canada today and we had a government bill put forward to enable the Government of Canada to establish national parks in certain regions. Canadians are proud of the natural heritage in our national parks. It is something they embrace and actually signal to be a centre of their own identity.

As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I would like to highlight that our party is the founding party of this nation in terms of the spirit of Cartier and Macdonald, but it was Sir John A. Macdonald who established the first national park in Canada. It is in that spirit that I support Bill C-10.

I have concerns about the Government of Canada ensuring that the consultative process is genuine, sincere, comprehensive and taken into account. There are members of parliament who represent regions with broader fisheries and oil and gas issues who will have different levels of concerns. Maintaining our biodiversity whether on land or at sea is something that Canadians embrace. They want to celebrate it. However there are concerns that must be taken into consideration and we want to make sure that the Government of Canada does just that.

It will be our role in the opposition context during the next three years to ensure the government respects the consultative process. When we are on the other side of the aisle I trust that the Liberal Party of Canada will have the same capacity if we were to exercise that enabling capacity.

I enjoyed the commentary from both sides of the House. Usually my speeches do not derive that amount of passion. I hope I did not offend any member, particularly the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot or the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I was very happy for their ongoing commentary on my earlier speech.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

As my colleague just said, fishers know how to cook fish.

As if that was not enough, Bill C-10 would create duplication within the federal government through Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada, which is why I said earlier that it was duplicating its own responsibilities.

There is good reason to be confused. The federal government wants to create marine conservation areas through Canadian Heritage, marine protected areas through Fisheries and Oceans Canada and, on top of that, marine wildlife areas through Environment Canada.

As shown in the example I gave a few moments ago, a particular site could have several designations. Why would Canadian Heritage want to create marine conservation areas?

We must go back to the preamble to the bill, where these reasons are listed:

—[protect] natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems ... for the maintenance of biological diversity;

establish a system of marine conservation areas that are representative—

ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine protected areas,

provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate and enjoy Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage,

provide opportunities... for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities;

At Fisheries and Oceans Canada these are called marine protection zones. It use, a different terminology. In January 1997, a discussion paper entitled “An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act” specified the objectives of these zones: to protect fishery resources, commercial and others, including marine mammals and their habitats, unique habitats, marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity and any other marine resource.

The government likes to say that local communities will play a major role in the establishment of marine protection areas. Could the government tell us to how many information and organization meetings local people were invited to attend to satisfy its bureaucracy?

Let us keep going. As for Environment Canada, it proposes the establishment of what will likely be called marine nature areas. Drafters have a lot of imagination. In fact, these areas are an extension of the concept of national wildlife areas beyond the territorial sea to the 200 mile limit.

This is clear as mud. Complicated, is it not? Even Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials came to the conclusion that the different terms used generate a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas: marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas and wildlife marine reserves. Why do the departments concerned not harmonize their efforts and co-operate in establishing these protected marine areas?

Would it not be preferable to have one, not three but one, department responsible for managing the protection of ecosystems, and would it not be preferable for the departments concerned to sign a framework agreement and delegate their respective responsibilities to that department? This government really likes to keep things simple.

Other sources of confusion? As if this was not enough. The bill provides that each federal department will keep its jurisdictions over marine conservation areas. The result is worse than in my story about the fisher. When Heritage Canada deems appropriate to do so, it can make regulations on a marine conservation area that differ from existing provisions, subject to the agreement of the minister concerned.

This change takes precedence over any other regulations made under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, or the Aeronautics Act.

I think that is plenty of confusion. It is enough to cause bloody chaos. Just reading it, one is aware of the increase in the coefficient of complication when this applies. To list them again: marine protected areas, marine wildlife areas and marine conservation areas, each with their own regulations, and then on top of that, the regulations superimposed by Heritage Canada. One can easily get lost.

Now let us look a little more closely at Heritage Canada's ability to protect the ecosystems of its existing national parks.

In 1996, the auditor general pointed out that Parks Canada's biophysical data were incomplete, or to put it more bluntly just not up to date, except for the Mauricie National Park. According to him, the department has not monitored ecological conditions in any regular and ongoing way.

The management plan for 18 of the national parks was 12 years old, whereas it was supposed to be reviewed every five years. During his visits, he became aware that there was no connection between the parks' business plans and their management plans. What is more, the management plans placed more emphasis on economic and social factors than on ecological ones.

There is also the marketing plan, which is aimed at drawing more visitors to national parks. The auditor general is concerned about Parks Canada's ability to preserve ecological integrity in national parks and to ensure sustainable park use.

People will understand, in the light of this unfortunate discovery, that we have little faith in Parks Canada's ability to preserve marine conservation areas, since it does not seem to have the resources to protect existing national parks.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park to serve as an example. This way, each time a new conservation area is to be established, the federal government would have to negotiate a partnership with Quebec. It must accept the principle that nothing is done without the agreement of the provinces concerned.

The opposition parties have proposed a whole series of amendments to prevent the federal government from acting unilaterally, but the government rejected them all.

The bill is another attack, another foray into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces, when they are involved. Quebec cannot function in this system. We have clearly demonstrated our openness to the federal government, particularly in the management of the marine area of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is sad and regrettable that this government has not learned the lesson.

This is why we continue to oppose Bill C-10, given that the Bloc's amendment was rejected and that we consider the improvements made are insufficient. Quebec's lands are not for sale.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the government has decided to follow up on parliamentary issues that began during the 36th parliament.

National marine conservation areas have already been the object of two bills, namely Bill C-8 and Bill C-48.

Bill C-8 was introduced by Heritage Canada to provide a legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems.

As always, the Bloc Quebecois supports the establishment of environmental protection measures. We supported the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

I should point out that the Quebec government is currently taking measures to protect the environment and, more specifically, the seabed.

The Quebec government is also open to joint management, as demonstrated by phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.

Having said that, we cannot support Bill C-10 for three reasons.

First, contrary to what was done in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to act alone by giving itself the right to establish marine conservation areas without any regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

Second, the creation of a new structure proposed by Canadian Heritage will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment Canada's protected areas.

Third, although it is unable to protect the ecosystems in existing national parks, Canadian Heritage wants to create marine conservation areas.

The bill is consistent with the course set by a federal government, which is increasingly intruding on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Not only is it intruding, but now it is proposing duplication. In fact it would like to duplicate its own responsibilities.

Is it necessary to stress the fact that the bill before us does not respect the integrity of Quebec's territory? One of the main conditions to establish a marine conservation area is for the federal government to be the owner of the territory where it is to be established. The Constitution Act, 1867, states that the sale and management of public lands are an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec legislation on public lands applies to all public lands in Quebec, including the 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, the legislation would provide that Quebec could authorize the federal government to use its lands in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction but only by order in council.

I would add that habitat and wildlife protection is an area of shared jurisdiction and that the Quebec government is planning to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.

It would be in the best interests of the federal government to work with the provinces instead of challenging them.

We already have several examples of co-operation such as the protection of the ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and in the St. Lawrence River. All federal and Quebec departments have endorsed the St. Lawrence action plan, phase III.

Can the government explain clearly why it wants clear title to submerged lands to establish marine conservation areas?

Can it give us assurances and commit to respecting Quebec's land claims? Or is it going to ignore them as usual and establish marine areas wherever it sees fit?

It is our opinion that the mirror legislation which established the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park must serve as the model. It provides that both levels of governments, in Quebec City and Ottawa, continue to exercise their respective jurisdictions. There was no transfer of lands. The co-ordinating committee, which was struck to recommend to the minister responsible measures to reach the management plan objectives, encourages the involvement of local communities and is part of a Canada-Quebec co-operation framework.

There are other examples of co-operation. The environment is a shared jurisdiction under the Constitution Act 1867, and Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in the British North America Act, 1867.

By rejecting the concept of co-operation and by imposing title to the territory as an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is disregarding Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment, a further intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to illustrate just how complex the situation is in Canada when it comes to bodies of water. I will give an example that I have already given in a prior parliament but I believe it demonstrates just how complex the issues of jurisdiction are in relation to bodies of water, and the duplication between the federal and provincial governments.

Take the example of a fisherman who 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 fishes on a boat he purchased in Quebec but on which he obviously paid a federal tax and a provincial tax. In order to launch his boat he must register it with the federal government.

Up to this point, everything is fine but before launching his boat he gets ready on the shore. He is on a territory under Quebec jurisdiction since the shores come under provincial jurisdiction.

However, the moment he launches his boat he changes jurisdiction because his boat 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, unknowingly, 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.

Once it is harvested, the fish that swims in federal waters will end up at the bottom of a boat. Then it falls under provincial jurisdiction. One must pay very close attention to the regulations, since there are federal quotas for those fish.

If we are talking about commercial fishing, there are federal and provincial laws and regulations regarding food, the environment, safety, equipment and so on. Do members understand? It is very complicated, is it not?

It is even hard for us to find our way through all this, so members can imagine how lost the average citizen who is not familiar with all these jurisdictions feels when he is told to get a licence.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Delta--South Richmond spoke of the British North America Act. I would like to hear what he has to say on the fact that the Constitution, the Constitution Act 1867—since we are on the topic of Canada's important constitutional legislation—gives the federal government exclusive jurisdictions. And it is recognized in principle that whatever is not a matter of exclusive jurisdiction is of shared jurisdiction. So, the environment, among others, is shared, as everyone recognizes.

The bill currently being considered, Bill C-10, which concerns national marine areas, is an environmental bill and must be assumed to be a bill of shared jurisdictions.

I would like to hear the hon. member on the fact that this bill is an environmental matter and its jurisdiction is shared between the federal government and the provinces.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the bill today. I have a number of concerns about it. It is interesting that in question period today we were talking about the possibility of a recession and a need for spending scarce government funds on a variety of issues.

When money is scarce and the government still has to spend money, we have to look at where we will find it. One area is to try to do something about controlling government spending. The bill, as far as I can see, flies right in the face of that objective of streamlining government and making government accountable.

Currently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a constitutional responsibility to protect the fisheries resource. Section 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that the federal government has jurisdiction over “sea coast and inland fisheries”. This constitutional jurisdiction is exercised by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which manages and controls fisheries through the provisions of the Fisheries Act.

In a nutshell, the responsibility of the federal government has been addressed many times in court. In the Agawa decision, in the Ontario courts, it stated quite clearly that:

The purpose of the Fisheries Act and Regulations made thereunder, although binding upon all persons, is not to abolish the rights to fish of all persons, but to monitor and regulate, so that the fisheries resource will provide an adequate supply of fish now, and in the future.

In this constitutional obligation to manage the fishery, it is implicit upon the minister that he manage the fisheries resource and fish habitat so as to provide an adequate supply of fish now and in the future.

That comment in the Agawa decision is one which has been reflected in other decisions, not only of the Ontario court, but also the Supreme Court of Canada.

In that regard, back in 1995 John Fraser, a former speaker of the House, a former ambassador to the environment and a former minister of fisheries, made the statement in a report on the Fraser River sockeye. He said:

We recommend that DFO retain and exercise its constitutional conservation responsibilities and not in any way abrogate its stewardship of resources under federal jurisdiction. Conservation (of salmon stocks) must be the primary objective...

Mr. Fraser was saying that the federal minister had this constitutional obligation to protect the fisheries resource.

In this bill I see a wearing away of that particular responsibility. Not only that, it adds costs. What the constitution envisioned was that the minister of fisheries would be completely responsible for fish and fish habitat. That responsibility was his and his alone. There is a direct line drawn between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his responsibilities; fish and fish habitat.

What is happening now is a wearing away or an erosion of that responsibility. We see it with the Oceans Act. The Oceans Act puts on an equal footing with fish and fish habitat things like the exploration and drilling for oil and gas on the seabed. It puts aquaculture at the same level as fish and fish habitat. It equalizes and it makes for competing interests for the ocean resources.

I have a serious problem with that because the constitution intended that the minister would be responsible for fish and fish habitat and that responsibility gave fish and fish habitat a priority over all other ocean activities. The Oceans Act detracts from that responsibility.

In detracting from it with the Oceans Act, Bill C-10 and the Minister of the Environment, and I will get to that in a minute, we are putting another level of government into play here. In essence, who is responsible and why are we paying for another level of government when it comes to the management of the fisheries resource?

The Department of Canadian Heritage does not have the capability now to manage in the ocean environment. It will have to develop it. It will have to put in place the people and acquire the expertise to do its job of managing these ocean parks.

By the same token with the Fisheries Act, those responsibilities will have to be paid for. As I will demonstrate a little more clearly in a minute, under the environment ministry, it too will have to develop the expertise, expertise which the minister should have at his hand in the department now.

The question that comes to mind then is what really is the purpose of the bill? We should be asking that of any piece of legislation that comes before the House. What is its purpose? Is the purpose of the bill to protect fish and fish habitat?

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis spoke a little while ago about the cod prices on the east coast. He suggested that somehow by the creation of these marine parks we would prevent that sort of tragedy from happening again. However, that is not the fact. Fish are mobile creatures. They are not sedentary; they move. Simply establishing these marine parks as no catch zones will not protect the fisheries resource.

Is the purpose of these parks to protect the ocean environment from oil exploration and that sort of thing? I think not. It will protect a particular section of the ocean resource. However, earlier I heard a member on this side of the House talk about the fact that certain activities were taking place within 5 or 25 kilometres of the gully off Nova Scotia. That is true. If we establish a marine park and allow the drilling of oil five kilometres off the edge of that park and there is an accident, park or no park, there will be a problem. The bill will not protect the ocean environment from that sort of activity.

Is it then just to establish marine sanctuaries because someone else has done that? I heard that from the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He suggested that others were doing it and that we were the last boys on the block to establish these kinds of sanctuaries. If that is the case, it is a poor reason to do it. If the purpose is to protect marine resources from a total collapse, I suggest that will simply not happen.

I mentioned earlier about the erosion on the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to manage ocean resources and to manage fish and fisheries. I raised the issue about the Department of the Environment and the responsibilities that it seems to have.

In July 2001 there was an environment document entitled “Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions—of the Fisheries Act”. This document claims that the Department of the Environment has a responsibility for habitat under the Fisheries Act, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The document states:

The Department of the Environment has been assigned responsibility for administration and enforcement of Fisheries Act provisions dealing with the deposit of deleterious substances into the water frequented by fish through a 1978 Prime Ministerial decision.

We tried to find this prime ministerial decision. What we found was a letter which was written November 9, 1978, from Prime Minister Trudeau to then fisheries minister Leblanc. That apparently is where this authority comes from. It does not come from an order in council or what in normal language we would call a cabinet decision. It comes from a decision made by a government nearing the end of its mandate and which, for all intents and purposes, I think may well have been simply a political decision, or an election ploy or whatever.

The Department of the Environment has taken this to the extreme. I draw the House's attention to an Environment Canada document, which is a compliance and enforcement policy for habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. This document lays out the notion that the Department of the Environment is already accepting responsibility for the ocean environment. I will quote from the document:

Any interested person--whether an individual, private company, federal department or agency, provincial, territorial or aboriginal government, environmental, health or labour group, aboriginal group or municipality--may comment. Environment Canada invites all interested persons to provide their comments, observations, recommendations or criticisms to the individual whose name and address appear below.

What this document does contain is an actual application form. The application form refers to types of activity and lists aquaculture.

The other place down the hall from here has just completed a study on aquaculture. The auditor general did a study on aquaculture and the government's response to it within the past year. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been looking at the issue also. The House committee has not yet published its report but certainly the auditor general and the folks down the way at the other place have made it very clear that the federal minister of fisheries is not fulfilling his mandate to protect fish and fish habitat in this critical area.

The bill is not going to accomplish what many people hope it will do. It is not going to protect fish or fish habitat. It is not going to protect the oceans from over exploitation. The only thing it is going to accomplish is to muddy the waters and eliminate direct responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for fish and fish habitat and make it much more difficult for legitimate concerns like fishing companies and fishermen to do their business. It will not prevent serious harm happening to our resources. The only way we accomplish that is to provide the minister with encouragement to do the job that he is constitutionally required to do.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my friend down the way who allowed me to speak in her place.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as committee chair, I have taken part in the deliberations and hearings on the marine conservation areas, which started in 1998 and culminated in Bill C-10 and the major amendments at report stage in the House.

I would like to address the following aspects today: the background of the bill, the need for legislation and the benefits of it.

Parks Canada has had a mission in the area of the aquatic environment for the past 15 years. The policy Bill C-10 is based on is the product of intensive consultation over a number of years. In fact, the discussion paper on the bill dates from 1997—four years ago. It was followed by the tabling of Bill C-48 in 1998. Since then, the bill has been the subject of consultation and ongoing discussions.

I am happy and grateful that this bill can finally come to fruition, since it is vital to the conservation of our aquatic resources, to initiate sustainable development within our community and to meet Canada's international obligations.

Over the course of the hearings, the bill received solid support from conservation groups and scientists in the marine sciences, who consider it vitally urgent for the conservation of our aquatic resources.

My colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys whom I esteem as a member of our committee mentioned the lack of consultation in British Columbia. In the last days of the bill before it went to clause by clause, we had three video conferences: one in Prince Rupert, one in Vancouver and one in Kitimat. Members from British Columbia came before the committee in person. At least 20 people were involved in video conferences, including six mayors or municipal leaders, the B.C. chamber of commerce and the oil and gas industry.

To pretend the bill would destroy the oil and gas industry in British Columbia or somewhere else is a complete negation of the law. It is obvious that the member cannot have read the law, if he says the bill would suddenly destroy the oil and gas industry in Canada, British Columbia or anywhere else.

Under the bill no marine conservation area could be set up without extensive consultations. Any management plan would need to be tabled in both the House of Commons and the Senate and referred to the appropriate committees of both houses.

What about the precedents that have been carried out before? They should satisfy the member from British Columbia that this would not be a takeover. It happened before with the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation park. There was a signed agreement between the province and the federal government before it could go forward.

It was the same with the Saguenay park in the St. Lawrence. The Saguenay park has not stopped shipping in the St. Lawrence or anything else. The province and the federal government agreed and a marine park was created. If they had not agreed it would not have happened.

Right now there are extensive negotiations in the Lake Superior area and the same thing is happening. If there is no consensus by the community involved, nothing will happen. To say the act, which is only a framework legislation, would suddenly destroy the oil and gas industry or the fishery in British Columbia is a total exaggeration. It is a complete negation of the facts and the provisions of the law. It is a lot of nonsense.

We should not be ashamed to say the purpose of a marine conservation area is conservation of the area and its natural resources. I will quote Dr. John Lien, one of our leading marine scientific experts from Memorial University in Newfoundland. He said:

The collapse of the groundfish and northern cod resources in Newfoundland was caused by human error, and that is very important to understand. It was errors of science and it was errors of greed. The effects of these errors were profound on the stocks, because natural sanctuaries that had existed forever simply were gone.

Historically, we could not fish through ice. We couldn't fish at great distances from the shore because we did not have refrigeration. We couldn't take certain kinds of weather because our boats weren't secure, and so on. There were all kinds of areas of the ocean where fish naturally had protection from us, but our technology has changed since the Second World War. We can now catch fish through pack ice, at great depths, in any kind of weather, and at any distance. Fish have no place to hide. So when we make mistakes and when we are greedy, there is no cushion. That has disappeared.

Fundamentally, that's the reason we need marine protected areas, and it doesn't really matter how we get them, under what legislation. We must now artificially restore sanctuaries as a hedge against these kinds of human error. It's not just the fish that need protection, and I want to emphasize this. It is the fish and our coastal communities, because they go hand in hand.

Professor Philip Dearden of the department of geography at the University of Victoria in British Columbia spoke convincingly of the need for this legislation. He told the committee a scientific consensus statement on the value of marine protected areas had been issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That is a prestigious body if ever there was one.

The consensus statement was endorsed by the world's most eminent marine biologists. They set up tests around the world to see what would happen to fisheries if certain areas were declared no take areas. The findings were surprising even to that prestigious committee. It found that after only one or two years of protection population densities were 91% higher, biomass was 192% higher, average organism size was 31% higher and species diversity was 23% higher.

Dr. Dearden added “These same results have been duplicated on the coast of British Columbia. We know for sure that fisheries are one of the main beneficiaries if areas are set aside as marine reserves”.

The scientists who appeared before our committee spoke strongly of the need for conservation legislation. Bill C-10 would also ensure the long term viability of coastal communities. The committee heard from community representatives who consistently had the same message about the importance of marine resources to coastal communities, whether they agreed or disagreed with the bill.

Bill C-10 would provide for long term protection of marine resources and sustainable use through a zoning mechanism. The bill's provisions for public consultation and involvement during every step of the process from identification, evaluation and designation to the subsequent management of the areas would ensure local support, something that is essential to the success of the legislation. If there is no local support marine conservation areas do not happen.

There is an explicit mandate for public education in the bill. Parks Canada is an internationally recognized leading agency in public education and interpretation of natural ecosystems. This would ensure Canadians gain a better appreciation of their connection to the ocean and the need to take greater responsibility in its stewardship.

Bill C-10 is also an affirmation of the importance of marine ecosystems to the preservation of overall global diversity. In 1996 the Prime Minister of Canada made a commitment at the World Conservation Congress to introduce marine conservation legislation. As a signatory to the biodiversity convention Canada is committed to passing such legislation.

Again I will quote Dr. John Lien of Memorial University, who addressed the international implications of the legislation. He said “It's important for you to realize that in an international context Canada is far behind in establishing ocean sanctuaries”. He told us he recently attended a meeting of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, under NAFTA, where Mexican colleagues told him 19% of their territorial waters are in sanctuary status and they have an annual budget of $45 million U.S. to manage them.

Dr. Lien added that the U.S. vice-president's commission on ocean policy had received a recommendation that 20% of all U.S. waters be placed in some kind of sanctuary status. President Clinton implemented this under executive order. The steps are already underway to place 20% of America's coral reefs in sanctuary status and the initiative is moving forward.

Dr. Lien said it is not only governments that are coming to this realization. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, probably one of the most distinguished bodies of science in North America, has recommended that 20% of all ocean area be set aside for protection from the kinds of errors we make.

We hear our hon. friends say we need to drill for more oil and gas and exploit every corner of the ocean. What we say is this: Not all corners of the ocean should be exploited for oil, gas or mineral exploration. We need sanctuaries. We need areas of protection. This does not mean oil and gas exploration and mineral exploration cannot go on next door. There is a lot of ocean to do both.

Canada has a role to play in protecting the biodiversity of the planet and this legislation is needed urgently in the effort. Bill C-10 is a forward looking piece of legislation that would give Canadians a closer connection to our great marine environment and protect precious marine resources for future generations.

That is what it is about. It is not about exhausting our marine resources. It is not about repeating what happened on the east coast and part of the west coast when the total fishery disappeared and thousands of coastal communities were out of work.

This bill has noble goals and is well designed to ensure the achievement of those goals. It would ensure conservation of our marine heritage and provide a model for sustainable use.

The bill's strong provisions for local community involvement and consultation would ensure the successful implementation of the act and give Parks Canada new tools to bring knowledge and pride to Canadians about their marine heritage. I urge the House to adopt Bill C-10 for the benefit of marine conservation and for all Canadians.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for allowing me to share her time.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-10, the Liberal government's attempt to create national marine conservation areas, which will have a far reaching impact on the entire coastal region of British Columbia as well as on the Atlantic coast.

The bill started out as a policy initiative of Parks Canada in the 1980s. As I am sure all members of the House know the history of the bill, I will not belabour the point except to say that two previous versions of the bill did not pass in earlier sessions of parliament.

On this point, I have to say that this gravely defective and punitive bill would have passed had it not been for members, particularly my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, such as the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. I thank them for their efforts.

Preserving our marine areas and managing them in a sustainable fashion is a laudable goal. However, when we seek to protect marine ecosystems, we need to balance this with the economic interests at stake, as well as the environmental aspect. The bill utterly fails to realize this fact.

At second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that marine conservation areas were designed to be models of sustainable use and that they were administered so as to balance protection and use.

Our coastline holds vast treasures, including a deposit of hydrocarbons, and the legislation would put the future development of these reserves at stake. Should Bill C-10 pass with clause 13 intact, the future of British Columbia's offshore oil and gas industry will most certainly die with the bill.

Why is such a blunt prohibition needed against resource development, so that our companies cannot use their sophisticated drilling equipment and drill under the marine conservation area from a point outside the park?

It would seem that a truly balanced approach would have sought to preserve the integrity of the marine conservation areas and provide a future income for B.C. However, departmental officials tell us that as the bill is currently drafted this is not possible.

My colleagues tried to arrive at a compromise in committee by introducing an amendment that would have allowed directional drilling from a point outside an MCA to a point within an MCA to place the onus of environmental safety on the backs of the oil companies to prove their methods posed no harm to the environment.

The Canadian Alliance heard expert witnesses plead and try to fix the problem but the Liberals, as my previous colleague mentioned, ignored them in the committee.

In fact the government called mostly witnesses representing the environmental side of the issue. It chose to ignore the voices of experts from the oil and gas field, as well as the fisheries.

This is not about opening up marine conservation areas for big businesses. This is about protecting the interests of small fishermen who depend on the sea for their livelihoods, as well as the oil companies, which form the future potential for the province and will be the backbone of our economy, I believe, in the future.

If the areas that are slated for at least one MCA each and the jurisdiction of their waters is currently under dispute by the provincial government, how does this affect the creation of MCAs and the rules laid out in Bill C-10?

The federal government does not consider these areas as under disputed jurisdiction. It believes they are the federal governments, period.

Getting back to clause 13, if the federal government can unilaterally place an MCA in an area it believes is within its right to do, and that same area holds an untold amount of reserves of oil and gas, clause 13 prevents, in perpetuity, that area from ever being harvested and explored. This could potentially have a devastating effect on the already poor economies of coastal British Columbia.

We need oil and gas reserves to put our province back on the map. If Bill C-10 goes through the House without clause 13 deleted, B.C. can kiss its future economic potential goodbye. We know what happened to the fisheries and other industries, like mining, tourism and now the softwood lumber industry, all because of mismanagement by the federal government.

Government rhetoric aside, what I see on paper in Bill C-10 is a blank cheque for government to carve out marine conservation areas wherever it pleases, regardless of the cost to local interests.

The people of British Columbia have already been victims of the government's short-sightedness in many industries but most important in the softwood lumber resource. Now we are expected to hand over stewardship of offshore hydrocarbon and sub-seabed mineral and gas exploration to the government as well. I for one do not trust the government's track record enough to hand over such power to the government or its cabinet.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage tipped the government's hand when she said that Bill C-10 would require federal ownership of all lands included in the national marine conservation area, both above and below the water. This would ensure that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the administration and control over these areas. Even though the member is working very hard, I am concerned about her comments on the issue.

The message the government is sending is that we should trust it because it knows what is best for us. This does not work in British Columbia. British Columbians are sick and tired of this type of wanton paternalism. We watched the government destroy the softwood lumber industry and now we are supposed to watch passively while it destroys British Columbia's future economic prospects.

Communication with all interested stakeholders should have been done prior to the creation and implementation of Bill C-10. This would have ensured a balanced approach and ensured that the legislation was drafted in a manner acceptable to British Columbia, the province with the largest coastline. Since this was not the approach chosen by the government, the bill remains poorly drafted from the preamble to the creation of marine conservation areas to the consultation and regulations.

One of the big concerns is that no one will ever be able to use the natural resources within or below that seabed.

The Liberal government has a defective piece of legislation. Should those MCAs be on disputed lands I am sure the federal government will be looking at constitutional challenges from the province, and likely will be won by the provinces, which is what worries me most. All of this could be avoided if the government would just amend Bill C-10 by deleting clause 13.

I have not focused on the jurisdictional dispute over water in Atlantic Canada but that could also be held hostage if the clause is left in the bill.

In conclusion, the bill is faulty, defective and must be corrected. We still have a chance. We are giving the government a chance to correct this before it puts the lives of many British Columbians and people in Atlantic Canada in jeopardy.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague the member for Surrey North.

I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-10, an act respecting national marine conservation areas in Canada. As has been said several times today, this is the third time the government has brought the bill to the House of Commons. Each time the Liberal government allowed the bill to lapse before it completed its parliamentary course. That is the reason it has taken three years to do the bill.

One would hope that after three tries the government would get it right, but that is still not the case. We have a number of problems with the bill. We have raised our concerns during debate sessions in the heritage committee meetings. We have also tried to remedy this through the amendment process. We have been unsuccessful.

Earlier today my hon. colleague from Simcoe--Grey made a comment that I found particularly offensive regarding what we have been trying to do with the bill. I would like him to name one of the ridiculous amendments that he claims has been put forward by this party. The amendments we have put forward to date have all been in the interests of all stakeholders concerned.

I need to give a bit of background about what it is our party has been trying to do. In order to give that background, I am asking for a bit of leniency.

The province of British Columbia is not the only province that is affected by this marine conservation bill, but I can only speak for the province of British Columbia on this one particular issue.

The northern part of British Columbia has a problem with the pine beetle epidemic which is threatening our lumber industry. The only support or help that has been suggested so far by the government side of the House has been to hope for a very cold snap. If there is a very cold snap the beetles may die, otherwise B.C. will lose part of its forest.

If that is not enough to concern British Columbians, there is also the problem of the softwood lumber issue. The softwood lumber issue was no surprise to the Liberal side of the House. The government had five years to prepare for this but it did not so now Canada is in a crisis situation. Once again we are forced into being reactive instead of proactive.

We also have another serious issue in my province and that is the native land claim issue.

Members may wonder why I am raising these issues. I am trying to give the House a bit of the picture of how the province of British Columbia stands today and how this new conservation bill is a further slap in the face.

When British Columbia came to the federal government level and asked for time to look at what was going on and have more input and consultation take place because it was a brand new provincial government, that request was turned down. When the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which represents every community in British Columbia, asked for the very same consideration, it was turned down. When the native component came before the committee and asked for those considerations, it got them.

I accept that native people need to have a voice in this issue. My party has been fighting for a better voice for native people for a long time. Yes, they do have to have a voice in this issue, but the government also has to consider all the other stakeholders in exactly the same vein and it did not do that. The government turned down the province. It turned down the municipalities. The only people the government has given legislative rights to in the bill are native people. That is what my party objects to. This is completely wrong. All parties have to be given equal access.

I do not know how we are going to resolve all of the problems we face in Canada today. Some of the problems we face would be very simply looked after if the government side would just listen carefully to the amendments that were made. I would again challenge my colleague from Simcoe--Grey to point out one ridiculous amendment that was put forward by the Canadian Alliance Party. There was none. We only put forward amendments that were going to give the same consideration to all stakeholders that the government side of the House had given to native people.

I am new to the heritage committee, but that does not make me foolish. I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I do not understand the method that the bill has taken.

I am personally not going to support the bill. It is not because I do not believe in conservation; I do severely. But as I pointed out earlier, the bill as it stands today is going to slam the door in the face of the province of British Columbia for any alternative it might have for economic reasons.

We are in serious trouble in British Columbia. We may very well need to look at doing something offshore. If the legislation passes, we cannot. That is what I object to. The government cannot slam the door of the economy in the face of British Columbia and expect us as representatives across the country to accept it. We are not going to.

We have coastal communities that were not consulted. Well, that is not fair. They were consulted. They were consulted, but the government is under absolutely no obligation to do anything they say.

Another concern I have and I have had this raised by many of my colleagues is where are the lines for this conservation area? Generally speaking, in Canada when we designate a park or a conservation area there are nice, clearly defined lines on a map. We can look at it and say “That is where we are going to conserve. We will not do anything in here. There will be no mineral exploration, nothing will happen”. In this particular case that line is out there somewhere in the ocean. I have not seen where the government is drawing it. I am not certain what the aim is, but I do not like the way it is being done.

It is not the fault of anyone in the House, except perhaps the government, that it has taken three tries to get this marine conservation act in place. There is no need to rush it at this point in time. There needed to be more time for consultation and that is all we asked for as a party. We did not get it.

This is third reading. I want to make it very clear that the reason I will not support the bill and I will vote against it are for the reasons I have outlined today.

There was a lack of consideration given to the province of British Columbia. I object to that strongly on behalf of all the people in that province. We need to do things better and we need to do things in a more co-operative manner.

I would further say that I resent when a member of the House, especially a member of the same committee that I sit on, takes the facts and skews them to their own good. Members cannot say that anything the Canadian Alliance has done with heritage did anything but try to improve the bill for all stakeholders in Canada. We wanted it expanded so everyone had the same equal opportunity to voice their concerns. That is all we asked for. There is nothing ridiculous about that. I am not supporting the bill.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with Bill C-10, the marine parks bill.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill S-31, respecting a number of tax treaties.

As indicated by the deputy House leader for the opposition, next week is a week in our constituencies. When we return we will consider: report stages and third reading of Bill C-38, respecting Air Canada; second reading of Bill C-41, respecting the Canadian Commercial Corporation; report stages and third reading of Bill C-27, the nuclear waste legislation; Bill C-35, respecting foreign missions; and second reading of Bill S-33, respecting carriage by air. During that week the government may introduce another bill dealing with public safety and we would begin debate on that matter as soon as possible.

Finally, I intend to consult colleagues later this afternoon, given the uncertainty in the airline industry, to see whether there would be a favourable disposition, notwithstanding the tabling of the report on Bill C-38 today, to see if the House would agree with dealing with third reading tomorrow. I intend to consult later this day on this matter.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, it is important to focus some attention on the process leading up to the establishment of a national marine conservation area, the final step of which would be the entrenchment of the land description under the proposed legislation.

How national marine conservation areas are established has after all been the subject of a number of hon. members who have expressed concern in this area. The creation of national marine conservation areas is a time-consuming and complex undertaking. It cannot simply be established by the federal government acting alone. It requires the support of provincial or territorial governments and the support of local communities.

It may take several years before an establishment agreement is signed. It takes time to conduct meaningful public consultations, to secure the support of all levels of government and to negotiate the agreements setting out the terms and conditions for a new national marine conservation area.

How will these areas be created and managed? The answer can be found in the bill, in Parks Canada's policies and in the co-operative consultation process currently underway in several regions. Five major steps are involved.

National marine conservation areas are meant to be representative of a region in which they are located. This is not a random process. The first step in establishing a marine conservation area is to identify potential sites. This involves a number of studies to determine the physical, biological and cultural characteristics of a marine region. The geology, oceanography and habitats of the regions are examined in detail,as well as the occurrence and distribution of its species from plankton to whales.

The known maritime history, both pre-colonial and post-colonial, is also incorporated into the studies to gain as complete a picture of the region as possible.

There are some 24 representative marine areas. Areas that encompass the majority of these features are identified within the region. These areas are then rated and based on how well they represent the region in their natural state. Once these representative marine areas have been confirmed, further studies and consultations are undertaken to select one of these sites as a potential marine conservation area. This is the second step.

A wide range of factors are considered when comparing representative marine areas, including the quality of regional representation, the importance of the area in maintaining biodiversity, essential processes and critical habitats, the occurrence of exceptional, natural and cultural features, the value of the area for ecological research in monitoring, minimizing conflict with existing or probable marine uses, and the implications of land claims or treaties. Consultations with concerned provincial and territorial governments and implicated federal departments are also undertaken.

The third step is assessing the feasibility of the potential national marine conservation area. This is the most complex and time-consuming part of the entire establishment of the procedure. One of its main purposes is to determine if there is sufficient support for a marine conservation area. The provincial or territorial government and any affected aboriginal organizations must agree to proceed to this step. They will also be directly involved in any study.

A feasibility study involves extensive consultation with local communities, stakeholders, aboriginal people and the general public, usually by means of local regional committees set up to participate directly in the study and make recommendations to the minister.

In order to allow the public to make an informed choice, detailed studies of the physical, biological and cultural features of the area are done. Social economic impact studies are also undertaken as required.

Federal policy dictates that mineral and energy resource assessments must be done on federal lands to determine if significant non-renewable resource potential would be foreclosed by the establishment of a national marine conservation area.

If the resource potential is high, this information would be considered when boundary options are being developed. Discussions are also undertaken with the appropriate departments, in consultation with the public, with respect to the management of fisheries, navigation and shipping. Possible boundaries for the proposed marine conservation area are drawn at this stage taking all these considerations into account.

As the feasibility study is concluded, a report is produced. It will provide an indication of the level of public support. It will include recommendations on conservation and management objectives. It will speak to boundaries, draft management and zoning plans. Finally, it will identify any specific issues of concern to local communities and affected user groups.

If the study demonstrates that the proposed national marine conservation area is feasible and there is public support for it, the governments could then proceed with the next step. If it is not a feasible option, other representative marine areas within that region could be considered.

If the governments have decided to proceed, a federal-provincial or federal-territorial agreement is formally negotiated, which sets out the terms and conditions under which the national marine conservation area will be established and managed. These agreements cover many topics, including final boundaries; management of fisheries and marine transportation; land transfer; and co-operation in marine conservation area planning and management.

Where lands are subject to a claim by aboriginal peoples in respect to aboriginal rights, the national marine conservation area can be provided for as part of a negotiated claim settlement. Alternatively a national marine conservation area or reserve can be established pending resolution of the claim. Reserves are managed as if they were national marine conservation areas but without prejudice to the settlement of the claim.

All of the studies and negotiations would occur before any national marine conservation area is brought to parliament for formal establishment under the act. At this stage, Bill C-10 requires that the minister table a report and that the report include information on the consultations undertaken, including a list of names of organizations and persons consulted; the dates of the consultations and a summary of their comments; any agreements reached respecting the establishment of the area; results of any assessments of mineral or energy resources undertaken; and the interim management plan that sets out management objectives and a zoning plan.

Parliament will thus have the opportunity to see the results of the time and effort put into the proposal to establish one of these sites. It will also be able to satisfy itself that there is community support and that all aspects have been taken into consideration.

A national marine conservation area is formally established when its land description is added to the schedule of the act. This brings those lands under the formal protection of the legislation.

Bill C-10 sets out an order in council process for the establishment in law of national marine conservation areas and reserves. It requires that proposed additions to the schedules must be tabled in both houses and referred to the appropriate standing committees for their consideration. Should either house reject the establishment of the new area, the order in council would not proceed.

In going through the process, I believe I have demonstrated that the decision to establish a national marine conservation area lies in the hands of Canadians and their elected representatives. Let us now quickly pass Bill C-10.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for the good work he does as chair of the heritage committee. He is fair and balanced and tries to encourage positive debate.

I agree with him that changes were made because of the interventions not only of myself but of other members. I acknowledged that earlier in my speech and I commend the government for it.

As I stated in committee, if we lay these things out clearly in the bill to allay the fears of individuals we will have done a good thing. I think we have moved in that area.

The nub of the issue now rests in the area of something we can never legislate: trust. We trust Bill C-10 will be implemented in the spirit in which we worked as a committee and that the assurances we receive will guide the direction of the bill. We will be able to tell whether we have been successful when we measure how the minister has implemented these notions and ideas.

I am somewhat hopeful this can be done in the consultative way my colleague described and include the coastal areas. I hope these ideas will not be unilaterally imposed on anyone because of the improvements we have made to the bill.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc highlighting the importance of being here to listen to this very important speech. I appreciate that.

The test of our success in how we deal with the bill will be measured in months and years to come in the implementation of this legislation. It is my hope that the intent of the bill will be maintained through government policy concerning the creation of marine conservation areas.

The concept of creating marine conservation areas is supported in principle by PC/DR coalition members. The preamble to the bill outlines these principles of preserving representative areas within the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and the Great Lakes. The intent is to create a total of 29 marine conservation areas across the country in these regions.

The main concern the coalition has raised, and others have raised it as well, surrounds the implementation process of these conservation areas. There must be a solid process of consultation with local coastal communities before these areas are established. I have referred to the preamble on page 2 of the bill, lines 7 to 14, which says that parliament wishes to affirm the need to:

--involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments, bodies established under land claims agreements and other appropriate persons and bodies in the effort to establish and maintain the representative system of marine conservation areas;--

For areas that are under provincial jurisdiction, the bill clearly outlines a collaborative process in clause 5 which reaffirms the need to work together on the creation of a marine conservation area. The bill is less clear in regard to lands and areas that may be under jurisdictional dispute between a province and the federal government. To provide for greater certainty on this issue, the coalition proposed an amendment at committee which would have called on the federal government to obtain a legal ruling on such an area before proceeding with the creation of a marine conservation area. In other words, if an area were under dispute the federal government would not go ahead with the creation of a marine conservation area until the dispute was settled. Unfortunately this amendment was defeated. I think it would have added more clarity and strengthened the bill.

The government's argument is that it would only proceed if it had strong legal reasons to believe it had an unencumbered right of title to the proposed area. Nevertheless, if an area is in dispute the government could simply proceed with the creation of a marine conservation area, forcing a province to fight such a move in the courts if the province believed that it had the same unencumbered right of title to the same area.

Let me state that this was not the intent of the government. That came out in committee. Department officials clearly indicated that the intent was not to create an MCA in such a unilateral manner. The government has given reassurances on that front as well. Provisions within the bill also seem to lean in that direction. However, it will be up to the minister to ensure the true intent of the bill.

My colleague from Delta--South Richmond, who is a very studious member of the House, has questions as to whether this is actually worth something and whether we can trust the government. I maintain those same concerns, hoping that the government will proceed on a path where it does more than simply consult, and in way that includes the coastal communities, particularly fishing concerns, which I know my colleague has particular concerns about because he is an expert in that area. We can only tell through the test of time whether the government will in fact prove that we should have trust in it in this particular area. I think we need to remain guarded on that.

Let me say that the implementation of each and every marine conservation area established or modified in Canada would have to go through this consultative process. Some have concerns that an MCA may be created or enlarged by simply passing an order of the governor in council, which some see as a back door way of imposing one of these areas without full consultation.

For that to happen an amendment must be brought to parliament for debate. The report must include, and I quote from subclause 7(1) of the bill:

(a) information on consultations undertaken, including a list of the names of organizations and persons consulted, the dates of the consultation and a summary of their comments, and any agreements reached respecting the establishment of the area or reserve, and

(b) an interim management plan that sets out management objectives and a zoning plan—

I will return to an important clause that was amended in committee with the aim of alleviating concerns that the government may impose a zone on an area without its consent. Subclause 10(1) of the bill states:

The Minister shall consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies, with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate in the development of marine conservation area policy and regulations, the establishment of any proposed marine conservation area and the modification of any marine conservation area, and any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate.

Regardless of the area of jurisdiction, whether provincial, federal or lands that may be in dispute, it is quite clear that the new law would require consultation. It would be a positive strengthening of the bill. It is my hope that the Liberal government would act within both the letter and spirit of the clause.

Too often we have seen the government move ahead unilaterally on issues. This does not work well to build positive federal provincial relationships. Of particular importance is the need to consult coastal communities where the areas would be established. The consultative clauses must be adhered to if the government wishes to build support for the legislation. Advisory committees would be established as outlined in subclause 11(3) of the bill. I will read it into the record. It states:

The Minister shall consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies, with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate with respect to the composition of advisory committees.

There is a repeated pattern of language that is similar. I have read it into the record to reassure those who have concerns about consultation and to admonish the government to remember these parts of the bill when it creates the zones.

There are others who have concerns about different types of activities in marine conservation areas. Fishing is permitted under licence. This is noted in subclause 15(3) which states:

For greater certainty, the superintendent of a marine conservation area may not amend, suspend or revoke a fishing licence issued under the Fisheries Act.

I will focus on the enforcement aspect of Bill C-10. The act would be administered by marine conservation area wardens as outlined in clauses 18 to 23. The wardens would be tasked with enforcing the act. They would be peace officers as outlined in the criminal code.

Would the wardens be properly equipped with sidearms to carry out their duties? What would they do when confronted by individuals in contravention of the act? What would they say to people removing sensitive marine items from the area or dumping pollutants into the water? Would they say stop or I will splash?

This brings to mind the hardworking parks wardens tasked with enforcing the National Parks Act. I met with some of the wardens last week who are responsible for enforcement. They outlined their frustration with having to enforce the National Parks Act without a sidearm.

There are people who regularly break the parks act by removing sensitive material such as ancient fossils and other artifacts which are then sold illegally for large sums of money. Poachers are another serious problem in national parks such as Banff, Jasper and others. Some individuals illegally take out big horned sheep, bear bladders or other animals and sell the contraband for thousands of dollars.

This is going on now. Wardens are unable to battle the lawbreakers to the best of their ability because they are not properly equipped with sidearms. RCMP officers currently patrol the parks. However they are severely limited in their ability to enforce the act in the back country away from the paved highways they travel.

These are areas the wardens know. They should be able to patrol them with the appropriate tools to stop those who would abuse the laws and illegally remove animal species and our national treasures.

At the same time the policy pursued by the heritage minister takes away resources from the RCMP that could be deployed in a more strategic and beneficial way, especially since the demands on them have been greatly increased following the events of September 11.

It would make sense to give wardens in our national parks the tools to do their job. Will the heritage minister undertake to provide sidearms to our park wardens so they can uphold the law, protect our parks and bring lawbreakers to justice? Will she do the same for marine conservation area wardens who would be faced with the same conflicts?

Clause 13 of the bill focuses on banning oil and gas exploration in the Marine Conservation Areas Act. Concerns have been brought forward by many individuals that the clause may be used to shut down the development of offshore oil and gas before it has a chance to be established in some regions of the country. Departmental officials have assured committee members that is not the intent of the legislation.

I referred earlier in my speech to an amendment that was brought forward which indicates the government must undertake appropriate resource testing to ensure potential marine conservation areas are not established where there is a significant possibility of oil and gas development. This is of particular concern in British Columbia where the new Liberal government is undertaking a study to determine whether it will lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas development.

There must be a balance between important environmental concerns and the potential economic development of resources that could significantly benefit areas that have proportionately low populations and limited economic development bases.

Is this a perfect bill? No, it is not. Is the notion of preserving representative areas of our marine regions as conservation areas a good idea? Yes, it is. As I have outlined, the coalition hopes and expects that the government will proceed in a consultative manner to build consensus with communities surrounding areas designated for the creation of marine conservation areas.

Protecting our environment is important and necessary not only so Canadians can enjoy it now but so future generations can enjoy it as well. We hope the government will be able to accomplish this goal in a balanced manner by ensuring that affected people and communities are an essential part of the process of establishing marine conservation areas.

Our support hinges on the degree of good faith the minister demonstrates in sticking to the consultative processes outlined in the bill. It also hinges on her ability to build trust through meaningful consultation with local coastal communities. If the minister can do that she will be able to accomplish a good thing in creating these marine conservation areas. She will be able to build support for her idea.

This is the model we should be moving to in the House. I was encouraged that the government acted on some of the amendments of my colleague from Skeena. The member did a good job in committee and should be commended for it. We did not all agree with every notion and idea he brought forward, but he worked hard and diligently as did other members from the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP.

We did not all get what we wanted in the bill. No one gets everything they want in a bill, including government members. If we want this place to change we must take these steps. If we want to engage members of parliament in a meaningful way and send a message to the people of our country that the business we do here is important, means something and reflects the opinions of individuals across the country, we must acknowledge small steps in that direction and build on them. We must move forward in a way that starts to break down many of the partisan walls that have emerged in the House.

At times I can be as much of a partisan as anyone else. At the same time, for the good of the country it is time to start breaking down walls and building consensus on important issues. We need to expand our framework into something bigger and better so we can address issues that encompass the entire country.

We have focused on marine conservation areas today. I hope this becomes a model for us to move forward and consult even more in the development of legislation.

While the bill is not perfect and does not contain all the safeguards we would like in terms of consultation, we are generally supportive of the idea of marine conservation areas. For that reason we in my party will be supporting Bill C-10.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the PC/DR coalition to Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

While coalition members generally are supportive of the concept of marine conservation areas, we do have some concerns as to the details included within the bill which, as enabling legislation, would set the framework for the creation of these areas. I will outline some of these concerns as will some of my colleagues, but notwithstanding the concerns we have with the bill, coalition members will be supporting the legislation.

To begin, as a new member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage I want to say that much work had been done on the bill by my colleagues prior to my arrival. I commend them for their good work. The parliamentary committee heard testimony previous to this fall and recently heard interventions from other concerned individuals, many of whom were from my home province of British Columbia.

Opposition members from all parties have raised valid concerns about the bill. To the government's credit it has considered some of these concerns and at least attempted to implement some changes based on the input from the testimony of the witnesses along with issues raised by opposition members. This was most notably demonstrated in the House at report stage when the parliamentary secretary took the intent of an amendment from my colleague from Skeena to move forward on making sure that a report--

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I have spoken widely about a very central and valuable environmental resource in my beloved province of Nova Scotia and that is the Gully.

I urge all members in the House to think about their own particular regions and areas that have to be protected and then look very closely at the bill that is in front of us today, Bill C-10, and try to determine if there are in fact enough protections within this document to allow for the ongoing sanctity of the environmental jewels that exist in each one of our ridings in this beautiful country.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-10 at third reading.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the work done by the member for Windsor--St. Clair. He has been a passionate advocate for marine parks and marine conservation.

I am proud to speak to the issue of marine parks but sadly, I cannot say that we support Bill C-10 at the present time. We believe it creates a false sense of security that our valuable natural resources would be protected when in fact we do not believe that is true at this point.

I am from Nova Scotia. We understand the importance of the ocean as a source of economic activity and a valuable resource that needs protection. We desperately need to have marine parks created in my region to protect some incredible natural areas from oil and gas exploration and from the impact of overfishing and bottom dredging that destroys rare and valuable deep coral.

The most obvious example of an area needing protection off Nova Scotia at this point is the Scotia Gully, sometimes called Canada's Grand Canyon. Approximately 260 kilometres off the east coast of Nova Scotia lies the largest underwater canyon on the east coast of North America. This unique marine environment is home to 15 species of dolphins and whales, many species of fish including halibut, cod, redfish, swordfish, tuna, salmon and squid, as well as deep sea corals and other little-known bottom dwelling invertebrate animals.

This diverse ecosystem is currently being threatened by oil and gas exploration off the Nova Scotia coast. Federal and provincial governments have granted over 50 oil and gas exploration licences in an area surrounding the gully. One proposed project lies only five kilometres from the gully's edge; imagine that, five kilometres from the Grand Canyon of our coast. Immediate action must be taken to protect the gully from this and other oil exploration projects. The area needs the protection of a marine park.

Larger than the famous Grand Canyon, Nova Scotia's gully extends to a depth of 1.5 kilometres in some areas and is over 70 kilometres long and 20 kilometres wide. This unique marine ecosystem has long been recognized by the government as an ecologically important area.

In 1992 Parks Canada declared the gully to be a natural area of Canadian significance, while in 1998 DFO designated the area as a pilot marine protected area. However, during the same decade, oil exploration was occurring in the area at an alarming rate. Licences for gas and oil exploration around the gully cover an area of over six million hectares. Current projects are moving closer toward the gully's edge.

The Sable offshore energy project's pipeline runs only 30 kilometres from the gully while the project proposed by Primrose Field is an alarming five kilometres from the edge. Aside from the possible threats from chemical pollution and sedimentation from the projects, the gully is also threatened by acoustic pollution that has the potential to disrupt whale communication.

In order for the gully to be adequately protected, it needs to be designated as a marine protected area under the Oceans Act. A buffer zone surrounding the gully would also help protect the habitat.

The gully is the home of bottlenose whales which appear to remain separate from other populations of the same species and are considered to be genetically distinct from them. These rare whales live in the gully, and a park should protect them. I wish Bill C-10 did.

On top of the threat by drilling, bottom dredging by fishing boats, both domestic and foreign, is also destroying parts of this valuable canyon. Under the current bill before us, this marine park could be created but the threats to the natural heritage of the site would continue.

Do not get me wrong. I want marine parks as do all members of the New Democratic Party but I want equivalent protection for these parks as terrestrial parks. That is why I support the amendments at report stage from our party's environmental critic which would have allowed for real protection of areas like the gully.

Our amendments would have prohibited harmful activities currently allowed under the bill such as bottom trawling, blasting and drilling, building pipelines and using harmful sonar devices. These activities are recognized by all, except the government and the Alliance Party, to be completely incompatible with the intent of marine conservation areas and detrimental to the ecosystems that they are intended to protect.

Sadly, the government saw fit to defeat the amendments of the member for Windsor--St. Clair. Therefore I am forced to oppose the bill at third reading. I am afraid that this party has to say that we will have to continue to work further in other areas with environmental groups to try to strengthen this legislation in days to come.

I am not alone in feeling that a better bill is required. The document “Scientific Consensus Statement” signed by 161 leading marine scientists and experts on marine reserves supports me. The signatories to this document all hold Ph.D. degrees and are employed by academic institutions. I would like to put forward some of the conclusions from this document on what marine conservation areas can do if there is real protection.

If there is real protection with a real marine protection act we could see reserves result in long lasting and often rapid increases in the abundance, diversity and productivity of marine organisms. Marine reserves can reduce the probability of extinction for marine species resident within them. Increased marine reserve size results in increased benefits, but even small reserves have positive effects. Full protection, which usually requires adequate enforcement and public involvement, is critical to achieve this full range of benefits. Marine protected areas do not provide the same benefits as marine reserves.

In the few international studies that have been done which have examined spillover effects, the size and abundance of exploited species increased in areas adjacent to reserves. There is increasing evidence that reserves replenish populations regionally via larval export.

There is increasing evidence that a network of reserves buffers against the vagaries of environmental variability and provides significantly greater protection for marine communities than a single reserve. An effective network needs to span large geographic distances and encompass a substantial area to protect against catastrophes and provide a stable platform for the long term persistence of marine communities.

With the analysis of the best available evidence from scientists around the world, we conclude that reserves or marine conservation areas conserve fisheries and biodiversity. To meet goals for fisheries and biodiversity conservation, reserves must encompass the diversity of marine habitats.

Reserves are the best way to protect resident species and provide heritage protection to important habitats. Reserves must be established and operated in the context of other management tools. Reserves need a dedicated program to monitor and evaluate the impact both within and outside their boundaries. Reserves provide a critical benchmark for the evaluation of threats to ocean communities. Networks of reserves will be necessary for long term fisheries and conservation efforts. Existing scientific information justifies the immediate application of fully protected marine reserves as a central management tool.

Sadly the Liberal government does not seem interested in science. The bill fails to meet the minimum needs to allow for real protection either within the marine parks or in the adjacent areas of the marine parks or as part of a network. It is my sincere hope that the government will return to this matter and fix these problems in the near future.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The amendments the NDP put forward were voted against at report stage by the Liberal government. It chose not to support our amendments. If I was unclear on that, I apologize. The very thoughtful and important amendments that were put forward would have strengthened any marine conservation act.

Issues such as bottom trawling should have been dealt with. It is negligent to have not referred to that or to have specifically itemized such a harmful practice in our marine environment. If we are dealing with marine conservation and trying to balance development versus conservation, how could we fail to comment on that?

Blasting and drilling; talk about invasive practices. I have worked on oil rigs. I know what it takes to drill a hole in the ground and the type of impact it has on the environment.

Building pipelines and sonar devices is another example. Underwater pipelines are going to be a reality as more and more we are seeking fossil fuel resources offshore. Underwater pipelines are a reality, yet we have chosen to be silent on that issue. We feel that is an omission. It borders on negligence on our part to not have that specifically referred to. If in fact we are dealing with trying to balance development versus conservation, where more appropriately should this issue belong than in Bill C-10? Where else would we speak to it?

As to the hon. member's position that this is not a piece of environmental legislation, it is all environmental legislation. How do we separate development, conservation or environmentalism if it is not a common thread? If we do not view economic development through a green screen, then we are guilty of criminal negligence. It is overstating it to say it is criminal negligence but it is a serious omission on our part in the House of Commons.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to join in the debate on third reading of Bill C-10. I will be splitting my time with the member for Dartmouth.

I am pleased to make this speech on behalf of the environment critic for the NDP caucus, the member for Windsor--St. Clair. I would like begin my speech by paying tribute to the member for Windsor--St. Clair for the dedication that he has shown to this issue and for his the research, the commitment and the involvement over many months to this important issue. It is indicative of how seriously the NDP caucus takes this issue with the amount of time, research and capital that was invested into trying to make meaningful changes to Bill C-10.

It is worth noting that we find ourselves in a rather unique situation. Because we were so committed to the tone and the spirit of Bill C-10, we voted for it at second reading. That is how eager we were to see it go to committee so that we could invite witnesses, have honest and fruitful debate and even propose amendments.

We find ourselves now in an inverse situation. We cannot support the bill because there was such intransigence at the committee stage and such an unwillingness to recognize the legitimate points that were raised by witnesses and by opposition members. Now we have a very flawed piece of legislation.

As inadequate as it was at second reading, we were compelled to vote for it just to have the opportunity to take it one step further to improve it, to hone it, to fine tune it and to make it useful to Canadians. In the best spirit of parliament, we acted in a very responsible way rather than just oppose everything that came at us from the other side.

In this case we said that the idea had merit and although it needed fine tuning and refinement, we were willing to support it at that stage just to move it along through the steps for the well-being of Canadians. We went through an exhaustive process and dedicated a great deal of time and energy. I should point out that the member for Windsor--St. Clair brought this to our attention almost weekly at the NDP caucus.

The subject of Bill C-10, the marine conservation act, came up regularly. It was given a great deal of our attention and energy. Of all the issues that we have to deal with and all the competing interests that we have as members of parliament, the bill got a disproportionate amount of our time, energy and resources. I am trying to express how frustrated we are at this juncture to have to say that all our work was perhaps for nothing. That is why members are hearing critical speeches at this stage.

As interested as people were to take part in a meaningful debate on the bill, we find ourselves as opposition members now unable to support what we thought was a very important piece of legislation.

I know the member for Windsor--St. Clair would want me to express that we view this as a lost opportunity. We view this as a missed opportunity, not just for Canadians, but for the environment. This was one of those bills and one of those times that we as a community could deal with our environment in a way that we could actually show some stewardship and leadership, and we failed. I think we failed Canadians. I think we have failed future generations. We certainly have failed the marine ecological environment.

Some of the changes that the member for Windsor--St. Clair put forward were so elementary and so basic that it defies logic. How anybody could have found fault with some of these amendments is beyond me. I was not at the committee when these amendments were put forward, but I have read the transcript from the committee. I have seen the arguments that were put forward and they were remarkable.

It is remarkable to me that the amendments put forward were rejected. I have read some of the arguments and some of the debates in Hansard . The principles were as basic and fundamental like the way we developed oil and gas reserves. We all know we explore for oil and gas under the water by seismic explosions. These blasts are detrimental to marine mammals.

An amendment was put forward that we simply could not do that. It would be irresponsible to allow that type of seismic activity in a region where marine mammals would be affected negatively.

I am just trying to envision what the argument could be against an amendment of that nature. We all know that the big draggers that stir up the bays all across our eastern and western shores are detrimental to our marine environment. Yet we chose not to comment or deal with that compelling issue in Bill C-10.

What is remarkable to me, in researching for this speech, is just how naive we are about our marine environment. We live in a country that is surrounded on three sides by ocean. We have more ocean perimeter and shore than many island nations, yet we are so painfully naive about the environment.

I built a house one time for a marine biologist who told me that they were starting to age groundfish so they would know when it was a good time to harvest groundfish and when was not. Only in recent years, at the Nanaimo biology research station, have they finally started to age groundfish, date them and say that maybe 12 years old would be the optimum time to harvest this type of groundfish. Until then, it was just by hook or by crook, by happenstance. They just took and took and hoped that the resource survived. We cannot be that irresponsible any more. It is painful to see how naive we are in this regard.

We are only just learning about our marine environment now. Maybe it is premature to put this bill in place because there is so much discovery going on.

In reading about this issue, I was interested to learn that only recently we realized there was a gully off Nova Scotia that rivalled the Grand Canyon in scope. Huge underwater environments are out there. Even though we have the capability to learn about them and deal with them, we have chosen not to. We have occupied our time, some would say capably or not, on the terrestrial side of our environment and we have ignored the underwater environment. The oil and gas interest is really in that grand canyon. This underwater canyon exists with a whole environment and culture that we can only dream about.

The research is in its infancy. The science is relatively new, yet we are passing legislation that is supposed to serve us for 100 years. We find Bill C-10 hopelessly inadequate. It does not serve what we would hope a well drafted piece of legislation coming out of the House of Commons would do for Canadians, for our future and for our marine environment.

Groups have pointed out that the inadequacies range from not only the environmental community, although it is pretty much unanimous in its criticism of the shortcomings of Bill C-10, but also the cultural communities that have pointed to real serious omissions and lack of substance in Bill C-10. Even provincial governments and other levels of government are blowing the whistle and saying that this is not ready and that it has not evolved to a degree where we should be enshrining it in legislation.

We thought that some of the changes we sought to achieve were quite reasonable. I mentioned seismic blasting and trawling. The other issue we felt should have been dealt with was the burgeoning new economic development of aquaculture and fish farming. We need to address this issue.

I have been on the west coast of Canada and toured some of the fish farms where Atlantic salmon are being raised in the Pacific Ocean. They get out of their cages. These are not an easily controlled species. They are an aggressive species. They are an invasive species. This industry is in its infancy and should have been dealt with in Bill C-10. I believe that it was by deliberate omission that it was not dealt with in Bill C-10.

We are very critical that it is more notable for what is not in the bill than what is in the bill. For that reason the New Democratic Party cannot support Bill C-10, inasmuch as we would have liked to have had a piece of legislation that we could support.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-10. Bills respecting marine conservation areas have been introduced in this House for several years.

Today, I will deal with the impact of this bill on Quebec in terms of the province's territorial integrity, duplication, heritage and management of national parks. I will also talk about how Heritage Canada will take over a jurisdiction, and the impact of the distinct society motion, passed in this House, when it comes to approving the way Quebec does things. Regarding this motion, the Bloc members were fully aware that it was an empty shell.

I will also talk about culture and its link with marine areas and I will give a few examples of co-operation on environmental issues and the protection of the marine ecosystem.

In Quebec, the government to two different approaches to dealing with the federal government; first, it established a consultation process through the mirror legislation on the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and through the phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.

Again and again, the Bloc Quebecois opposed such legislation. During the previous parliament, similar bills were introduced and we wanted them to be passed.

This time, the Liberal federal government is determined to introduce a framework legislation allowing it to create 28 marine conservation areas, without having to defend each of its bills before parliament. Moreover, the government wants to make sure it has the power to go ahead without the agreement of provinces or local communities or even native communities.

It was not possible to bring substantial amendments to the bill during its consideration by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore continue to oppose, at third reading, the bill respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

During the time that is allotted to me, I want to recap the main arguments that we have made in this House. The purpose of this bill is to provide a legal framework for the establishment, as I said earlier, of 28 marine conservation areas, including 8 in Quebec, representing each of the ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and in Canada.

These marine areas will eventually have to be built by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but it is not included in the bill before us today because it has already been dealt with in an act of parliament, both in Canada and in Quebec, following a process, as I said earlier, of dialogue and partnership between both governments.

Bill C-10 results from a commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada, when he spoke at the congress hosted by the World Conservation Union in Montreal, in 1996.

At this congress, as was the case in 1994, the World Conservation Union passed resolutions calling on all coastal nations to put marine conservation measures in place quickly. Also, the United Nations declared 1998 as the year of the ocean; action was needed in that respect.

At the same time, the international community wanted to take outstanding actions following these events—and the Bloc Quebecois recognizes these—such as the adoption of the ocean charter by UNESCO, which is a policy statement in favour of co-operation for preserving oceans and coastal areas.

This charter was presented at the summit of the sea that was held in September 1997, in St. John's, Newfoundland. There was also the universal exhibition of Lisbon, Portugal, from September 22 to 30, 1998, whose theme was “The Oceans, a Heritage for the Future”. The Bloc Quebecois applauds to all these initiatives.

It is in that context that the marine conservation areas were created, with a view to meeting the objective put forward by several international forums or documents, such as the “World Conservation Strategy”, published in 1980, the report entitled “Caring for the Earth”, published in 1991 and drafted by the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Program and the Worldwide Fund for Nature, partly funded by the government of Quebec.

I wanted to highlight those initiatives. If we are opposed to this legislation, it does not necessarily mean, and certainly does not mean, that we are against protecting ecosystems and the environment.

As we have shown, through words as well as actions, we are in favour of measures aimed at protecting the environment. The Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support the government when it proposed passing mirror legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and to establish the legal framework for its joint management by the two levels of government.

Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government, for its part, is launching initiatives, the goal and objective of which is to protect the environment, especially the seabed.

Furthermore, the Quebec government is opened to the idea of working in co-operation or in partnership with the federal government on any project which would guarantee or promote environmental protection, as shown by the agreement signed by both governments on phase 3 of the St. Lawrence action plan.

However, the Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-10 for the following reasons: first, instead of focusing on a dialogue like it did in the case of the Saguenay--St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government now wants to create marine conservation areas without taking into consideration Quebec's expertise in the area of environmental and territorial protection.

Second, Canadian Heritage is proposing a new structure. The marine conservation areas will overlap the marine protected areas of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the designated marine protected areas of Environment Canada. Three departments would be protecting marine areas.

Also, Canadian Heritage wants to create marine conservation areas when it has shown to be relatively inefficient in protecting the ecosystems in the existing national parks. There are several deficiencies in the management of national parks, and we should be much more proactive in that area.

Bill C-10 does not respect the territorial integrity of Quebec and the other provinces. One of the essential conditions for creating a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the area is to be established.

This can be seen in clause 5(2) of the bill , where it is stipulated that the Minister can establish a marine conservation area only if “satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands... other than such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada”. This is what we do not agree with.

Subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the management and sale of public lands.

Furthermore, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies “to all crown lands in Quebec, including the 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 is to authorize the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction.

However, the protection of habitats and wildlife is a shared responsibility and the Government of Quebec is planning shortly to create a framework for marine area protection.

According to the notes we have been provided by the Minister of Heritage concerning Bill C-10, marine conservation areas are planned for the St. Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, all three of these coming under the jurisdiction of Quebec. This is a privilege we insist on retaining.

There are, moreover, mechanisms of co-operation already in place to protect the ecosystems of the Saguenay--St. Lawrence marine park, and those of the St. Lawrence itself, under phase 3 of the St. Lawrence action plan, which was signed by all federal and Quebec departments concerned. This agreement calls for the investment of $250 million over five years for various activities relating to the St. Lawrence.

Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage claiming ownership of the seabed where it would like to establish marine conservation areas, instead of encouraging bilateral agreements between the governments of Quebec and of Canada or the other provinces? Why is it seeking one more way of trampling over areas of provincial jurisdiction, in this case that of Quebec, as well as one more opportunity to invade fields that come under provincial jurisdiction, namely education, education on the means of protecting our marine habitat?

The environment, as we all know, is a field of jurisdiction shared by both levels of government, according to the 1867 British North America Act. The governments of Canada and Quebec share jurisdiction over the environment. Accordingly, paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91 provide that the following powers are recognized by the federal government.

Section 91 provides that the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated: paragraph 10, navigation and shipping; paragraph 11, quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of marine hospitals; paragraph 12, sea coast and inland fisheries; and paragraph 13, ferries between a province and any British or foreign country or between two provinces.

Furthermore, Quebec also has powers that are recognized by sections 92 and 92(a) of the 1867 British North America Act.

In section 92, we read that in each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated: paragraph 5, the management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon; paragraph 13, property and civil rights in the province; and paragraph 16, generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.

It is therefore very difficult for us to support the bill before us today.

We have raised another argument in connection with the overlap within the federal government. Bill C-10 creates duplication within the federal government itself. The reasons the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing to establish the marine conservation areas are set forth in the preamble to the bill. The aim, among others, is to “maintain healthy marine ecosystems” and to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world “to appreciate and enjoy Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage”.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, for its part, proposed the establishment of marine protected areas. In a discussion paper it released in January 1997, entitled “An Approach to the establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act”, it described the aims of the marine protected areas as follows:

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

Finally, Environment Canada proposed, in turn, to establish, and I quote:

—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.

If we add to the triple overlap at the federal level the overlap with provincial jurisdictions, we have 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.

We can see the potential for problems when a territory is a marine protection zone, a natural marine reserve and a marine conservation area, each with its own regulations. Indeed, the bill provides that each of the federal departments will keep its jurisdiction over the marine conservation areas.

The government would have been better advised to have a single department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating their responsibilities to the one chosen to be accountable in this regard.

I now come to another argument on the protection of the national parks by Canadian Heritage.

In the spring of 2000, the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks published its report and urged the government to once again make ecological integrity central to the parks' missions The panel found that ecosystem integrity was at risk.

In some national parks, the stress on the resource was so great that some species were disappearing. In Fundy park, in New Brunswick, three species have disappeared since the park was created, in the 1940s. Only one of the 39 national parks of Canada is not experiencing this stress.

The situation is worse than what the panel and its scientific researchers expected.

There is a dramatic shortage of scientists to analyze the ecological system in the national parks. Ecological principles are not applied consistently.

The minister's answer was a bit tepid. She merely created a position of executive director in charge for ecological integrity and prepared a charter for Parks Canada Agency, without providing the necessary resources. In light of this information, we have to ask ourselves how Parks Canada will be able to preserve marine conservation areas when it does not even seem to have enough resources to protect the existing national parks. That is the question.

A fourth argument deals with consideration of the bill by the committee.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois firmly believes in environmental protection measures. This should not be forgotten. We are not opposed to the creation of marine parks, on the contrary. We supported the government when it introduced legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. We did so because we believed in building partnerships first and foremost.

We did so because we believed that future marine conservation areas in Quebec should be patterned on the above mentioned model. In order to make this possible, Ottawa would have to agree not only to consult the provinces but to negotiate with them and obtain their agreement. Amendments to that effect were proposed by the opposition before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage but, for all intents and purposes, they were all rejected.

Our amendment read as follows—we also asked that a proposal from the Bloc Quebecois be agreed to—:

Where a provincial legislature has adopted an act to protect marine areas, the federal government must negotiate with that province an agreement allowing the federal government to establish a marine conservation area in the province.

The wording of our amendment opened the door to negotiations for each marine conservation area, whereas the bill includes 28 marine areas. Under our amendment, if the federal government wanted to establish a marine conservation area, it would first have to come to an agreement with any province wishing to exercise its shared jurisdiction over the environment, even when the area comes under federal jurisdiction.

If another province agreed to let the federal government go ahead in this fashion, I do not see why we would want to object, but this is definitely not the case of Quebec.

Quebec wants to establish its own framework for the protection of marine areas. Since the protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of shared federal and provincial jurisdiction, we want to ensure that on Quebec's territory nothing can be done by the federal government without the agreement of the provincial government, without transferring to the federal government the rights relating to the sea floor, as the government wants to do under Bill C-10.

The Bloc Quebecois wants the government to follow the example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and to negotiate a partnership with Quebec whenever it wishes to set up a specific marine conservation area. That was the purpose of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois but the amendment was rejected.

It is interesting to note that the Bloc Quebecois asked that the federal government not be required to act in partnership with a province unless that province had legislated with regard to the protection of marine areas. In other words, the provinces that so wished could leave it up to the federal government. This is typical of flexible federalism, as it would allow the partners in the federation to act in the best interest of their respective populations.

One cannot but see there the centralizing focus of the federal government. Moreover, if the government members had voted for that amendment they would have been consistent toward Quebec. We must remind them that on December 11, 1995, the Prime Minister succeeded in having a symbolic resolution adopted in this House. We referred to it as an empty shell. Under that resolution, the House recognized Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. The motion read as follows:

That,

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

What happened to that reality? The motion also provided:

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

That was the motion to be debated. Its adoption did not prevent the federal government from implementing policies that do not reflect the infrastructures and programs existing in Quebec.

There is the young offenders legislation, on which the Senate has not yet voted, and which does not in its present form respect the jurisdiction of Quebec or its way of doing things. Then there are the millennium scholarships, and what a battle the Bloc Quebecois had to wage over them in order to get the message across that they were not wanted by the community. They stubbornly stuck with them, however.

Then there is the aid to the homeless, not that we did not want that money. It was the way the federal government went about it that we did not like. A promise was made, however, a bit before Christmas, “the minister's Christmas gift” we called it. How much time did it take before it was put in place and before the provinces were consulted?

Before funding is announced, perhaps the gouvernment ought to have a look at how things are done in Quebec. Then there might be less criticism from the public. This seems to be viewed as a squabble between two levels of government but it is far more than that. The people are often the ones who bear the brunt of it.

In this area, as in many others, Quebec either has in place or has plans for programs that take the specific needs of Quebec into consideration, such as the parental leave program. We have our own way of doing things. It is great that there are $560 million available but we do not know how Quebec's way of doing things, infrastructures and programs will be respected. Often for petty political reasons, our way of doing things has been turned totally topsy-turvy.

Six years have now passed in which, if it had really wanted to put some flesh on the bones of its distinct society resolution, the federal parliament could have allowed Quebec to opt out of new federal initiatives with full compensation, so that it could improve the services available to Quebecers still further, rather than seeking to either replace or duplicate what we are doing.

With this resolution, the House was committing to allowing itself to be guided by this reality. With the marine conservation areas, once again the House is missing out on a fine opportunity to allow Quebec to do things in the way that suits it, or to at least work in partnership with it.

We could carry this logic even further. Since the bill speaks of marine conservation areas, is Canadian Heritage not the department for culture, without being called that? Why could Quebec not have been allowed to opt out of this bill with financial compensation, since culture is a provincial matter.

Even former Prime Minister Trudeau had agreed to this in the amending formula for the Constitution Act, 1982, in section 40. Of course we are not taking about amending the Constitution here, but the spirit is the same, namely the right to opt out with financial compensation in the area of culture. I am not inventing this. The former Prime Minister said so. What he said is often quoted.

In short, the federal government had a number of reasons to co-operate with Quebec where marine conservation areas were involved, namely in the case of Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, shared jurisdiction over the environment, the motion on distinct society and the principle of opting out in the field of culture.

Do not think that the Bloc Quebecois is alone in opposing allowing the federal government to act unilaterally in creating marine conservation areas. Other parties have advocated not only consultation with the provinces but the need for their agreement. The Canadian Alliance called for an agreement with the provinces and local communities in all cases. There may be slight distinctions but it is there in all cases.

The Progressive/Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition requested that the government not be able to act if its jurisdiction over the territory is contested. This is where the problem lies. Nowhere in the bill is there provision to the effect that, if the federal government's jurisdiction is contested, if the federal government considers that it can proceed and is entitled to do so, it will create the marine area.

The Liberal members have systematically rejected these amendments, including our own, alleging that they involved a provincial veto, even when the territory is under federal jurisdiction. This is, however, a restriction parliament could decide to include in its legislation on the creation of marine conservation areas.

The government refused all these amendments claiming that section 5(2) provided sufficient protection for the provinces. However, this section does not cover cases where a province or a first nation challenges the jurisdiction of the territory in question. Therefore, with the federal government acting as both judge and jury, and history has shown this, if it is convinced that it has jurisdiction or it undertakes negotiations to solve land claims with aboriginals, even if these negotiations fail, it can go ahead.

This is where we have problems with the bill. When the bill was before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage the government rejected amendments that would have made it acceptable. This, despite the fact that the Bloc Quebecois was acting in good faith and was open to considering certain types of amendments.

We agreed to support some of the amendments the government was making but we could not support improving the bill because it was the very essence of the bill that was in question. We wanted to create marine areas. The bill does not include a guarantee to consult and negotiate partnerships. These are easy words to understand but they are not to be found in the bill.

We do have principles. We figured that in general the government amendments should have been along those lines, that is: involving the provinces and consulting with local and aboriginal communities; reducing the role of Heritage Canada, which should not be interfering in conservation; reducing the number of stakeholders involved because the Departments of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans also deal with marine conservation areas; harmonizing the regulations with those of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; and ensuring that as a rule the environment takes precedence over economic considerations.

However the improvements brought about at that stage were inadequate.

The Liberals added clause 5(3), which states that the government may remove a conservation area if a court finds that the government does not have clear title to the territory. However the government is under no obligation to do so. It “may” do it. When one “may” do something that does not mean that one “will” do it.

Liberal members extended the period for parliamentary review by parliamentary committees for changes to the list of marine conservation areas, changes to their boundaries or the addition of new areas. However there is some scepticism regarding the possibility that the government could sidestep the process if the changes are submitted at a time when the committee is unable to examine it. When this is the case, the changes would be considered accepted and the government could go ahead with the order in council. Several cases that we could mention show that we are right to have our doubts.

The Liberals amended section 10.1 to require the government to consult with “the relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies, with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations and aboriginal governments”. This may be an improvement over the former wording, in which the government was encouraged to consult. Now, according to the bill, the minister will consult instead of encourage consultation. However this consultation will not prevent the federal government from acting as it sees fit if there is disagreement.

This reminds me of an old saying, which I will paraphrase for the occasion today. In a dictatorship “you have nothing to say”. In a democracy “you can say whatever you want”. In other words, it is hardly a real consultation if the government has no intention whatsoever of listening to its partners.

We know all about this. We sit on committees. There will be a list of witnesses who often appear before us and give us their opinions, and amendments are proposed by the different opposition parties. It would be impossible to say that the government listens to us.

We provided an example to follow, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This is the example that the Bloc Quebecois proposes instead of this bill. We deplore the fact that the government did not use this as a model and allow Quebec to opt out with compensation. We know Quebec was acting in good faith and wanted to negotiate with the federal government. Why is the government imposing this type of legislation on Quebec? Why is the government imposing its way of doing things and interfering in provincial jurisdiction by transferring submerged lands to the federal government?

In order to encourage local involvement, the legislation passed by the Quebec and federal governments under the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park mirror legislation confirms the creation of a co-ordinating committee whose composition will be determined by the federal and provincial ministers. It therefore cannot be said that Quebec is acting in bad faith.

The committee's mandate was to recommend to the ministers responsible measures for attaining the management plan's objectives. This plan was to be reviewed jointly by both governments at least every seven years. All the provisions were there. Why set a precedent? Keeping a friend sometimes means making a few concessions.

Any exploration, utilization or development of resources for mining or energy protection purposes, including the building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park boundaries. This agreement contains provisions for protecting ecosystems. It is all there. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is saying that it will protect the environment. We believe in this. Our environment critic often gives the government ways of looking at the environment protection issue.

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. Rather than demonstrating open-mindedness and co-operation, the federal government is still taking an arrogant, aggressive, invasive approach that overlaps other jurisdictions and that is hardly calculated to encourage us to work with them another time.

Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan could have served as another model. Let us look at what actually happened.

On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Quebec and of Canada announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan. This is another example.

In conclusion, we will be voting against the bill mainly because it interferes in the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec and of other provinces when they are concerned, and because Quebec cannot operate under such a system. I do not think that the government has got it yet.

Given the goals of the Canadian government, we have been quite open concerning the management of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. We regret that the government did not draw any lesson from this.

The federal government should not go against the will of the Quebec government to create marine conservation areas. We advocate partnerships in this area.

We have more reasons to oppose the bill. It provides for a new structure under Heritage Canada that will duplicate what is being done in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment, and also what is being done in Quebec.

Things are getting confused. Heritage Canada is getting involved with marine conservation areas when it is not even doing its own work properly with the national parks. We have mentioned the shortcomings in the management of national parks.

We wonder how this department could do this work properly when it is not capable of protecting ecosystems on the ground, in the national parks.

We are very disappointed with the lack of openness of the government concerning Bill C-10. It would have been nice if for once the government had agreed with Quebec and supported its way of doing things. We did our homework as far as co-operation and partnership is concerned.

This is far from over. There is still strong support in Quebec for sovereignty and sovereignty means respect for the Quebec way of doing things.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, at third reading debate on behalf of my riding of Skeena and my party.

I have much to say about this very ominous bill. My comments reflect not only my observations about the bill but those of the witnesses that came before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage both last month and in late May of this year. My comments will echo the concerns outlined by numerous municipal and chamber of commerce representatives who wrote to the committee but were not afforded the opportunity to present their concerns as witnesses.

It was the government's wish to get the bill out of committee and through the parliamentary process as quickly as possible thereby eliminating debate and discussion. I will endeavour to explain why the government might have wanted to rush the bill through. I hope that the Senate and its committee will take more time to review the bill and consult widely with coastal Canadians before they decide the its fate.

I suggest that members in the other place take the time to travel with their committee to those coastal communities. That suggestion was made numerous times in the House of Commons heritage committee by the communities themselves but it was ignored.

I will speak to the lack of consultation on Bill C-10 by the heritage department and the lack of understanding of the effects of the bill on coastal communities. I am surprised Liberal members representing coastal communities and ridings are not as offended by the legislation as I am. They should take a long look at the impact the bill could have on the economies of their ridings and stand with me in opposition to the bill.

It is worth noting that many times during the clause by clause review of the bill in committee the opposition and a Liberal member or two were united in opposition to a clause or supported an amendment I was making. Unfortunately when it came time to vote the parliamentary secretary called the shots and all the good Liberals fell in line.

They gave the appearance of listening to the arguments of the opposition on issues like guaranteed consultation, jurisdictional concerns and provincial or coastal community vetoes. The record will show that in the end they voted against amendments which would have made the bill far more palatable to coastal communities. Government members were not interested in making Bill C-10 palatable. They were simply tired of the bill dying on the order paper.

Commitments were made that the bill would go through. The government believed that come hell or high water Bill C-10 would see the light of day in this parliament. It is my hope that it will not without serious amendment, and I will speak to that in the body of my speech.

I take exception to claims by government members that we on this side of the House do not care about the environment or parks so why we even consider supporting the bill. This is a totally false assumption on their part.

The Canadian Alliance has a good track record of concern for the environment. We do not, as opposed to the Liberal record, pander to one group over another. We seek a balance in legislation that speaks to the concerns of environmentalists and addresses the realities of industrial and socioeconomic problems.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist. Environmental groups in downtown Vancouver and Toronto may not subscribe to my definition of an environmentalist but that does not make their way any better than mine. I will explain.

I have lived in northern B.C. all my life. When one lives in northwestern B.C., surrounded by coastal mountains, the Pacific Ocean, the Grand Skeena and Nass rivers and blue glaciers, one cannot but have a healthy respect for mother nature in all its glory. Anyone I know that lives in the north respects the environment, not only for its beauty but for what it has given the communities that exist as a result of its riches.

Most northern communities in my riding of Skeena were founded on industries that harvested the renewable or non-renewable resources of nature. Thriving communities erupted as a result of a need for workers because industries took the risk and situated themselves in northern B.C., and the cycle continued.

It is because of one sided legislation like Bill C-10 and poor provincial management by the previous provincial NDP government of B.C. that natural resource industries fled northern B.C. As a result many people in those northern resource based communities had to pack up and leave as well. They had to go where the work was. Unfortunately that has been a reality of much of northern B.C.

I consider myself an environmentalist, not only because of where I am from and my respect for the environment, but because I hunt, fish and camp in that environment. It is in my best interest that I treat it with respect and ensure its strength for future generations to come.

I am not opposed to the creation of marine conservation areas. I am opposed to legislation such as Bill C-10. It was introduced and passed by the federal Liberal government without concern for the effect that it would have on coastal communities and without any real consultation with the people and industries that the bill would seriously affect.

How could bureaucrats in Ottawa really understand what a piece of legislation like Bill C-10 would do to the economies of coastal communities? The reality is that they cannot because Ottawa is too far removed from the issue of life on the coast.

The official opposition would likely have been in favour of the bill had the government taken the time to travel to B.C., Atlantic Canada and northern Canada. It should talked to coastal communities about Bill C-10 before it introduced the bill as opposed to drafting it with only the environmental lobby on hand. We are opposed to the bill because of the Liberal government practice of secrecy at all costs and input at a minimum.

We should not for a second believe what the government says about the environmental record and concerns of the Canadian Alliance. It is just not correct. We are strong on the environment but also strong on balance, and the bill is not balanced.

We have major concerns over the lack of consultation. I will give members of the House some background on the lack of consultation on Bill C-10 prior to it coming back to the House at third reading.

The parliamentary secretary and members of the government will say that in its previous incarnations as Bill C-48 in the first session of the 36th parliament and as Bill C-8 in the second session of the same parliament the subject matter was consulted on widely. Let me clarify that claim by explaining that the government circulated Bill C-48, the predecessor to Bill C-10, to about 700 stakeholders across Canada.

Only a few were ever heard in committee, some of whom came from my riding of Skeena. Many expressed their concerns over the bill's obvious duplication of efforts with the recently created Oceans Act by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We are told that departmental officials listened to the concerns of those stakeholders and amended the bill accordingly, reflecting their concerns in the new Bill C-10. Not only do I disagree with this claim, because Bill C-10 does not reflect the changes the witnesses asked for, but I find it disturbing that the supposed new and improved bill was never sent back to the original 700 stakeholders to see if the changes met with their approval.

If the government amended a piece of legislation based on comments from the stakeholders from which it had requested comments, it would seem logical that it would take the time to show off how well it listened and acted on their concerns. In this case it did not.

The point could be made by the government that it did not see the point in mailing the new and supposedly improved bill to the 700 stakeholders because it was not new or improved. If the government had done a proper consultation on Bill C-10, it would have found out early on, like its predecessors, that it too was not satisfactory to the identified stakeholders.

I guess the minister did not feel it necessary to tip off opponents to the bill that nothing had changed. She was prepared to push through unwanted, inaccurate legislation that as currently written would have an adverse effect on the economies of most coastal communities in northern British Columbia, particularly in my riding of Skeena.

Many of my constituents and I believe the committee consultation process was equally disappointing. The consultation process prior to the drafting and introduction of Bill C-10 was a farce. I will elaborate.

Bill C-10 was introduced in the House in February and sent to committee shortly thereafter. Initially the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage had every intention to do precious little in the way of consultation and planned to send the bill back to the House for report stage and third reading prior to the House rising for the summer recess. This did not happen as planned and I will explain why.

As a member of parliament representing a coastal riding, representatives of coastal municipalities and various chambers of commerce came to me asking for an opportunity to be heard by the committee dealing with Bill C-10. I immediately expressed this concern to the committee, which had at that point in early May decided to limit the number of witnesses and close off debate. I had to fight hard with the committee members to allow my witnesses to be heard. They used every trick in the book and blamed me, if members can imagine, for my constituents not being heard.

Because I pointed out rather publicly that the committee had only heard from witnesses representing either environmental groups, industries or communities from eastern Canada and had ignored the west coast, the committee reluctantly agreed to re-open the witness list.

Throughout the summer months the concern over certain aspects of Bill C-10 grew in my riding, and in fact all over coastal B.C., to the point where my list of witnesses expanded from a mere 3 or 4 to a full 25 to 30. These were not industry representatives. They were mayors, councillors, presidents of chambers of commerce, small business owners, fishermen and even people currently living close to a marine park on the Queen Charlotte Islands. They all had their areas of concern and all wanted their opportunity to speak to the committee.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my surprise when I presented this enthusiastic list of concerned coastal Canadians to the committee and received a less than enthusiastic reply. It was obvious the committee was not pleased with what had transpired over the summer.

I will not single out any particular member of the committee as they know who they are, but I was faced with the committee saying that it could not hear from all my witnesses because it would just take too long. The committee also said that if it heard from all the witnesses from my province then it would have to hear witnesses from other provinces and that there simply was no time.

I think there was a lot of time. If we are going to create a proper bill we should listen to witnesses from all over. If we take the time to do it right there will be a whole lot less opposition to the bill. The committee said that the bill had to be back in the House right away.

Mr. Speaker, I am paraphrasing but I hope you get the picture I am painting about the reluctance of the committee to hear from my witnesses. In the end I was told to negotiate with the clerk of the committee to get my witnesses on the list.

I understand that the committee did decide, reluctantly I believe, to set up video conferencing facilities in my riding and in Vancouver in order to hear from some of these witnesses. It was not enough to open the witness list to witnesses expressing concern for areas of the bill. The government would not be outdone. It filled the witness list with more environmental groups or representatives supporting the bill in order to more than even things off.

In the end the committee heard from more environmental groups supporting the bill than representatives of coastal or affected communities expressing concerns or reservations about certain aspects of Bill C-10.

I have to say that I am particularly disappointed that of my 25 to 30 prepared witnesses I was in the end allowed representation from 12 but only 4 of those were allowed to come to Ottawa. However I will say that those 12 witnesses were very representative of areas in B.C. I had, for instance, the mayor of Prince Rupert, Don Scott; the mayor of Kitimat, Richard Wozney; the mayor of Port Clements, Joan Ann Allen; the mayor of the village of Telkwa, Sharon Hartwell; the chair of the regional district of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Joanne Monaghan; the regional district of Skeena-Queen Charlottes represented by Paddy Greene; the village of Smithers mayor, Brian Northup represented by Cress Farrow; industries like the B.C. Fishermen's Survival Coalition president, Phil Isaac; and the B.C. Seafood Alliance president, Michelle James. Representatives from the north coast oil and gas task force, Dave McGuigan and Reg Stowell were also present, as was a representative from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce who spoke on behalf of both the B.C. chamber and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, noting that both had concerns about the potential economic effect the bill would have on communities.

I know I am going into a lot of detail about the process of the bill at committee, Mr. Speaker, but to understand just how much distrust there is out there, particularly in my home province of B.C., over the bill and its supposed guarantees of consultation, you need to know how little consultation there actually was and how hard it was to achieve the little leeway I was given for witnesses by the government.

Mr. Speaker, you need to understand that there were a number of letters received by the committee, phone calls to my office, faxes from concerned communities and even a unanimously passed resolution by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. By the way, it is nearly unheard of for UBCM to pass a resolution on the need for further consultation on federal legislation, and to pass it unanimously is an even greater feat. Even with that kind of pressure to slow the process down of approving Bill C-10, and with that strong suggestion from a group of elected officials representing a province with over three million residents, the committee chose to limit debate and discussion and, most of all, testimony from concerned witnesses to a mere 12.

I would suggest that it is no wonder British Columbians take no solace in the federal Liberal government's promise of full consultation with not only the provincial government prior to the creation of an MCA, but there is also no trust in its claim that an MCA will not go ahead if the local affected community is not in favour of it.

I would also argue that the government of British Columbia wanted more time to study the bill. To that end, I believe the B.C. minister of energy himself asked the federal government to delay passage of Bill C-10 until B.C. could complete its study on the potential for offshore oil and gas development in coastal B.C. This was a study planned to be completed by the end of January 2002 and the federal government could not wait a mere three months to appease the province with the largest coastline in Canada.

That is shameful and again exemplifies why coastal communities are simply afraid the federal government will come in with proclamations that it is there to help and charge in with directives and decisions without any concern for the needs and realities of those coastal communities. They believe, and with good reason, that the feds will force MCAs on coastal communities and the reality is that there is nothing in the bill that will prevent it from doing just that.

That brings me to the discussion on the amendments the official opposition tried to suggest in the committee's clause by clause review of the bill and were denied.

First I must say that we certainly did our homework. The official opposition listened to witnesses, read the submitted briefs and reacted. We came to committee prepared with a list of 30 amendments which, in our opinion, would have made the bill more palatable to both the province and, most important, to those affected coastal communities. Disappointedly, the Liberal government dominated committee and voted down all but one of my amendments.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give you a brief synopsis of some of those defeated amendments, what they would have meant to the bill and how they could have been viewed as positive changes by the many concerned coastal communities.

On 10 separate occasions, in clauses 2, 5, 6 and 7, I tried my very best to include amendments that would have guaranteed the provinces a veto over the creation of any marine conservation areas created by the legislation and, as such, by the federal government, on either provincial land or areas where the jurisdiction of the land was under dispute by either the federal or provincial governments.

These were simple amendments that would have allayed any fears of either the province of B.C. or its residents of a unilateral federal government directive to institute an MCA in an area where, quite frankly, either the province did not see the need for one or because the provincial government of B.C. believes in consultation, that the coastal communities obviously did not want one.

In many cases the entire opposition parties were in agreement to these amendments. The Bloc member on numerous occasions expressed her concern about the legislation which once again trounces on provincial rights assured in the constitution. The PC/DR coalition member echoed these concerns as well and yet in the end, as per usual, the government members feigned interest but voted against the amendments.

At first I honestly thought it might be because they realized how good these amendments were and how needed they were to secure the support of coastal B.C. and, believe it or not, I thought the government might actually vote against these amendments in committee to save face and then introduce similar amendments at report stage to make it look like these were its ideas. We all know the government does that all the time with Alliance amendments. However, in this case, unfortunately, it did not.

This speaks to the horrible track record the Liberal government has when it comes to listening to the concerns of Canadians and then acting on them. As I mentioned earlier, it listens and feigns interest but rarely, if ever, does anything unless forced.

Here is an example of the wording of one of these amendments and the rationale I expressed as to why the bill needed to be amended. The amendment, known in committee evidence as CA amendment No. 3, dealt with clause 2. Specifically, we were trying to create a new clause 2, subclause (2) which would have read as follows:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the existing rights of a province over public lands, including submerged lands, which fall within its provincial boundaries. As such, no marine conservation area shall be created without the specific approval of the affected province.

My rationale for such a simple amendment was simply that many of the witnesses on both sides of the issue expressed concern over not having an explicit provincial veto over MCAs in their province. Although clause 5, subclause (2) explains that the land needs to be the unencumbered right of Canada, it does not specifically address the requirement of the province to agree with the creation of the MCA.

Further to that, I explained that the purpose of adding the new clause in that section of the bill was specifically to mirror the reassurances the drafters of the bill felt necessary to include for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We simply felt that if it was important for the sense of clarity that protection of rights given to aboriginal peoples in the constitution be included that it too was appropriate for the bill to include the rights of provinces to a veto as well.

It was not my intention to delete the current clause 2, subclause (2) dealing with the aboriginal veto to the creation of MCAs, but to move it to a new clause 2, subclause (3), thereby coming after the provincial veto in the bill. Although in my opinion this was, on the surface, a simple and practical amendment, the government decided to oppose it in committee and take another more negative approach to reassuring provincial rights in the bill. Allow me to explain.

The federal Liberal government members on the committee instead supported an amendment to clause 5 which put the onus of fighting the creation of an unwanted MCA on the backs of the affected province. The following is the government's amendment creating a new clause 5, subclause (3). It reads:

If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that Her Majesty in right of Canada does not have clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in lands within a marine conservation area, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule 1 by removing the name and description of the area or by altering the description of the area.

Further to my comments earlier about how this is the wrong way of going about creating MCAs, meaning that if they are created in an area that the province believes the ownership of that area is disputed and the federal government goes ahead regardless of that claim and creates an MCA, as mentioned, the onus is on the province to challenge the ownership of the federal government to that land. Not only could this process take years and end up costing taxpayers a hefty sum, but in the end a new clause is drafted such that even if the province wins the dispute and requests that the MCA be removed, the clause does not require the governor in council to amend it.

Instead it clearly states “The Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule 1”. That clearly is a may and not a shall, meaning that even if the province is successful in the courts, the federal government, through the governor in council, can choose to ignore the results of that court case.

For the record let me state that my amendment was not only much clearer and far simpler but was in the end opposed by the government. I hope the members in the House today and the senators, who hopefully will read this testimony, understand the picture I am painting. There is nothing in the bill explicitly stopping the federal government from imposing a marine conservation area on any province, whether it wants one or agrees to cede its rights to the land or not. This is a blatant abuse of power and is exactly why the federal Liberal government has such a poor relationship with the provinces of this great country.

That brings me to my amendment dealing with the environment and with resource uses within the MCAs. I brought forward, on eight separate occasions, amendments that would have made the legislation more balanced. As it is currently drafted, it is, in my opinion, far too heavily weighted on the environmental side of things and does not take into account the realities of life in coastal communities as well as the realities faced by industries that make their livings from harvesting the resources of the seas.

These amendments were not unrealistic and certainly were representative of the sentiments expressed by the witnesses who testified in committee and in written submissions sent by those who did not speak directly to the committee. Among those amendments, the most palatable to the committee should have been my amendment to clause 13. Clause 13 dealt with the prohibition of exploration and development of hydrocarbons within MCAs. The current clause 13 specifically outlines the prohibition of any exploration, development and exploitation of hydrocarbons, aggregates or inorganic matter from within an MCA. When I asked departmental officials to clarify whether this prohibition also outlawed directional drilling underneath an MCA, I was told that it did.

Therefore, again to allay any fears of coastal communities looking to the development of offshore oil and gas as a potential economic boom to their area, and because the passage of the bill would prohibit in perpetuity the development of that potential, I suggested the following amendment: “That clause 13 be amended to include an exception to the listed prohibitions”.

That exemption was to be a new clause 13.1 and was to read as follows:

The minister may permit the use of directional drilling equipment, in the case of sub-seabed drilling for hydrocarbons, from a point outside a marine conservation area, to a point below the seabed, within the marine conservation area, where the practices are determined by the minister to not pose any serious threat to the existing ecosystem of that marine conservation area.

To explain further, the amendment put the onus on the oil and gas industry to prove to the minister's satisfaction that directional drilling techniques are safe and pose no serious threat to the environment. I really thought this would be a win-win for both the government, or might I say the minister, and for the industry. In my opinion this was not slanted in favour of industry but, if anything, it did not close the door fully to oil and gas exploration but did not leave it wide open either.

However, as with the other amendments, the government summarily dismissed it and steadfastly voted against it in committee. That is why I had to move my report stage Motion No. 6 to delete clause 13. I felt that if we could strike a deal on setting guidelines for offshore oil and gas that the government should remove that clause and not specifically mention it so as to keep the door open a crack, just a little bit, for future consideration.

We can see the pattern. The government cracked the whip and its members one by one stood in their places and opposed this report stage amendment as well.

I could go on at length about the concerns I still have with the bill and about the abuse of power by the government throughout the entire consultation process on the bill but I do not have much time left.

I close by saying that this has been my first attempt at what is called shadowing a government bill. Many members may know that this is my first term in parliament and I am certainly new at it.

For a place which supposedly prides itself on its standards of democracy, on representing the wishes of those who elected its members and on working toward modernizing parliament to make it more effective, I can truly say that based on the experience I have had in dealing with the bill since early this year, this place and its committees are neither democratic nor representative.

I know the federal Liberal government has the seats and therefore the votes to pass the bill without a problem. However I stand here to strongly urge those MPs with coastal communities or MPs concerned about giving too much power to the federal government and the erosion of rights given to the provinces in the constitution, to stand strong with me and my party to oppose this badly flawed legislation. Oppose the bill. Send it back to the drafters for some severe editing.

If the government wants to create marine conservation areas, which I believe is a worthy endeavour, let us ensure it is done the right way the first time. I urge members to oppose Bill C-10 at the third reading vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the purpose of reconsidering clause 10 with the view to ensure that the affected provinces are given explicit veto powers over the creation of marine conservation areas.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, what a great pleasure to speak on behalf of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. In so doing I would like to bring the international perspective into the debate as well as make the House aware of one of the unique aspects of this program; the importance given to education and interpretation.

The creation of national marine conservation areas responds directly to several international initiatives. For example, establishment of protected areas is an important strategic direction in the Canadian biodiversity strategy that was endorsed by federal and provincial governments to guide implementation of the United Nations convention on biological diversity.

Both a 1994 resolution of the World Conservation Union and a joint action plan issued by the World Conservation Union, the World Wildlife Fund and the United Nations environment program called on coastal communities to establish representative systems of marine protected areas under national legislation.

As the House has previously heard, we are indeed making progress in establishing national marine conservation areas. Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park in Quebec was established in 1998 under separate legislation. Federal-provincial establishment agreements are already in place for Fathom Five in Ontario and Gwaii Haanas in British Columbia. A feasibility study is nearing completion for a proposed national marine conservation area in Lake Superior.

Nevertheless, we are lagging behind a number of other coastal nations which have also recognized the importance of their marine environment and the need to protect it.

The United States has so far designated 13 national marine sanctuaries. New Zealand has created 16 marine reserves. In addition to the Great Barrier Reef, which is the world's largest marine protected area at over 350,000 square kilometres, Australia's state and federal agencies have designated over 30 other marine protected areas. Member states of the European Community have also established a significant number of marine protected areas.

These countries protect a diversity of habitat and species, from coral reefs to boulder reefs to kelp forests, from endangered right whales to sea otters to multicoloured tropical fish. Canada's national marine conservation areas play a similar role in protecting and conserving a diversity of marine environments, habitats and species.

What have we learned from these initiatives? Marine protected areas contribute to the maintenance or restoration of both biological diversity and abundance.

It is not feasible in today's environment to divorce resource use from conservation. Marine natural resources and their habitats are all sought by many different users for many different purposes. Marine protected areas should be designed to serve both sustainable use and environmental protection objectives, and all stakeholders must work together in planning and management.

Local people must be closely involved from the beginning, if a marine conservation area is to succeed. Socioeconomic considerations usually determine the success or failure of an area. These considerations, in addition to biophysical factors, must be addressed when identifying sites and in selecting and managing them.

Canada's Bill C-10 and national marine conservation areas policy, both reflect and build on international experience.

In addition to environmental and socio-economic considerations, let us not forget the importance of education in building support for protecting the marine environment.

Canada has responsibility for over 5.5 million square kilometres of ocean, equivalent to the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia combined or about 55% of Canada's land mass. How many Canadians realize this?

How many Canadians know that we have the world's longest coastline, 243,792 kilometres to be exact, stretching along not one, not two, but three major oceans?

How many Canadians know that we have the second largest continental shelf and some of the world's richest fishing grounds or that the Great Lakes are the world's largest freshwater system, containing almost one-fifth of the planet's supply of fresh water?

How many Canadians know that we have colourful and diverse undersea communities which rival those of the tropics?

How many Canadians know that 22 species of whales and dolphins and six species of seals pass through our Atlantic waters every year and that their numbers in fact far outstrip the human population of the east coast?

How many Canadians recognize that we are truly a maritime nation and that much of our pre- and post-colonial history is ties to these waters?

Everything we do on land impacts on the oceans and comes back to haunt us sooner or later. There is growing concern about the health of our oceans and inland seas and that our efforts to protect and conserve marine environments are out of step with our dependence on them. Canadians need to be reminded that it is our duty to conserve the rich marine natural heritage with which we have been entrusted, not just for our own benefit but for the world's as well.

National marine conservation areas will help to overcome this lack of knowledge. They will serve as focal points for education and interpretation which are essential parts of the program and mandate of Parks Canada. Our marine environments will not be adequately protected unless the public understands the importance of conservation and actively participates in this endeavour.

We are engaged in a great undertaking to move forward with the establishment of a Canadian system of national marine conservation areas. Canada is well positioned to make a meaningful contribution to a global effort to establish a representative system of marine protected areas.

We have more to gain from a comprehensive system of marine protected areas than most countries, given our massive coastline and the world's second largest continental shelf. The creation of national marine conservation areas is a time consuming and complex undertaking. They cannot be established by the federal government alone. They require the support of provincial or territorial governments and, most important, the support of local communities. Baba Dioum, an African ecologist, stated:

For in the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.

Through this legislation national marine conservation areas can accomplish much to increase our understanding of our marine heritage, both natural and cultural, and in so doing conserve it for future generations.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker]

It being three o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-10. The question is on Motion No. 1.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to protect the environment, but is it necessary to do it by a duplication of jurisdictions and services?

We believe that the creation of marine conservation areas meets the objectives of numerous international forums, such as the World Conservation Strategy of 1980. However, such objectives, though they maybe commendable, should not lead to an overlap of our respective jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act, 1867 gives Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over the management and sale of public lands. Why redo what has already been done?

If the federal government intends to use environmental protection legislation to take over provincial lands, this is unacceptable. Instead, we must encourage co-operation between Quebec and the federal government. It is time that this government stopped using a steamroller and centralizing approach.

Quebec's legislation on public lands covers all lands, including the beds of rivers and lakes. Quebec has legislative jurisdiction over this area and it has already passed legislation. Why then have federal legislation that would deny the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and provinces? Is Quebec not as competent to meet conservation objectives?

Let us not forget that the management of the bed of the St. Lawrence River is a Quebec jurisdiction by sovereign right. The protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. In this respect, the Quebec government is establishing a framework for the protection of marine areas. It is also possible to protect habitats and fauna through co-operation.

The Bloc Quebecois showed demonstrated its co-operation by supporting the bill establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in 1997. Despite this successful co-operation, the federal government is stubbornly opposing a process that is working well. Why is the federal government once again refusing to respect Quebec and listen to reason?

I am concerned about the future of intergovernmental relations. How can we trust a legislative process that does not respect the public interest, and a government that does not respect its own departments? Let us not forget that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a marine area protection program, and I want to insist on the fact that this program is already in place.

This bill is another example of pernicious interference on the part of a centralizing federal government in Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions, and another example of the methods used by the federal government, which ignores other partnership experiences that were very successful. Why not follow a process that has worked very well and that would work very well once again? Will the federal government respect Quebec some day?

The outcome of such a bill is obvious: confusion, but above all a lack of respect. It could result in a duplication of tasks and jurisdictions, within a government that does not even see it. How can the federal government justify this useless duplication?

How will we find our way through all these terms to protect the environment? With this bill, the government wants to create marine conservation areas through heritage canada, when there are already marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife areas under Environment Canada. Again, how will we find our way through all this? Even the government seems completely lost and conveniently forgets that programs to protect habitats and fauna are already in place.

If we stop and think about it, there is no way to know who will take precedence in the event of conflict. Which of these departments will have the last word. Who is going to decide this? To decide is to disparage one department compared to another.

This overlap is a double-edged sword for the federal government. The government insists that the environment is a priority, but it is using this bill as an opportunity to promote national identity, thereby denying the true objectives of the bill. After all, Heritage Canada is not known for its environmental expertise.

A dangerous appropriation of resources emerges from all of this confusion, and it will quickly become insurmountable. Even officials from the various departments are lost. It is impossible to understand. We are not the only ones who will not understand it. It is easy to imagine how this overlap will create confusion among the major environmental stakeholders.

Who will really manage these protection areas? In the case of a conflict, which department will settle the matter? And which department will truly be able to penalize offenders. Just who will be able to make any sense of this quagmire of overlapping departmental policies? These are some of the many questions which remain unanswered.

If the risk of confusion within the same government is so great, one can only imagine the resulting confusion when you add in other levels of government and all of the stakeholders. It the departments within one government cannot get their act together, how are they going to interact with Quebec and the provincial governments?

It is plain to see why Quebec would refuse to co-operate on this project. First, there is a flagrant disrespect for areas of responsibility belonging to Quebec exclusively. Second, the federal government is incapable of providing the specific reasons as to why this is a Heritage Canada bill, when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a program in place.

First off, we oppose the bill, because the aim of the federal government with it is to appropriate lands under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces by legislating the creation of marine areas.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill because it ignores the distribution of exclusive jurisdictions set out in subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act, 1867.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill because it will not fail to produce endless administrative problems. It can truly be said at this point that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The stakes are too high to be taken lightly. The effects are serious and will, in some cases, be irreversible. Therefore respect for the division of exclusive jurisdictions is essential to preclude all ambiguity. Co-operation must be encouraged to avoid unnecessary and harmful duplication.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill, because Heritage Canada is trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own. It is unacceptable that Heritage Canada should attempt to have legislation passed to acquire land.

In short, the federal government, through Heritage Canada, is attempting to meddle in areas of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction under cover of the environment.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-10 because of the duplication of responsibilities among the various levels of government and departments within the same government.

I am disappointed by the roundabout way the federal government is trying to appropriate areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that does not respect Quebecers and fails to consider actions and programs already in place. Finally, the federal government has chosen to flatten its own departments by firing up its centralizing steamroller, ignoring partnerships that have proven themselves.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent the Canadian Alliance and my riding of Skeena in what is a very important debate. The bill will have a far-reaching impact on the entire coast of British Columbia, but in particular the northern coast which is in my riding.

I will begin with a short summary of the events surrounding Bill C-10 as I see them. We are speaking to my amendment to delete clause 13, an amendment which I believe will make the bill far more palatable to British Columbians and Atlantic Canadians as well.

The creation of this kind of legislation began with a policy initiative from Parks Canada in the 1980s which was to create a representative sampling of all marine regions in Canada and place them in the parks system to preserve their biodiversity in perpetuity for all the world to see and experience. A noble undertaking most would think; I believe it is a noble endeavour.

The problem is the same as with any noble endeavour this or any other government undertakes. If the communication with stakeholders prior, and I repeat for emphasis, prior to the creation and implementation of a bill such as Bill C-10 were done properly, the bill would have been drafted in a manner acceptable to the province with the largest coastline, British Columbia. However this was not the case and we now have a piece of legislation that quite frankly the Liberal government promised the environmental movement it would pass in this parliament, regardless of whether or not it was poorly drafted.

The poor drafting I am referring to deals with many clauses of the bill, from the preamble, to the creation of a marine conservation area or MCA, to the consultation regulations and more. However we are here to discuss clause 13, the very clause which gives most British Columbians great concern.

So there is no misunderstanding, allow me to read clause 13 to the House of Commons so all members and viewers in our ridings understand just how draconian the clause really is and why it should be deleted from the bill. Clause 13 on page 9 reads:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

My motion is very simple. It states:

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

What the clause means is that wherever the federal government decides to create a marine conservation area, for example off the coast of B.C., in that MCA as they are called, no one will ever be able to use the natural resources within or below that seabed.

Many in this parliament who represent ridings outside B.C. may not know that our coastline holds vast treasures, notwithstanding a deposit of hydrocarbons the size of which would dwarf the reserves in Hibernia off the coast of Newfoundland. It is the future of these very reserves which is at stake with this legislation. Should Bill C-10 pass with clause 13 intact, the future of B.C.'s offshore oil and gas industry is definitely threatened.

Some may wonder why it is that oil companies cannot use their sophisticated drilling equipment and drill under the MCA from a point outside the park. Why not? Directional drilling is used around the world with great results and a positive safety record. It is said that an oil rig can drill down and across a horizontal line thousands of metres. Figures as high as 10 kilometres are available. It would seem that to preserve the integrity of the MCA and provide a future income for B.C., this would or could have been done. However department officials tell us that as the bill is currently drafted this is impossible.

This brings me to explain how we tried to arrive at a compromise with the government on this clause. We understand its concern for having oil rigs within MCAs so we tried to amend the clause to read that directional drilling from a point outside an MCA to a point within an MCA be permitted. We even went so far as to place the onus of safety to the environment on the backs of the oil companies to prove their methods would pose no harm to the environment. They would even have to prove this to the minister of heritage herself and only she could give final approval for directional drilling if she deemed it to be safe. The government flatly refused.

I believe that the parliamentary secretary in committee said, and I am paraphrasing, that this is an area we cannot ever agree on or they are diametrically opposed to our view on this clause. Either way it was a flat out no. The government would not consider it.

The heritage committee heard from numerous witnesses who were experts in the field of offshore oil and gas development who pleaded with the committee to allow such an amendment. Those requests fell on deaf ears. The Canadian Alliance heard them and tried to fix the problem. However the government ignored the reality of the situation and as usual, did what was best for it in Ottawa and not what would have been in the best interests of those most affected by the decisions made by this bubble of a world called the Government of Canada in Ottawa.

We tried to explain to the committee that the clause as written would have a devastating effect on British Columbia in more ways than one.

Currently, the bill allows the federal government to place marine conservation areas on coastal waters it deems is the property of Her Majesty in right of Canada. Allow me to explain that the general rule is that coastal waters up to 10 nautical miles off the coast and between any land masses or islands are the exclusive right of the province and that anything beyond that 10 nautical mile line is the property of the federal government, up to our 200 nautical mile limit. This seems clear enough. However, a jurisdictional problem comes into play with British Columbia.

There is a space of water called the inside passage, an area where the U.S. has free passage to get to the state of Alaska. This area has always been grey. Also, the federal government measures B.C.'s coastal area to 10 nautical miles from the mainland. It does not start measuring from the far western side of Vancouver Island or the far western side of the Queen Charlotte Islands as does the province. That leaves a large space of water called the Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the Juan de Fuca Strait as disputed areas.

I believe jurisdiction has been solved for Juan de Fuca but it is still being disputed when it comes to the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.

Here is where the devil lies in the details: The heritage department plans to place at least five marine conservation areas in coastal B.C. since it says there are five representative regions of oceanic relevance in B.C. coastal waters. One of those areas is the Hecate Strait, another is the Queen Charlotte Sound. These areas are both within my riding of Skeena and are my specific concern. If these areas are slated for at least one MCA each and the jurisdiction of their waters is currently under dispute by the provincial government, how does this affect the creation of MCAs and the rules laid out in Bill C-10? This has been my question all along.

Members may be wondering when I am going to relate all of this back to clause 13. I plan to do so shortly.

The federal government does not consider these areas as under disputed jurisdiction; it believes them to be the government's, period.

Getting back to clause 13, if the federal government can unilaterally place an MCA in an area it believes is within its right to do so and that same area holds an untold amount of reserves of oil and gas, then clause 13 prevents in perpetuity that area from ever being harvested. Now members can see my concern with clause 13. This could potentially have a devastating effect on the already poor economy of coastal British Columbia.

Just look at what Hibernia has done for the economy of Newfoundland and those small coastal communities. Things are booming.

After years of NDP mismanagement of the province of B.C., we need those oil and gas reserves to put our province back on the map. If Bill C-10 goes through the House without clause 13 deleted, B.C. can kiss its future economic potential goodbye. It can send its thanks to the Liberal federal government and its ignorance of a people needing to be self-reliant.

I mentioned at the beginning that neither I nor my party is against marine conservation areas and I want to stress that. However, we want balance in the legislation as opposed to a one-sided view to the needs of the environment.

The second outcome of clause 13 may very well be that the provincial government may never allow or cede its rights to lands the federal government knows is a provincial jurisdiction to allow an MCA to be created if it cannot ever harvest the sub-seabed resources.

If the clause is left intact and should Bill C-10 be passed, it could cause B.C. to not have the MCA it wants because it cannot afford to give up those natural resources below the seabed of that MCA.

Where would that leave the environmentalists? They would have a defective piece of legislation which the federal Liberal government has said it will pass regardless and there would likely be MCAs on federal land only. Should those MCAs be on disputed lands, the federal government would be looking at constitutional challenges from the province, likely won by the province. Since clause 13 outlaws the development of those hydrocarbons in the MCA, the province would be forced to shut down that MCA in order to develop the oil and gas.

All this could be avoided if the government would just amend the bill by deleting clause 13.

I stress that this could have been much easier if the government, through the parliamentary secretary, had allowed our amendment for directional drilling.

I truly believe the federal government really does not understand the needs of British Columbians. Perhaps that is why it only has two elected representatives in B.C.

I urge all members to stop the trend of thinking by bureaucrats who do not have to live with the effects of their decisions and to support my amendment to delete clause 13 of the bill.

I remind all members representing coastal ridings that although I have not focused on Atlantic Canada, I am told there is also jurisdictional dispute over waters on their coast. They too could be held hostage by this clause some day. I urge the House to support the deletion of clause 13.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 9 the following new clause:

“13.1 (1) No person shall engage in finfish aquaculture within a marine conservation area.

(2) No person shall engage in fishing that involves the use of bottom trawling or dragging gear within a marine conservation area.

(3) No person shall construct or cause to be constructed oil or gas pipelines or power lines within a marine conservation area.

(4) No person shall use acoustic deterrence devices within a marine conservation area.”

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-10, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 9 the following:

“(c) no person shall dredge or deposit fill within a marine conservation area; and

(d) no person shall engage in blasting within a marine conservation area.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-10 in clause 7 be amended by replacing lines 38 to 41 on page 6 with the following:

(b) any agreements respecting the establishment of the area or reserve;

(c) the results of any assessments of mineral and energy resources undertaken; and

(d) an interim management plan that sets.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the history of our country is, in many regards, linked to exploration and development of marine resources on the Canadian coasts. Actually, our marine heritage is a reflection of our quality of life but it also reflects a good part of our literature, our songs and our art.

Parks Canada's national marine conservation areas program has several goals: to protect our marine environment, to conserve our marine heritage, to bring knowledge and pride to Canadians about this heritage, and to work with local communities to ensure that this very important legacy is passed on to future generations.

My comments today refer to Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. Bill C-10 provides a framework for creating a network of national marine conservation areas, a network that will link Canadians to their marine heritage and to one another. There will be models of ecologically sustainable use. As such, marine conservation areas will also show us the way to our future.

I will also take time to speak to some of the main issues raised before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The purpose of the marine conservation areas program in 1995 was a reflection of the government's sea to sea to sea plan, which was developed in collaboration with marine scientists. The plan divided the Great Lakes and the country's Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans environments into 29 different marine regions.

It is the government's long term goal to establish national marine conservation areas that are a representative sampling of each marine region. These representative areas will include not only important parts of Canada's natural heritage but will also protect important areas and artifacts of Canada's cultural heritage.

Parks Canada has long years of experience in establishing and managing our special heritage places. I am referring of course to Canadian national parks, to our national historic sites, the historic canals and heritage rivers. The addition of national marine conservation areas to Canada's family of special places fills a significant gap since Canada's oceans and Great Lakes have always played a defining role in the country's economy, its culture and its identity.

At present, four of Canada's 29 marine regions are represented within the national conservation system. In 1987 the governments of Canada and Ontario signed a federal-provincial agreement to establish Canada's first marine conservation area, Fathom Five. It is representative of the Georgian Bay marine region in the Great Lakes which historically is known as the Cape Hurd islands area. These treacherous waters have claimed many ships. Now Fathom Five is preserving part of Canada's marine history. The wrecks of 21 known sail and steam vessels from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century lie within the boundaries of Fathom Five.

A 1988 agreement with the Government of British Columbia called for the establishment of Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area reserve. Located at the southern end of the Queen Charlotte Islands, which is also known by its original name Haida Gwaii, it will represent both the Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte shelf marine regions.

More than one million sea birds nest along the coast with even more migratory birds passing through in the spring and the fall. Marine species range from abalone to grey whales, and their presence has enriched significantly the cultural heritage of the Haida.

In March 1997 four major oil companies agreed to transfer their offshore petroleum rights in the Gwaii Haanas marine area to the nature conservancy of Canada, which in turn surrendered them to the federal government. This process is an important step toward the designation of the site as a national marine conservation area reserve.

More recently the Government of British Columbia transferred its rights to the seabed within the boundaries of Gwaii Haanas to the federal government. However, before the area can be established, an interim management plan must be developed, including extensive local public consultations and negotiations with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Haida.

The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park represents the St. Lawrence estuary marine region.

In large part, this park was created in response to public demand by the local population for the preservation of beluga whales that live in the magnificent marine area known as the Saguenay fjord.

The marine park in the Saguenay was created in 1988, as a joint initiative of the federal and provincial governments, by concurrent pieces of legislation, which opened the way to co-operative management by the federal government and the province of Quebec.

Canadians can now visit each of these special places and see for themselves what a rich and varied marine heritage we are all privileged to share. We must also be able to bring heritage to Canadians where they live, in schools, in discovery centres and via the Internet.

Work is also ongoing on a feasibility study for a national marine conservation area in Lake Superior in Ontario.

Finally, a federal-provincial memorandum of understanding is in place to assess the feasibility of a national marine conservation area in the southern Strait of Georgia in British Columbia.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage worked extremely hard during this review of the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members who took part in the study. I also thank, very warmly, all members of all political parties who really played a very important part in reaching this stage of the bill.

We have made a big step forward in Bill C-10. I would like to endorse the bill and hope that its acceptance as a statute will come soon. It what is best for all Canadians. It is a statute of great importance for marine conservation areas in Canada.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me speak on some of the benefits that would come to Canadians, from all the different parts of the country, with the establishment of a national marine conservation areas act.

It would provide increased protection for outstanding examples of Canada's Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, as well as the Great Lakes. It would provide an opportunity to increase public awareness and understanding of Canada's rich natural and cultural marine heritage. It would provide an opportunity to promote and publicize Canada as a worldclass ecotourism destination. It would provide an opportunity to diversify the economies of remote coastal communities. It would provide better planning with respect to ecologically sustained use of marine resources. As well, it would provide a focus and support for long term scientific research and monitoring related to the marine environment.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois raised the issue of provincial jurisdiction by saying that problems will arise concerning the management of these issues.

I would say, particularly to the hon. member, that this legislation does not affect in any way the existing relationship between the provinces and the federal government. For example, if a province owns all or part of the submerged lands in a sector where Parks Canada proposes to create a marine conservation area, a federal-provincial agreement will have to be concluded in order to transfer the ownership of the submerged lands to the federal government. Without such an agreement, the marine area cannot be created.

This is how the issue will be managed.

In marine areas where there was a contested federal as well as provincial jurisdiction, there would always be consultation with the province concerned with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory resolution. The federal government does not intend in any way, shape or form to act unilaterally.

Moreover, that way, we can always solve the difficulties which could arise, one way or another.

Another issue was raised, this one about the native peoples. As regards existing aboriginal or treaty rights, several stakeholders recommended that a non-derogation provision be included in the bill. These rights being constitutionally protected, the government has the obligation to respect them, regardless of any law. Nonetheless, for greater certainty, such a provision has been included in this bill.

When the committee heard from witnesses, concerns were expressed that the bill limited the circumstances under which reserves could be created. As a result, the bill was amended to broaden its scope making it clear that reserves could be established in the maritimes, or British Columbia for example, where there are settlement processes for claims to aboriginal rights other than the comprehensive land claim process.

The witnesses also expressed concern with the fact that the bill requires an act of parliament to remove lands from a national marine conservation area yet there could be situations, such as court decisions pertaining to the title, that should be resolved in a more expedient manner.

As a result, the bill was amended to allow the governor in council to remove land from a marine conservation area by order in council if a court, for example, found that aboriginal titles existed and the title holder did not want the land to remain as part of the marine conservation area. Here again we have seen that the committee has responded to the wishes of witnesses in that particular area of concern.

There is another notion, which is the establishment of a marine conservation area. It has always been the government's intention that those national parks and national marine conservation areas would be established in the same manner. As such, Bill C-10 was amended to reflect changes made in the recently proclaimed National Parks Act and all changes affecting the establishment procedures adopted in this bill will also be reflected in that act.

With regard to management planning, the bill states that the management plan would be prepared within five years of the area being established. While the bill was in committee, it was suggested that five years was too long to wait. Coastal communities need greater certainty before an area is established. The bill was amended so that when a new proposal comes before parliament, along with the report on the objectives and management of the area, the report will also include an interim management plan. In addition, the report will outline the consultation held on any agreement reached with provinces and other departments.

A management advisory committee will be created for each marine conservation area to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders continues on an ongoing basis.

The management plans for each area must be reviewed at least every five years. Thus the government will take a learn by doing approach for every area.

In each marine conservation area, ongoing consultations will make it possible for Parks Canada staff to take advantage of the knowledge of local residents and the traditional ecological know-how of the coastal and aboriginal communities.

The question of zoning was also raised. I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of zoning as a powerful and flexible tool for managing use within a marine area. In each marine conservation area there would be multiple use zones where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged, including fishing. There will also be zones where special protection is afforded to, for example, critical spawning grounds, cultural sites, whale calving areas and scientific research sites. These would be protected zones where resource use would not be permitted.

The bill was amended to clarify that all marine conservation areas would contain at least two types of zones. At the same time, enough flexibility is left in the bill to ensure that each area can have a zoning plan that is appropriate to its individual situation.

I can assure hon. members that the regulatory authorities already in place in this bill, particularly those relating to zoning, can be used to manage activities such as bottom trawling, on a case by case basis, in locations where the seabed is vulnerable.

Parks Canada will identify the location of protection zones and surrounding multiple use zones for each proposed national marine conservation area during the feasibility study for that area in full consultation with those directly affected.

Finally, on the consultation question, it should be noted that the consultation provision of the bill has been strengthened considerably. The proposed legislation now requires the minister to consult with stakeholders, which includes relevant provincial and federal agencies and ministries, affected coastal communities, aboriginal governments and organizations, bodies established under land claim agreements, and other persons and bodies as appropriate.

The list of matters on which ministers are required to consult has also been expanded to include the development of regulations as well as consultation on the establishment of any proposed national marine conservation.

In the course of the committee hearings, the committee spoke to witnesses who approached the bill from a very different perspective. Some clearly stated that the bill was too restrictive and unnecessarily focused on environmental protections. At the same time, others saw the bill as too weak and asked the committee to consider further blanket restrictions and prohibitions.

The committee was sensitive to the concerns of all parties. The amendments that have been made show the serious approach the government has taken to those concerns and how it has made an effort to make the required changes when possible and appropriate.

On the whole, I believe the government has taken a balanced approach to the bill. It is my hope that the House of Commons approves it.

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

Oh yes, after Lévis. I am not so sure, but anyway.

So, these people took charge and called the attention of the two levels of government to their priorities. Together, they came to an agreement.

As we know the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park covers a very large area of several square kilometres. These people set up a co-ordination committee. They said “Since these jurisdictions could be shared between the two levels of government, we will call to task each government regarding their respective responsibilities”.

On April 1, 1990, after all these negotiations, the governments of Canada and Quebec signed the agreement establishing the 29th marine park.

Bill C-10 is about creating 28 marine conservation areas. But both groups of amendments before us tell the provinces “We are going to make the decisions. We are going to set a framework in place”. We are fed up with frameworks. I think we have quite enough of them in Canada.

I do not think any government member has read this agreement, or maybe a few did. I would have liked them to read it and then say “We are going to start from this, and, wherever we want to create a marine conservation area in Canada, we will use identical legislation and we will build on this instead of reinventing the wheel”.

With this bill, we are reinventing the wheel. I think there are more important issues we should be debating. On November 6, 2001, instead of discussing existing legal entities, we should start from there, and respect provincial jurisdictions.

That framework legislation was respectful of entities recognized in the Canadian constitution. It recognized the fact that the sea floor is under provincial jurisdiction. In that context, the Canadian government and the Quebec government could take action in their respective jurisdictions without interfering with one another.

Quebec contributed $11 million plus another $5 million, while Canada put up $9 million. In Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean, phase two has begun. It is working and we are moving forward.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Quebec for her speech. I applaud her. She pursues this issue with a lot of determination. We cannot allow this government to interfere again in provincial jurisdictions, whether in Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, the western provinces or British Columbia. Enough is enough. I think that it is time we talked about consultation. With this bill, the Canadian government is not talking about consultation.

They want a new structure. We would need money for all that. The profile of a marine park is very important. It defines the beauty of the area within the park. We should also take into account the priorities of the local population. This is not what this bill is doing; it is creating a top down structure.

The government does not know which bill to present. It does not have a legislative agenda. It brings old things back instead of taking what is on the table and starting from there.

Through our critic, the member for Québec, the Bloc Quebecois will once again be saying that we do not agree. We said that we did not agree with Bill C-48. And we will be saying that we do not agree with Bill C-10.

The Liberal member said that feasibility studies were going to be done. These have been done. We have a basic document. Why not build from there?

Submerged lands belong to the provinces. The framework agreement for the 25th marine park recognized this. Why must we keep fighting to have this government respect the constitution? They said submerged lands belonged to the provinces, they put it in writing and they signed. Why, this morning, must we debate a done deal?

The government thinks that the opposition parties do not realize we have already been down this path. Perhaps the Liberals have nothing to say so they are keeping us awake? All they want to do is interfere in provincial jurisdiction. What is going on here in the House right now is serious. Bill C-10 should never have seen the light of day. It should have stayed where it was.

During the 36th parliament, when this bill died on the order paper, I thought that the government would do some thinking, that officials would read the agreement already signed, that they would have done their homework. I see that the government is a real tower of Babel. No one knows what they are supposed to do. Everyone wants to grab a little bit of power which is not theirs by law.

Enough. I think that this bill should die on the order paper. The Bloc Quebecois will not give its approval to a bill which, once again, creates overlapping jurisdictions. This bill will allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to create another structure and interfere in the work of other departments. The Department of the Environment and fisheries and oceans will be involved. Several departments are parties to these marine park agreements. The minister is giving herself the power to tell them what to do.

Imagine the confusion this bill will create within the Canadian government. We must see that public money goes elsewhere than into bills that are obsolete and unnecessary.

As the hon. member for Québec said, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. And I hope that the majority of members in the House will do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10 this morning.

I would have thought that the Liberal government, which sponsored Bill C-48 when I was the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment, a bill similar to the legislation now before us, would have listened to opposition parties and heard what we said during the previous parliament.

Bill C-10 will result in duplication, and the federal government will take over jurisdictions that do not belong to it under the Constitution Act of 1867. This is a mixed bag of things other than what is targeted. The federal government is interfering through the involvement of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in areas that come under fisheries and oceans, and it creates new structures that are not needed.

In 1988, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed mirror legislation. I have a copy of the agreement creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. That legislation was developed by the community.

At some point, people decided to do something about their environment. They got together and contacted the two levels of government. They told them “We want to work together to do something for our region”. In my opinion, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the St. Lawrence are the most beautiful regions of the country—

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the NDP motions it may be of value to look at the wording that party is proposing. The member for Windsor--St. Clair has proposed the following amendment:

4.(1) The purposes of this Act are:

(a) to create a system of representative marine conservation areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world; and

(b) to protect the ecological integrity of marine conservation areas and reserves.

His second motion is:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 36 on page 4 with the following:

(4) For the purpose of achieving ecologically sustainable use and protection of marine resources, marine conservation areas shall be divided into zones, which must include preservation zones that fully protect ecological processes, special features and all marine species that occur in these zones and may include natural environment zones that serve as buffer areas to preservation zones and conservation zones that foster and encourage ecologically sustainable use of marine resources.

What we have here, I suggest with the greatest respect to my NDP friends, is ideology versus practicality. Looking at the full intent of the law as it has been drafted by the government, all of the things the NDP has moved are more than covered. In fact, the NDP amendments create a redundancy in verbiage.

My friend from the Liberals who preceded me said that extraction of non-renewable resources is not sustainable. In the strictest meaning of the words, extraction of non-renewable resources, if those resources are being extracted, if they are not renewable, then clearly as my friend has said, it is not sustainable. At some point we are going to reach the end of those resources.

We also recognize that with the exception perhaps of wind power or hydro power generation, virtually everything we do as human beings is to consume some of the resources which were given to us by God himself. These are resources that we use hopefully in wiser and wiser ways. Certainly we are trying in every respect to ensure that we leave the world a better place, but to suggest that we could get along without the actual consumption of resources, with great respect to my friend, simply is not practical at all.

Referring specifically to the NDP motion, Bill C-10 is a framework. To try and confine even further within that framework any environmental or ecological imperatives is constraining the ability of human beings to have access to the resources that are at their fingertips.

One of the difficulties we as a party have had is that this is yet another layer. When individuals and those involved in natural resource extraction are exploring and looking for ways to continue to serve all of mankind with these resources, they find they are into layer upon layer. In Bill C-10 we not only have a new federal statute layered on top of other departments, but additionally, we have federal statutes layered on top of provincial statutes and provincial rules and regulations.

There is a difficulty at the moment for the province of British Columbia. The provincial NDP, the soulmates of the federal NDP, have gone through a process over the last 10 years of fundamentally, let us presume in good faith, lowering the ability of people to get to and to develop resources.

I will go off on a different angle for a second. In the province of British Columbia when the NDP government came to power there was a lot of responsible mineral exploration. We recognize that a lot of mines are being depleted or are running down due to world prices or whatever the case may be. The only way those projects the mining industry can continue in the province or in any area, is through further exploration.

As a result of the kind of motion our NDP friends have brought to the House, which reflects the kind of thought process the provincial NDP had, investment in mining exploration fundamentally has gone to zero. That is an absolute shame. It is a shame because in my constituency at the Sullivan mine, owned and run successfully by Cominco and its successors since the turn of the century, more lead zinc has been extracted from that one mine project than from any other lead zinc mine in the history of Canada. However it is now depleted.

The problem is we have not had exploration. If we do not have exploration, we end up with the problem that we will not have a mining industry tomorrow. What are the skilled miners in my constituency supposed to do? Within a very small community of only 500 people, as of December there will be 15 families looking at no more work. They will have to go to some other jurisdiction, probably outside Canada, in order to find employment. They are highly skilled people who are 45 to 55 years of age. Where will they go?

We see this kind of ideology. I say with the greatest respect to my NDP friends that they have a particular vision but I suggest it is a myopic vision. It is a myopic vision in that if we have the ideology of environmental protection at all costs to all exclusion, we end up with an employment problem, a resource problem, as well as a wealth generation problem.

For example, I note that today in the province of Ontario there will be an economic statement, if it has not come forward already. The premier told the people of this great province that the resources required even to do things like health care were going to be cut back.

My Liberal friends may have a difference of opinion over whether or not the premier should have done that. However, we come down to the same fact that if there is a slowdown in the economy, if there is a slowdown in the production of wealth, then there is no tax base from which to fund health care and other programs that are so essential to us here in Canada.

Clearly therefore, we will be voting against these motions. As I have suggested, the clauses are redundant. As a matter of principle, the further intrusion of more government rules and regulations to shut down the ability of people to responsibly be involved in resource development and resource extraction, is simply not going in the direction we need to go as a nation.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and their government have built a world renowned system of national parks for over 100 years. This parliament has the opportunity to set the stage for building a system of national marine conservation areas. Future generations of Canadians will be able to enjoy and appreciate the diversity of our magnificent marine environments as they now enjoy the outstanding natural areas in our parks.

The long term goal is to represent each of Canada's 29 marine regions in a national system of marine conservation areas, much as we would establish a national park in each of the 39 terrestrial natural regions of Canada. Each national marine conservation area like each national park should be an outstanding sample of the region it represents.

There is an assumption that national marine conservation areas will simply be national parks on water. This is not so. Maintenance of ecological integrity is the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in national parks. National parks are managed to remain essentially unaltered by human activity.

National marine conservation areas are designed to be models of sustainable use and the approach to management is one which balances protection and use. As a result we need legislation tailored to national marine conservation areas.

I will give a quick overview of the legislation indicating how it is designed to manage protected areas in the complex world that is our marine environment.

The bill establishes the legal and regulatory framework for creating and managing national marine conservation areas. It does not by itself create any specific areas. It provides a mechanism for formally establishing national marine conservation areas under the act.

Bill C-10 sets out an order in council process for the establishment in law of national marine conservation areas that is similar to the recently proclaimed Canada National Parks Act. The order in council process would speed up the scheduling of new areas. I assure the House that the supremacy of parliament remains.

The bill would require proposals to establish each new national marine conservation area to be tabled in both houses and referred to the appropriate standing committee for consideration. The order in council would not proceed should either house reject the establishment of the new area.

Bill C-10 requires federal ownership of all lands to be included in a national marine conservation area both above and below the water as is the case for our national parks. This ensures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have administration and control of these areas.

If a province owns all or part of the seabed in an area where Parks Canada proposes to establish a national marine conservation area, the province would have to agree to use those lands for an MCA. In marine areas where there is contested federal-provincial jurisdiction there would always be consultations with the province concerned. The federal government has no intention of acting unilaterally.

There is a clear requirement for public consultation with the establishment of any national marine conservation area with particular emphasis given to affected coastal communities. I emphasize that if there is no public support for the creation of a national marine conservation area in any given location, the proposal would not be brought forward to parliament. Parks Canada would look to another area with which to represent the marine region.

When the government decides to take the final step and formally establish a national marine conservation area parliament would have an opportunity to examine the proposal in detail and satisfy itself that there is broad community support.

Bill C-10 calls for active stakeholder participation in the formulation, review and implementation of management plans. The legislation provides for accountability to parliament through the tabling of management plans for each marine conservation area.

Coastal communities need certainty before an area is established. Therefore when a new proposal comes to parliament along with a report on consultations held and any agreements reached with provinces and other departments, there will also be an interim management plan. Management advisory committees will be created for each marine conservation area to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders is on an ongoing basis.

I would now like to address how Bill C-10 reflects the government's commitment to working with aboriginal peoples. The legislation includes provisions to establish reserves for national marine conservation areas. These are established when an area, or a portion of an area, is subject to a land claim by aboriginal people that has been accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada. Reserves are managed as if they were national marine conservation areas but without prejudice to the settlement of the claim.

A non-derogation clause has been added regarding aboriginal and treaty rights. There is also a specific requirement in the legislation to consult with aboriginal governments and organizations and bodies established under land claim agreements.

Finally, the legislation explicitly recognizes traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge in carrying out research and monitoring studies in national marine conservation areas.

Certain activities are prohibited throughout all national marine conservation areas. The most important of these prohibitions concerns non-renewable resources, specifically minerals and oil and gas. Marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use and by definition, extraction of non-renewable resources is not sustainable.

Other activities would be regulated through zoning. In each national marine conservation area there would be multiple use zones where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged, including fishing. There will also be zones where protection is afforded to special features and sensitive elements of ecosystems. These would be protection zones where resource use is not permitted. These zones would be identified in full consultation with local stakeholders.

I would like to reiterate that Bill C-10 is framework legislation. It provides the tools needed to create national marine conservation areas and to manage each one in a way that is appropriate to its unique characteristics. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance between protection and sustainable use. Very few activities are completely prohibited but tools are available to regulate activities to ensure that the structure and function of each area's ecosystems are not compromised.

We have an obligation to consult affected communities during feasibility studies in the planning process and in preparing the applicable regulations. Each area will be unique. It will be unique in its characteristics and uniquely managed. A national marine conservation area in Georgian Bay will be distinct from one in the Beaufort Sea or one in the Strait of Georgia or one in the Bay of Fundy.

Canada needs this legislation so that outstanding examples of our country's natural and cultural marine heritage can be provided with long term protection and so that Canadians can learn more about and experience this shared heritage.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-10. We worked on it extensively in committee. Members of the coalition have concerns about the bill but are generally supportive of the concept of putting in place marine conservation areas.

I begin by speaking to Motion Nos. 1 to 4 which we are debating at report stage. My friend from Windsor--St. Clair brought forth some good ideas in terms of protecting marine conservation areas even further than laid out in the bill.

Clause 4 of the bill already balances the environmental concerns along with economic sustainability of the areas. I am not sure that we would be able to support his amendment although we appreciate his intent to further protect these areas.

I also want to talk about Motion No. 3 of another friend in committee, the member for Skeena. I commend him for his hard work. He brought forward a number of amendments in committee and as a result the committee heard more witnesses who had real concerns about the bill, particularly from British Columbia. He did a good job and should be commended for that.

We did not get all the amendments we wanted in committee. However, as the Alliance, coalition or other parties, we did move the government in some respects on the bill which improved it. It is not a perfect bill but it does set up some marine conservation areas of which we are supportive.

Motion No. 3 proposed by the member for Skeena would amend Bill C-10 by adding after line 36 on page 4 the following:

(5) The Minister shall undertake a mineral exploration review and assessment study prior to establishing any marine conservation area. The results of the Minister's mineral exploration review and assessment study shall be included in the interim management plan for that proposed marine conservation area.

That is a very positive motion and we support it. It helps all parties to know that the government would not impose a marine conservation area in a particular place where there might be a high potential for oil and gas exploration. This is particularly important in our province of British Columbia where the current Liberal government is exploring the possibility of lifting a moratorium with regard to offshore exploration of oil and gas.

One of the main concerns that members shared in committee, particularly my friend from Skeena and I, was that the government might establish a marine conservation area in a unilateral fashion that may cut out coastal communities where these areas may be established for other purposes.

The government assured us that was not the intent of the legislation and it moved to amend some other clauses. Those amendments did not go far enough, but at the same time we put a level of trust in the government. It said that it was putting forward a process for establishing marine conservation areas that would include consultation with coastal communities. There would not be a backdoor implementation of a marine conservation area in a place where there might be a potential for oil and gas exploration.

The motion brought forward by the member for Skeena is one that would have the MERA report examine the feasibility of oil and gas in a particular area. It is the scientific study that would determine whether this could be done in a particular area. It would be included in the interim management plan and be tabled in the House so that all members could see it. It would not simply go to the minister for her to review and make the decision behind closed doors. It would be brought forward so that members of the heritage committee could examine it followed by an examination in the House, and then we could decide on whether to move ahead.

It builds another accountability mechanism into the bill which reflects the need for consultation with local communities. It would also alleviate the concerns and fears of communities that the government might act in a unilateral fashion by imposing a marine conservation area on a community. The fear is that it might try to put a marine conservation area in place where there are oil and gas exploration possibilities before a review is conducted.

It is a positive move that we should support. It would benefit the government by supporting the clause because it would go further in giving all of us in this place and all interested parties in this debate a message that the government would not impose a marine conservation area anywhere in the country where there may be other economic resource questions to be determined by local and provincial governments without first consulting extensively with coastal communities and affected groups. That would be a good thing and we are supportive of that.

I have talked a little longer than I wanted to on the motions. I will talk a bit about the bill a little later if I do not say everything now. Our concerns with the bill centre around the consultation process.

A big part of the concern has to do with clauses 5, 7 and 10 which were discussed in committee. The intent of clause 5 is that a marine conservation area would not be established without consulting widely with involved communities. That is a good thing. There are some who have concerns that the government may establish a marine conservation area and then through order in council at a later date expand that territory to create either an MCA or an enlargement of the particular area.

The intent of clause 7 is that even if a marine conservation area has been established, it must go through the same process of consultation, examination by committee and be brought forward to the House for debate and a vote before it can be enlarged. We are hoping that is the intent of the clause. That seems to be the letter of the law, but as we know it is the spirit of the law that will have impact on what happens with the bill.

It is our hope that the government will stick to the intent and spirit of the bill, which is to hold wide consultation with concerned groups, particularly coastal communities where marine conservation areas would be established prior to the establishment of these areas. Once they are established there should be no backdoor process of enlarging or expanding a marine conservation area without this consultative process. It seems clear in the bill that is the way it should be, but too often we have seen in this place that what should be is not necessarily what happens.

It is my hope that the government moves ahead on Motion No. 3 presented by my friend from Skeena because it is a positive motion which we will be supporting. It gives ear to further debate in this place and implements the bill in a positive consultative process.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10. This is not a new bill; it follows two bills that were introduced in the House before that last election campaign, Bills C-8 and C-48.

At report stage, we can present amendments. The Bloc Quebecois has supported many proposals made by the government. The Bloc is not opposed to the protection of the environment, but rather to the way the federal government is acting in this matter.

We were against Bills C-8 and C-48 that were before the House before the election campaign, because they infringed provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment that it would have liked the government to accept. This amendment dealt with the protection of territories. The territory is either federal or provincial; as we know, the sea floor belongs to the provinces, according to the Constitution of 1867. The Bloc Quebecois opposes the principle of the transfer of these rights to the federal government.

Clause 10.1 was an irritant. While we were in favour of requiring negotiations with the provinces, it sets out consultations. This bill is weak when it comes to following through on the government's wishes, and history has taught us to be cautious. Members need only think of the millennium scholarships, and the whole issue of young offenders. The Bloc Quebecois will ensure that all of the necessary safeguards are in place to protect provincial jurisdictions and areas of responsibility.

The amendments moved by the New Democratic Party and the Canadian Alliance could be examined individually; they support the zones established to protect ecosystems. This is not the cause of our concern. My colleagues know this; I have already informed them.

There is the whole issue of overlap between different departments. There are three conservation zones: marine conservation areas, which come under canadian heritage; marine protection areas, the responsibility of fisheries and oceans, and marine reserves, which come under the Department of the Environment.

There will therefore be three different structures to complicate the situation. In the case of negotiations with local authorities or the provinces, there will obviously be a certain amount of confusion. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was quite ineffectual in protecting marine areas, marine protection zones or marine reserves. There are several zones and there are three departments to manage the task.

Not only is there overlap within the federal level—and it is easy to see how this will create confusion—but there is also overlap in some provinces between Environment Canada and its provincial counterpart, such as in Quebec.

In Quebec, we have our own way of doing things. We proposed a number of amendments. We know that it is Quebec that established a memorandum of understanding with the federal government, which takes into consideration a master plan. This plan includes safeguards to protect the environment and ecosystems. Everything is in place.

This bill was not based on this approach, or if it was, it follows the federal government's centralist vision, the same way the government always does things.

Quebec had an innovative idea that made provision for jurisdictions. With this bill, the federal government is totally upsetting the approach of the Quebec government. It had proposed the master plan, and a law was enacted to protect a specific marine area, namely the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

My colleague, the member for Jonquière, who has often raised this matter in the House of Commons, is very familiar with the matter and knows what is involved in the law and the memorandum between the Government of Quebec and the federal government. A marine area was established in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region where I come from.

This agreement provides very clearly that the area will not be transferred. It must not be assumed that Quebec will transfer the marine area, which is public land. The constitution provides that the provinces own crown land. This is therefore annoying. It would have been possible, with an agreement, to not go ahead with the land transfer. We would have liked this bill to incorporate the amendments proposed by the Bloc.

As people know, I am not the first to speak to this matter. My colleague from Portneuf is also a vigorous defender of Quebec's jurisdiction and of shared jurisdictions. He too spoke out against Bill C-8, Bill C-48, and now Bill C-10, saying we would not support it.

There are therefore a number of irritants. We also do not agree with extending the scope of the obligations of Canadian heritage. We know the Minister of Canadian Heritage goes in for propaganda a lot. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage was saying earlier that they would provide some education on the protection of marine areas. Education is a provincial matter.

Spending is another very subtle way of meddling in the jurisdictions of the provinces. I say spending, because when the government establishes a program, puts an infrastructure in place, we all know there are other officials working on it and setting up programs. The minister could simply say that she would prepare a fine kit for schools on the federal marine areas.

So there is overlapping. There is no agreement to extend the scope of Heritage Canada's obligations. There is also the complexity and inconsistency of the three departments. There is the centralizing goal. We have examples such as the Young Offenders Act, which is contrary to Quebec's legislation. I will come back to this later, since I will have the opportunity to rise several times today.

Thus, the Bloc Quebecois wanted an amendment that went much further to ensure that each marine area, for example, would be debated and negotiated separately. I know that we are not the only ones in the field who oppose the bill such as it is. I do not know how the other parties will vote, but there are several irritants.

We also know that marine areas often disrupt some ways of doing things in other Canadian regions. In the west, we are told that the local economy must be respected. Local economies must also be allowed to develop. Will this be inconsistent with marine areas? There are amendments that tell us we should really first investigate to determine whether a marine area can be established at a certain place. We are not against these amendments. We believe that some of them make sense. But there is more. We can imagine what the major irritant is and the whole underlying principle of this bill, that is that the government seeks to intrude into provincial jurisdictions.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for members of the House to understand what Bill C-10 is about. Bill C-10 would provide the framework for creating a network of national marine conservation areas that would link Canadians to their marine heritage and to each other. As models of ecologically sustainable use, marine conservation areas would show us the way to our future.

It is important to note that marine conservation areas are not parks on the water. As the member for Windsor--St. Clair mentioned, the purpose of national parks is to maintain ecological integrity. The principle of Bill C-10 is not ecological integrity. It is the balancing of protection with sustainable use.

I will talk about the issues that were looked at by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The committee worked hard during its review of Bill C-10. I take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their efforts.

The committee took a thoughtful approach to the proposed legislation. It provided a forum for a wide range of interests to come forward and comment on the bill. There was a lot of useful input from both the committee and the witnesses who appeared before it.

A number of issues were raised before the standing committee. I will turn to some of these issues which should address the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair and the hon. critic from the Alliance.

Concerns have been expressed both in the House and in committee that provincial jurisdiction would in some way be infringed by Bill C-10. That it is absolutely not the case.

If a province owns all or part of the seabed in an area where Parks Canada proposes to establish a marine conservation area, a federal-provincial agreement would be required to transfer ownership to the federal government. Without such an agreement the proposed marine conservation area could not proceed. For greater certainty this requirement is specified in the bill.

In marine areas where jurisdiction over the seabed is disputed the federal government does not intend to act unilaterally. Let me make that perfectly clear. There would always be consultations with the province with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory resolution.

Members of parliament and witnesses have expressed concern that the national marine conservation areas program is a duplication of existing marine protected area programs and is therefore not needed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Parks Canada's national marine conservation areas are part of a larger commitment by the government to establish a network of protected areas in Canada's oceans. Just as a variety of tools allow for a diverse protected areas network on land such as national parks, provincial parks, national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries, a similar set of tools is necessary to satisfy the wide range of needs and purposes in our complex marine environment.

While the Oceans Act provides the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a leadership role in co-ordinating the development and implementation of a national system of marine protected areas, responsibility for establishing the system is shared among three federal agencies with mandated responsibilities to establish and create marine protected areas. The agencies are Parks Canada, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The result is a family of complementary marine protected area programs that contribute to a broader comprehensive system of marine protected areas and conserve and protect Canada's natural and cultural marine resources.

Within this family the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans establishes marine protected areas to protect and conserve critical fish and marine mammal habitats, endangered marine species, unique features and areas of high biological productivity or biodiversity.

The Minister of the Environment establishes national and marine wildlife areas to protect critical seabird habitats. The Minister of Canadian Heritage in turn oversees Parks Canada's program which serves a much broader objective. It is the only one of the three programs that recognizes the role Canada's oceans and great lakes have played in defining the country's economy, culture and identity.

Parks Canada will place a special emphasis on educating Canadians about their marine heritage and communicating its significance in all regions. This is a heritage conservation program ideally suited to the mandate of the Canadian heritage portfolio. Members will appreciate that each program has its own distinctive objectives and is an integral part of an overall co-ordinated federal approach to ocean management.

Several witnesses indicated that to better protect the marine environment there is a need to add more blanket prohibitions to the legislation and to manage for ecological integrity. The amendments proposed by the member for Windsor--St. Clair propose to do so.

The government's position is that more prohibitions included in this legislation would make it more difficult to gain support from local users. It would also make it less likely to adequately represent all Canadian marine regions within a system of national marine conservation areas.

Zoning is a particularly powerful and flexible tool for managing use. It ensures the protection of special features and sensitive ecosystems. It addresses the concerns of those who want to see additional prohibitions in the legislation.

Managing for ecological integrity is an approach which strives to protect ecosystems in a state essentially unaltered by human use. Ecological integrity is a first priority in managing national parks, but national marine conservation areas are not parks on water. They are meant to be models of ecologically sustainable use. The prime considerations in their management are the principles of ecosystem management and the precautionary principles.

Numerous concerns were expressed about the need for full and open public consultations at the local level when marine conservation areas are established. Bill C-10 includes a clear requirement for public consultation in the establishment of any national marine conservation area, with particular emphasis given to affected coastal communities.

The nature of these consultations is set out in Parks Canada policies. The national marine conservation area feasibility studies already launched by Parks Canada in areas such as Lake Superior illustrate this policy already in action. If there is no local support for the creation of a national marine conservation area in a given location then the proposal does not go forward to parliament.

Should an area be established, the proposed legislation would require the creation of a management advisory board to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders would continue on an ongoing basis for all aspects of the management planning.

We are engaged in a great undertaking with the establishment of a Canadian system of national marine conservation areas. Canada is well positioned to make a meaningful contribution to a global effort to establish representative systems of marine protected areas. Parks Canada is a key participant in its effort.

Members will recall that Bill C-10 is framework legislation. It provides the tools needed to create national marine conservation areas and to manage each one in a way that is appropriate to its unique characteristics.

National marine conservation areas are an important part of Canada's family of special places. They will be managed in a way that balances conservation and sustainable use and will be a model for conservation of the marine environment.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly to the NDP amendments and then at some length to Motion No. 3 which is the Alliance amendment.

Regarding Motion No. 1 which would amend clause 4, we in my party believe the amendment is redundant. The purpose of the bill is already clear. Rewording it would not make the environment any safer.

The legislation as currently written is not balanced and does not deal fairly with the concerns of resource users. If anything, the bill needs to be strengthened on the side of resource users as opposed to further environmental protection, with all due respect to the environment.

Clause 2 serves to ensure that each marine conservation area would be divided into zones which would determine their specific uses. It would ensure that at least one zone allowed and encouraged ecological sustainable use within the MCA while at least one zone fully protected the ecosystem of the conservation area.

Although we would prefer the clause to state that each MCA would have set fishing zones and confirm that fishing be allowed in all MCAs, we can live with the clause as currently written.

The NDP amendment would only serve to reduce the already slim protection afforded to resource users of any marine conservation area. It would effectively eliminate any reference to ensuring that at least one zone is created with the MCA to allow for ecologically sustainable resource use. It would instead create natural environment zones to be used as buffers.

We are not against buffer zones within MCAs. Everyone knows fish do not live in walled communities. They swim freely wherever they want. Having buffer zones between no take and limited use zones might be helpful in the long run. However it is unfortunate that the NDP chose to remove assurances of at least one zone for ecologically sustainable resource use. If that is not included we cannot support the amendment.

Regarding Motion No. 4, the third amendment in the grouping, clause 9 as currently drafted deals with the management plans of an MCA, the review of those plans by the minister, what the primary consideration should be within those plans, how the plans affect the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and how they affect land claims agreements.

It is well explained in the bill that to protect marine ecosystems and biodiversity primary consideration when developing a management plan must be given to the principles of ecosystem management and the precautionary principle.

The primary function of MCAs is to create a representative sampling of the marine environment within Canada. In so doing the primary consideration must be biodiversity since this is the reason the site was chosen in the first place.

As mentioned, Motion No. 1 of the NDP is a redundant amendment since the current clause would ensure that maintaining biodiversity within an MCA is the standard. It would serve only to further strengthen environmental protection in a bill that is all about environmental protection.

In our opinion the bill needs to be strengthened by allowing for more use of resources within MCAs rather than expanding already strong environmental protection. We will therefore not be able to support the NDP amendment.

The Alliance Party's Motion No. 3 is a proposed amendment to clause 4 of Bill C-10. The amendment would add a subclause 4(5). As currently written the bill contains no subclause 4(5). However clause 4 deals entirely with the creation of marine conservation areas and reserves. It sets out management use directives and details specific zones within the MCA.

Our rationale for the change is that Bill C-10 does not currently mention a departmental policy of carrying out a mineral exploration review and assessment study prior to creating an MCA. We would add the following to clause 4:

(5) The Minister shall undertake a mineral exploration review and assessment study prior to establishing any marine conservation area. The results of the Minister's mineral exploration review and assessment study shall be included in the interim management plan for that proposed marine conservation area.

The minister should request a study and its findings should assist him in determining how best to locate a marine conservation area. This is still policy but we would like to see it enshrined in the legislation. We are told by departmental officials that this is done to ensure MCAs are not created within areas of great natural resource potential unless it cannot be helped.

That is our concern. We must determine the potential for development of natural resources prior to establishing a marine conservation area. Once an MCA is in place whatever potential there may be is gone. We would not be able to explore or find out if anything is there. Let us do that first. Let us make it public. Let us put it on the table.

As was pointed out in the committee to departmental officials and the government's parliamentary secretary, policy direction from a department is ever changing. No one from the natural resources sector would take solace in knowing that current policy is to do a MERA study prior to creating an MCA.

Putting in law a requirement that the minister complete a MERA study and include the findings of the study in the interim management plan for an MCA would provide assurance that the results of the MERA would be made public and not hidden away in the department forever. That is the crux of our amendment.

Furthermore, once Bill C-10 is passed by the government, parliament would never see another piece of legislation dealing with the creation of an MCA. The bill would prevent that from happening. The only input parliamentarians and senators would have in the process of creating MCAs or amending their size and scope would be through the minister tabling an interim management plan in the House of Commons and in the other house which is not mentioned here.

Ensuring the MERA study is included in the interim management plan would give elected members of parliament what is hoped would be a fuller picture of the consequences on both sides of the issue of creating an MCA.

We are looking for balance. We support the concept of MCAs. However we must also remember the socioeconomic impacts on small communities in the province of British Columbia, for example, should MCAs limit or in some way prohibit fishing, aquaculture potential or the development of offshore oil and gas.

When given all the facts elected parliamentarians representing the concerns of their ridings make sound grounded decisions. Including this small amendment in a new subclause of clause 4 would in time serve to cement the current policy process of the department of heritage. It would ensure full disclosure for parliamentarians of whether the creation of MCAs may or may not be in the best interests of the coastal areas they would likely affect.

I ask the government to consider the amendment seriously. I hope it will support it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-10, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 8 with the following:

“considerations of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of national marine conservation areas shall be the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity and the precautionary”

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling and for the opportunity to speak to these amendments.

As indicated, it was difficult to move these in the committee as I was involved with the clause by clause debate regarding SARA, the endangered species legislation.

Several of these amendments are straightforward. Others, I believe, go to a fundamental flaw in the bill. The initial one is an amendment to subclause 4(1) which in effect is to create a purpose section to the proposed act. The reasoning behind that is that it does not have a specific section that deals with purpose.

I wish to speak more specifically to the concept of introducing ecological integrity into that clause in the bill

It is interesting that the bill is an extension or a companion legislation to the Parks Canada legislation. It has been interesting to watch the trend in the development over the last number of years as the concept of ecological integrity has been introduced into the Parks Canada legislation regulations and all the decision making that goes on around the development of our parks.

It appears to us that it is a glaring error that it is not incorporated into the legislation which is, as I said, a companion piece of legislation so that we will have a similar theme and concept in this legislation to deal with our marine parks as they are designated and developed.

With regard to the second amendment that is being proposed, which again is in subclause 4(4), in order to develop that ecological integrity and to be sound in terms of ecological sustainability, it is necessary for this amendment. That is what the subclause (4) amendment is designed to do. It must develop the zones and fully protect them in terms of their ecological processes.

I believe subsection 4(4), as it is now, does not fully reflect the intention of the drafters to establish these protected zones. In order to do that we require this enabling part of the legislation to give the government the authority to protect those zones from industrial and other uses. It uses the term right now as requiring only that special features in fragile ecosystems within these protected areas are fully protected. In order to really accomplish that we need this wording.

It was interesting to listen to some of the environmental groups that have looked at this. A number experts who appeared before the heritage committee argued and advocated on behalf of these types of changes and that they be specifically reflected in the legislation. I believe this amendment goes to that purpose.

My next proposed amendment is with regard to clause 9 which also deals with ecological integrity. I will just briefly read the amendment:

considerations of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of national marine conservation areas shall be the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity and the precautionary

It goes on to the principle, et cetera.

As I said earlier, the concept of ecological integrity should be fundamental to the bill. This is almost a consequential type of amendment that is required in order to allow the government in power at the time to carry out that role.

The precautionary principle has been debated. It has been misused at times in terms of what it is meant to accomplish. This wording is the closest to the precautionary principle that was enunciated in chapter 8 of the report from the Royal Society of Canada. It is key to effectively protecting, preserving and restoring the ecological integrity of environmentally sensitive areas. That is true in general. It is true specifically with regard to marine parks which we are dealing with at this point.

My next proposed amendment to the bill is to clause 12. With regard to this amendment and those in clause 13, they are the ones I believe are necessary for the bill to accomplish what the government should be trying to accomplish, although I am not convinced that it has gone anywhere near enough. Because of the way the sections are broken down, the amendment deals with what is prohibited and what will be permitted in marine park zones as they are established.

Right now very general and insufficient wording is used in order to protect these zones once they are established from incursion from other types of activities that will threaten, damage or perhaps destroy parts of these zones if they are allowed to proceed.

What the proposed amendment to clause 12 proposes is, first, that the prohibited activities of dredging or deposit of fill be added to it. There is some general wording around this elsewhere in the bill but it simply does not go far enough. We in the NDP are strongly advocating that we need that type of specific wording to protect these conservation areas.

The second proposal is that no blasting be allowed. This is particularly important from two aspects. The technology used for exploration and development of oil and gas and mining is blasting. Explosive devices are used as part of the process of discovering whether minerals, oil and gas, et cetera are in a certain area. The consequential part of that is that it is extremely damaging to mammals, whales and porpoises in particular, because of the sonar they use to guide themselves. Any type of explosive in those areas will cause wildlife to leave the area or it will severely damage the area.

Three amendments have been proposed to clause 13 dealing with activities again. The first one reads:

No person shall engage in fishing that involves the use of bottom trawling--

Some very interesting research was done this summer on the effect bottom trawling and dragging has had on the coral. Extensive research was done on the amount of coral in the waters on the east coast. If we permit bottom trawling and dragging to continue, it will destroy a good deal of the ecosystem.

The NDP is advocating in this amendment that there be no construction of oil or gas pipelines. As an add on to the blasting that I mentioned in clause 12, there will be no use of acoustic deterrent devices within a marine conservation area.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-10, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 4 the following:

“(5) The Minister shall undertake a mineral exploration review and assessment study prior to establishing any marine conservation area. The results of the Minister's mineral exploration review and assessment study shall be included in the interim management plan for that proposed marine conservation area.”

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-10, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 4 with the following:

“4. (1) The purposes of this Act are:

(a) to create a system of representative marine conservation areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world; and

(b) to protect the ecological integrity of marine conservation areas and reserves.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-10, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 36 on page 4 with the following:

“(4) For the purpose of achieving ecologically sustainable use and protection of marine resources, marine conservation areas shall be divided into zones, which must include preservation zones that fully protect ecological processes, special features and all marine species that occur in these zones and may include natural environment zones that serve as buffer areas to preservation zones and conservation zones that foster and encourage ecologically sustainable use of marine resources.”

[The Speaker]

There are eight motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. The Chair has some doubts regarding the desirability of selecting the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair, a member of the heritage committee that studied the bill. It appears that these motions could have been proposed in committee.

However, because (a) there are already two groups for debate, (b) the motions are relatively few and (c) the member maintains that he sits on two committees, both of which were seized with bills at the same time, and therefore had difficulty in moving his amendments, the Chair will give the benefit of the doubt to the member on this occasion.

Consequently, Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate, but they will be voted on as follows:

Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 5 to 8 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motions Nos. 5 to 8 will be voted on separately.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for the question. This afternoon we will continue the prebudget debate that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will deal with the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill introduced earlier today. I understand there is some agreement pursuant to the usual process of passing the bill at all stages. We will then consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut bill.

I wish to advise the House that there will be a royal assent later this afternoon on Bill C-11.

Next week we will debate Bill C-39, the Yukon bill. That will be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, the marine parks bill. When this is completed we will turn to Bill S-31, respecting a number of international tax treaties. If and when Bill C-35 is reported from committee we will turn to its report stage and third reading.

I would like to report to the House that if we have time next week I will be prepared to entertain a second day of prebudget debate or consultation.

I understand that some members will be producing a motion to defer a debate until next week. I am awaiting that process.

I also wish to inform the House that there is ongoing consultation among House leaders, although not quite complete, about having a take note debate next week, possibly on the issue of the World Trade Organization and international trade generally. Those consultations are not yet complete.

Committees of the House

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to an order of reference dated Thursday, May 10, the committee has considered Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, and agreed on Tuesday, October 30 to report it with amendments.

Marine Conservation Areas

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great importance to my constituents. I have been working to amend Bill C-10, the badly flawed government bill on marine conservation areas.

Over 25 organizations, municipalities, chambers of commerce and fishing groups have made their concerns known to me and through me to the committee. Unfortunately less than half will have the opportunity to present their concerns to the committee. The government has done a poor job of consulting with British Columbians.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a unanimous resolution calling on the government to consult widely prior to passing the bill. The bill has the potential to seriously hamper offshore oil and gas exploration on the west coast, a resource an ailing British Columbia economy badly needs to build its future.

I ask the government, on behalf of my constituents, to please listen to our concerns and delete clause 13. I ask it not to stand in the way of B.C.'s offshore oil and gas development.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-10.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Liberal government's attempt to create national marine conservation areas.

The objective of establishing marine conservation areas is to protect and conserve marine ecosystems found in the ocean environments of Canada and in the Great Lakes. The purpose of the bill is to establish rules that would allow the creation of national marine conservation areas.

The bill is actually unfinished business from the last Mulroney government. It took the weak Liberal government more than 13 years to tinker with the idea of creating marine conservation areas. It is still at step one after feeble attempts to introduce legislation in previous parliaments, namely Bill C-48 and Bill C-8. It shows the lack of commitment of the Liberals to protecting and conserving our environment.

In addition to preserving marine areas for the benefit and enjoyment of Canadians, the bill strives to establish a framework for regulating marine ecosystems and maintaining biological diversity. It is important to note that while environmental protection and sustainable development are important issues, they do not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The bill makes provision for two schedules that are intended to include the names of marine conservations areas and reserves. The minister has identified 29 marine conservation areas and the intent to create new national parks, but in Bill C-10 the two schedules are blank. The actual locations of all 29 parks have not been identified.

As a past co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee I would imagine these lists could be filled in by regulation and we would find the 29 locations somewhere in the thousands of pages of regulations that no doubt accompany the bill. That is governing through the back door, not through the front door and not through the voices of elected members in the Chamber. The bill should describe the location of each park and that information should be inserted in the two schedules. I hope the matter is fleshed out during the committee hearings.

Bill C-10 would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the authority to create a new marine conservation area on crown land without going through the normal legislative process. Currently the government is required to come before parliament any time a new national park is to be established or an existing park is to be changed. The legislation would remove the power from parliament and would allow parks to be created or changed by order in council. That is ridiculous.

The minister states that activities such as commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. However all fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety plans are subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Similarly regulations affecting navigation or safety rules under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Transport.

Disposal regulations pertaining to sections 127 and 128 of the Environmental Protection Act require the joint approval of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the Environment.

What is to be done about these contradictions and overlapping responsibilities? Clause 13 of the bill would limit or prohibit the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic material in all marine conservation areas. I anticipate hearing from stakeholders about this clause at the committee hearings.

There are considerations with respect to private property and reasonable search and seizure. Clause 22 of the bill states that, in the discharge of their duties, marine conservation area wardens, enforcement officers and persons accompanying them may enter and pass through private property. This is an invasion of the property rights of law-abiding citizens.

The weak and arrogant Liberal government has shown its pattern of disrespect for privacy rights and interference with personal property. We have seen that in Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, where the arrogant Liberal government refused to offer fair compensation to Canadians.

Enforcing regulations is a serious issue and it is not addressed in the bill. In reference to Parks Canada, the director of the organization suggested that the RCMP be allowed to be involved in enforcement activities. Currently Parks Canada is involved in a labour dispute with its park wardens over personal safety. The bill contains the same deficiencies as the National Parks Act. It does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law.

Since 1993 there have been three separate reports recommending that sidearms be issued to wardens in order to fulfil their responsibilities. With park wardens off the job and other law enforcement agencies overburdened with enforcing criminal code violations, wildlife is being slaughtered in our national parks. The bill does not address any of these situations.

The Canadian Alliance affirms the federal government's role in the preservation of Canada's natural and historical heritage such as national parks. It supports sustaining and developing national parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. It also supports sustainable development and environmental protection regulations that have been fully debated by parliamentarians, not through the back door but through this Chamber.

The bill would strengthen the power of cabinet while diminishing the effectiveness of elected representatives. The bill is virtually unnecessary because the regulatory framework already exists to accomplish what the bill purports to achieve. It is just a power grab by a department that understands that it has a weak minister who does not understand that the new regulations are not required.

The legislation would clearly limit the ability of parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas are introduced or existing areas are expanded, with no input whatsoever when new parks are being created. The weak and arrogant Liberal government, time and again, abuses the Chamber and uses elected members as a rubber stamp. It does not give enough opportunity for debate by elected officials. There is no reason for this tight fisted form of control and undemocratic manner of proceeding. Like the bogus changes the government is proposing to Bill C-9, the Elections Act, Bill C-10 is also virtually anti-democratic.

The scope of the bill, as it relates to fishing, aquaculture and transportation, is such that changes to any schedule should require an act of parliament. Affected communities would be at the whim of the minister. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage a free reign to create unlimited advisory committees for each marine conservation area.

Limitations on the size and structure of each committee should have been established in the legislation. Will the committee that hears the bill allow these limits and rules to be established? I doubt it very much.

These advisory committees would give the government an opportunity for patronage in the way membership is composed and would serve no other purpose than that of a rubber stamp under the guise of public consultation. What we have here is yet another job creation program for failed Liberal election candidates and their supporters.

If marine wildlife and ecosystems are to be protected, park wardens should have exclusive jurisdiction in the enforcement of laws and regulations relating to each conservation area. Unfortunately, wardens are increasingly finding that they cannot do a proper job due to interference from Ottawa.

The decision by Parks Canada management to transfer responsibilities from park wardens to law enforcement agencies like the RCMP is Ottawa's way of centralizing tight fisted control away from the frontline officers who have the practical experience to know what does and does not work in Canada's national parks. What a shame.

The bill is a mess. It is as much an assault on our environment as an assault on the stakeholders in the regions that will be affected by it. My heart goes out to my colleague the Canadian Alliance heritage critic because I cannot see how the bill can be fixed or amended during committee stage.

On the one hand, the bill is not required because everything it does can already be done under regulations. On the other hand, it is a power grab by the minister and should be stopped 100%. Those concerned about preserving the environment can see that after 13 years of trying to bring the bill forward for debate in the House the government does not care about the environment.

I hope the bill looks significantly different when it comes back before the House following committee hearings. However, knowing the government's record, I doubt it. I hope the minister's secret agenda of power grabbing is exposed. I hope Canadians see clearly how little the government cares about the environment.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again on Bill C-10, which is going through another life cycle. At the beginning of the 36th parliament it was Bill C-48 and at the end of the 36th parliament it became Bill C-8.

I was pleased to be critic at the time for Canadian heritage and I spent some time on the bill. However it now rises again. These things seem to die on the order paper fairly regularly. The bill originated in 1988 when the Mulroney government introduced the National Parks Act that would permit the establishment of marine parks.

I will not go through all the details but I will hit a few high points about the intent of the legislation. I do not think anyone in the House or across the country would disagree that environmental protection and sustainability are paramount. Whether they pertain to national parks, marine areas or regulating the pollution of large companies, environmental protection and sustainable development are very important issues.

However these issues do not fall specifically within the jurisdictional power of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We talk about ecosystems, fish, aquaculture and so on. It would be wise to place some of the responsibility for these issues with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We could then talk about the Department of the Environment and how important it is to look at environmental sustainability in the whole area of marine conservation parks.

I also sense frustration with the amount of input parliament would have. I am not sure if this place is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Bill C-10 would pare down anything parliament would have to say on the issue. It would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the authority to create marine conservation areas on crown land without going through the normal legislative process. The question is, why bother with this place at all? Cabinet might as well get together, have coffee, bring up an order in council and throw a dart and pick a marine conservation area.

A lot of people and advisory committees have done an incredible amount of work on this issue. I have seen the maps and the areas and they seem well thought out. However the whole idea of going to cabinet and just zipping something through in a morning session, or maybe not even that long, maybe even before coffee, is no good. The House of Commons is where such debate should take place.

We know in the years we have been here that the amount of discussion and the power of parliament itself has been pared down. Members have also witnessed incredible growth in government. Budgets have ballooned. The debt has certainly ballooned and hopefully we are starting to control that. The annual deficit is somewhat under control. That is probably a good start.

Let us look at the amount of governing that would occur under marine conservations areas. Once a marine conservation area is established the minister may maintain and operate the facilities, conduct scientific research and monitor and carry out studies based on traditional ecological knowledge of the areas.

That is a nice tidy sentence. We can all guess where it may lead. It could lead to mushrooming bureaucracies, advisory committees and all kinds of studies and scientific research. Such things are essential but if they are not monitored they could fly loose. The legislation could be an entity unto itself. When members see the mushroom cloud it places under the government, a cloud with no checks or balances that will only get bigger and bigger, they should be careful.

This whole area unnecessarily expands the minister's domain to areas that fall outside her ministerial responsibility. The minister talks about marine conservation areas, which is again a nice thought and something that perhaps needs to happen sooner or later to a degree, but it is by order in council and should be under DFO control as much as anything else.

What about the Minister of the Environment? The bill would require the heritage minister to establish a management plan for marine conservation, ecosystem protection, human use and zoning. Somewhere in there surely the Minister of the Environment and his department should be involved. We then start saying that it is this department or that department and the whole thing blows loose because it gets bigger and bigger rather than adopting tighter checks and balances.

In addition, each marine conservation area would require the establishment of a management advisory committee to review and implement management plans. For every marine park or conservation area there needs to be a whole advisory committee. I am not necessarily questioning the wisdom of that. A lot of people have a lot of expertise in the area and I do not. I certainly respect the ability of advisory committees to review and implement plans.

However where does it stop? That is the question. This thing will get bigger and bigger. There must be rules and regulations and the government needs to come forward with them. Unfortunately we see no checks and balances in this piece of legislation.

Ministers have all kinds of power, which we have certainly seen. I could digress and talk about Bill C-15, the enormous omnibus justice bill, but there is no point in getting into that right now. It is certainly before the House. It is an unbelievable piece of legislation and an example of phenomenal ministerial power. I hope it gets chunked down into bite size pieces so we can deal with each section on its own.

Regarding ministerial powers and perhaps overuse of powers, the minister states that commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. I would like an expert to tell us those things rather than the minister.

In the last bill we talked about whether the minister would be able to curtail or eliminate commercial flights over marine conservation areas. What would that do to small charter companies that fly over the ocean three-quarters of their lives on the B.C. straits?

The clauses would allow commercial fishing according to the minister's will. All aquaculture fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety plans would then be subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Heritage. Do we not see the thing getting bigger and bigger? It looks like mushrooming to me.

The whole idea of putting regulations into place is essential. However, how do we enforce them? We have seen all kinds of legislation over the years where regulations were put in place and not enforced. How do we enforce regulations? That is the frustration we see with the National Parks Act.

My colleague talked about Kootenay Park, Banff, Jasper and Yoho. The parallel is that the National Parks Act does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law. Park wardens drive around in their brown trucks. We see them all the time. I live very close to Elk Island National Park. It is 45 minutes east of my home in Edmonton. Lew and I ride out there a lot. We see park wardens and we know they are people we ought to respect.

I am a law-abiding citizen. When I see the rangers' authority I do not try to pull anything on them. We have gone around and around the block in the House about sidearms for park rangers. If a person is up to no good or wants to poach moose, elk or bison, they know park wardens are fairly powerless. The government is very irresponsible in terms of the National Parks Act.

The parallel can then be drawn: What would the government do with the marine conservation act? The director of Parks Canada has suggested allowing the RCMP to get involved. That is good, but there are lots of parks where the RCMP is more than a 12 minute drive away. Park wardens should have all the power and authority vested in them by the government and the minister to protect both wildlife and public safety.

For marine conservation acts the record is not stellar. We must ask what would happen. Would people be chased around in boats? Is that what enforcing the regulations would come to?

Let us look at the history of the legislation. This is the third swing around. Who knows when it might get passed? Is the government really committed to the legislation? It has died on the order paper a couple of times, as I mentioned. Will we put regulations in place that the minister will live by, or is this a grandiose plan that will not be enforced?

Many think parliament is irrelevant. A proposed amendment structure in the legislation would allow 20 days for amendments and a three hour debate on them. Such amendments may affect shipping lanes, commercial fishing, sport fishing, aquaculture, commercial flights, and who knows what. Recreational boating may not be allowed in some areas. If an amendment is put forward there would be only three hours to debate it. That is almost an admission that parliament is irrelevant and does not matter. Decisions would be made around the cabinet table.

The legislation would severely limit the ability of parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas are set up. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage free rein to create unlimited advisory committees for each marine conservation area. We know where that could go when people are absolutely unchecked.

Limitations on the size and structure of each committee must be established in the legislation. We need to make sure the parameters are in place. If we get an unlimited number of people with unlimited amounts of salary, and it looks like a big pot out of which we can draw cash, we all know that it could go on for a very long time. It may need to be studied for a little longer and, because it is important, we may need to bring in 15 experts. The thing needs some parameters in place but unfortunately we are not seeing that at this time.

I will wrap up by drawing a parallel with the land national parks and some of the things going on there. The parks of Banff and Jasper are absolutely glorious. They have a lot of building projects going on. The minister took her first swing out to those parks last summer or the summer before and was able to see first hand how fabulous these parks are and how important it is that we balance economic and sustainable development with environmental protection.

We want to make sure there is a balance in nature. We may not be able to please both sides of the equation but if I want to go to a park or spend money on a hotel or in a restaurant, I want to be able to do that. If I have the money to go camping in Jasper Park, I want to be able to go there and enjoy the pristine wilderness, have a campfire outside my camper and enjoy the campground. I am not sure that anyone ought to be telling me that I cannot do that.

It would be the same if we were talking about a marine conservation area. It is important that I am able to make use of that area but at the same time I do not want heavyhanded regulations. I want wisdom, not advisory committees. This may sound foolish, coming around in boats, but there needs to be absolute common sense from the government. I do not think we see that to this extent with some of the things I have discussed. I hope the government takes into account, when it swings through the legislation again, that too many rules and regulations certainly are unwise. At the same time, this just cannot be an open can or basket for people to help themselves.

I am really nervous about the fact that the minister would have far too much power and that it would be essential for joint ministries to work together. If we look at heritage we see that we have a marvellous heritage. We can also look at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. I certainly hope that no one is just trying to make a legacy for themselves. That would surely be unwise and people would be able to see right through that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 to create national marine conservation areas in Canada. This bill comes back to us under a different form that during the last parliament.

First, I must say that the Bloc is in favour of measures aimed at protecting the environment. Speaking of that, we can all recall how successful the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was. It ought to have served as a model for this bill to ensure that the necessary consultations were carried out so that, in the end, the measures taken and the management of the marine conservation areas respect the various jurisdictions and the initiatives taken by the various governments.

We have examples of this, such as Vision 2000 and other projects where the jurisdictions were taken into account and where some interesting results have been achieved.

In this case, is it because it is a more general bill, a kind of umbrella act, which will establish a general framework for the management of marine conservation areas, that the consultations do not seem to have been carried out appropriately and to respect what we would like to seeas the bottom line? To those of us on this side, the consultations do not seem to have been carried out properly and do not seem to respect what we would like to see as the bottom line.

As I said earlier, instead of focusing on collaborative efforts, as was the case for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, with this bill the federal government will have the right to create marine conservation areas without regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and its environment.

In addition to having a problem with the provinces as far as jurisdiction is concerned, there are also areas within the bill that are not very clear as far as the future relationship between Heritage Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada is concerned. We have experienced certain rather patent examples of difficulties with Heritage Canada, in connection with management of the ecosystem. This does not necessarily strike us as being very promising for the future.

For example, there is the overlap and duplication of Fisheries and Oceans-protected and Environment Canada-protected zones. This means that, even within the federal government, there is no clear vision of marine area management, because several departments are involved. The wording of this bill does not seem to reflect what we might have expected in terms of qualifying the situation. What we have instead is something that requires more time and more work.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill unacceptable in its present form. It does not respect the territorial integrity of Quebec. For example, one of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the area is to be established. One of the clauses relating to this states that the minister cannot establish a marine conservation area, unless, and I quote:

—the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area, other than such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada;

We see in this, therefore, an approach very different from that used, as I was saying earlier, in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, where the government agreed to respect provincial ownership of the riverbed and, thus, build a model that was unique and that respected the jurisdictions of each.

We know that, under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the management and sale of crown lands are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The bill before us does not totally respect this jurisdiction.

In addition, the same Constitution Act provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government and can only authorize the federal government, by order, to use them under its federal jurisdiction. Finally, 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.

I think that, in the context of the consultations, it would have been a good idea to take this plan into consideration, in order to achieve a successful outcome in the end. We spoke of examples of the right of way of doing things. I mentioned the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, but there is the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan, another example to follow.

In 1998, the federal and Quebec ministers of the environment announced the third phase of the St. Lawrence action 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. The third phase follows on the first two phases, in which both governments invested over $300 million.

This co-operation we find in specific projects such as the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan, we would also liked to find it in the present bill. On reading it, we did not.

Another important consideration is the fact that jurisdiction over the environment is shared, and so both the provinces and the federal government have responsibilities for it.

For example, section 91 of the Constitution Act provides that “the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,—...Navigation and Shipping...Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals...Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries...Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces”.

This basically sums up the content of the Constitution Act, 1867, as regards the federal government's responsibility.

Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in certain sections of the British North America Act, including section 92, which reads:

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say—...The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon...Property and Civil Rights in the Province...Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

So, some co-ordination is required to ensure that the federal acts respect this jurisdiction. The Constitution Act, 1867, also states that:

In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to ( a ) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; ( b ) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom—

Clearly, this bill should involve some kind of partnership that does not currently exist.

The example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park could have been followed as an essential condition to the creation of marine conservation areas, as far as land ownership is concerned. If the bill is passed as it now stands, the federal government could set up marine conservation areas on the seabed that it claims as its property and ignore Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment.

This is not satisfactory for the Bloc Quebecois and it also breaks a tradition I referred to earlier, a tradition of co-operation, which could have led to the establishment of interesting programs.

It is all the more frustrating and questionable, because this is framework legislation, which will define the way the federal government will act in this field. The government is proposing new principles as far as respect of mutual jurisdictions is concerned.

It seems that the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of Environment Canada. This covers a lot of territory.

We could for example end up with one site with several zonings, each one of these departments considering that there is, according to its own criteria, a marine reserve or marine protection area for Fisheries and Ocean Canada, a marine reserve for Environment Canada or a marine conservation area for Heritage Canada. Then, in each of these cases, there would be three monitoring levels, three jurisdictions for three different departments.

Perhaps I could give an example. If Heritage Canada felt that certain wrecks in the St. Lawrence River had a historic role that deserved to be recognized and the environment was part of the conservation area, but Environment Canada wanted this same location recognized as a marine reserve for fauna, and there were a contradiction between the two, it is clear that the bill does not contain the desired logic to settle the matter.

Is it not fair to wonder today whether, ultimately, this bill will not create even more confusion?

We believe that it will. We believe that the fact that the bill allows each of the federal departments to maintain its jurisdiction over marine conservation areas may end up creating total confusion. As we explained earlier, with three departments having jurisdiction and being able to define marine conservation areas according to their own different objectives, the final results might not be consistent.

The bill also provides that, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate, it may, in co-operation with the minister concerned, pass regulations, in respect of a marine conservation area, which differ from the existing provisions. In such a case, the amendment arrived at between Heritage Canada and the minister concerned takes precedence over the other regulations passed under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Aeronautics Act.

In other words, despite the fact that this is framework legislation, there is provision for the Department of Canadian Heritage, through its minister, to negotiate a piecemeal situation such as this, when it deems appropriate, and for the results to take precedence over all the legislation mentioned.

This discretion should be controlled very differently to make sure that it will not lead to squabbles between departments. It would also be subject to a change in ministers. If a minister from the Atlantic or the Pacific region has his own priorities in that area, he could use his powers under the act to put pressure on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or another minister, to demand some kind of acknowledgment of marine conservation areas not included in the planning by existing departments.

This section of the bill provides for a fourth way to create marine conservation areas, very specifically, on a case by case basis. I do not believe that framework legislation should provide for something like that.

We are all the more concerned by this situation that in the past there has been very severe criticism from the auditor general, among others, about the inability of Heritage Canada to protect ecosystems in existing national parks. Now that they want to get involved in marine conservation areas, are we going to be faced with the same kind of situation?

Very concrete examples can be found in chapter 31 of the auditor general's report, which states:

In the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete.

The report states further:

Although monitoring the ecological integrity of the ecosystems in national parks is a high priority according to Parks Canada policies and guidelines, in many national parks the Department has not monitored ecological conditions on a regular, continuing basis.

How can we trust a department that was the subject of such comments in relation to existing parks, when there are plans to establish new parks in an even more unclear situation, where the government will not be accountable for its actions?

In another comment, the auditor general said:

In almost all of the parks visited by the auditor general, there was no link between business plans and management plans.

In the end, it meant a lack of co-ordination in the activities listed in the business plans to make the parks better known and help them reach their public, as well as in day to day management, to make sure the services that are in demand and that are offered to the public can be provided. If park visitors do not get this kind of service, it is inappropriate to give this responsibility to a department which has had big problems in the past.

Last spring, the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks made its report public and urged the government to put ecological integrity back in the centre of its missions. The panel found that the integrity of ecosystems was at risk.

For example, the panel found that, in some national parks, the stress on the resource was so great that some species were disappearing. All the more so in marine areas, where we can have this type of situation if they are is not properly managed.

In Fundy park, in New Brunswick, three species have disappeared since the park was created, in the 1940s. Only one of the 39 national parks of Canada does not experience this stress. The situation is worse than what the panel of scientists expected.

Given all this information, one really has to wonder how Parks Canada will manage to preserve the marine areas of conservation, when it does not seem to have the wherewithal to protect existing parks.

There are more reasons to oppose this bill. Consultations before the introduction of the bill have been more or less a failure. A consultation paper was made public and sent to 3,000 groups across Canada, but unfortunately there has been no real consultation on the report.

For example, the Bloc Quebecois had asked for a copy of the 300-page report, which was really only 73 pages long, the large majority of which constituted the reply-coupon joined to the consultation paper. That was very succinct as a consultation result. We could hardly use it to improve the bill.

We must also realize that the decision concerns the fishing industry, which is in turmoil. In the past, we have witnessed tremendous failures in the federal policy dealing with stock management. Entire areas of Quebec and Canada saw their regional economy suffer badly.

Clause 10(1) of the bill states, and I quote:

10.(1) The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies ... in the development of marine conservation area policy—

How are they going to ensure that there will be consultation in the fisheries area in order to avoid an unacceptable outcome, when we are already aware of the failure of the federal fisheries stock management policy?

The way this bill is worded, the information given does not provide assurance, despite reassurances by departmental officials, that the objective will be attained, i.e. that marine conservation areas will be better protected. We have no assurance that Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected.

When the application of this bill is reviewed in another five, ten or fifteen years, we will probably find it was just one more failure. This review will probably show that the Bloc Quebecois was justified in what it has said about the bill being passed within a context of insufficient consultation of the provinces and insufficient co-ordination by the various federal departments involved. By then, we will have one or two examples available in which the discretionary power conferred upon the minister will have been used to solve problems in a specific region, not necessarily within the spirit of the law.

Given all these facts, the Bloc Quebecois invites the House to vote against the bill. We do not feel it is acceptable at this stage.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of Bill C-10 without a doubt is a very laudable intent. In taking a look at the condition of our oceans and waterways, not only in Canada but indeed around the world, the environment has to be protected. There can be absolutely no question about that. There are many areas of degradation which have occurred and continue to occur.

The intent of the bill is a good one. Coming as it does though under the auspices of the heritage department, we have some idea of what the heritage department is capable of doing, particularly with respect to preservation in parks. We therefore have an idea of some of the challenges that face the department, indeed some of the challenges that have been created by the department for people who also have the laudable intent to protect the environment under parks.

We should briefly take a look at the template or pattern we have. We know Canada's oldest national park, Banff National Park, is under a tremendous amount of pressure, created in no small part by human beings. The resulting pressure, which has been created to the changes of the flora and the fauna, has impacted the wildlife in the area. What has been the response of the park and what is some of the history relative to Banff and indeed the four mountain parks?

If we look at the history of Heritage Canada and Parks Canada, we again realize that with laudable intent they have attempted to create a situation where we could have interaction among human beings and the flora, fauna and wildlife in the parks.

In trying to create that situation, they have taken action which has allowed the build up of ski hills, riding and walking trails and a whole tourist infrastructure over a period of time. If we look at Banff Park as an example, believe it or not the town site generates almost three quarters of a billion dollars a year in gross domestic product. It is a gigantic amount of money which comes into Canada, and in no small part from Europe and particularly from the U.S.

In developing the projects around the park, care was taken over a period of time to get a proper balance to ensure that the park would be preserved for future generations of Canadians. What has occurred though, and it has become clear, is that some of the provisions to take into account the pressure which this would create on the environment within the park have some distinct deficiencies. As a consequence, some gapping holes have been left in what was formerly the very pristine wilderness area, not the least of which of course is the location of the town site of Banff itself. This has a direct bearing.

Under Bill C-10, Parks Canada would be responsible for the enactment for the use of the legislation. As a consequence, if we look at the way it has its work historically on land, what would the results be in terms of marine conservation area?

First, it is a fact that, if we were to take a species like the grizzly within the confines of Banff Park, clearly the habitat of the grizzly has been very seriously negatively impacted. As a consequence there are fewer and fewer grizzlies in that area. Furthermore, with the number of visitors going into Banff Park it is undesirable that there would be an increased amount of interaction between grizzlies and human beings. The two are simply not compatible.

What does that mean relative to Bill C-10? If we look at the number of interests with respect to ocean and Great Lakes areas, we will find that commercial and recreational interests are already in place in many of these situations.

In trying to come to an accommodation of the environment, the flora, fauna and the animals contained within a park, it strikes me that Parks Canada has swung the pendulum absolutely to the opposite end of the spectrum. Instead of now saying we have created the situation where human beings, tourists, from all five continents can come and enjoy what we have, because of these experiences there will be a cost to the wildlife in the area. There is a very strong swing to the entire idea of absolute conservation.

There has been a movement to ban any human interaction into the back country within the four mountain parks of Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay. Yoho and Kootenay are parks that are in my constituency. These back country areas basically account for 90% of the park. If we look at it through a very simplistic lens, it is probably a commendable thing to do, but it really is not because it does a couple of things.

It means that there is far more pressure brought into the remaining 10% of the park with far more wear and tear. I will give an example. Many of us have carpets in our homes or we have seen carpets in commercial areas. If we had people walking over the entire carpet it may last for many years, even 50, 60 or 70 years. Theoretically a carpet could last that long even with a great number of people walking over the entire area. The problem is if we confine them to only 10% of that area we have wear marks and have to replace the entire carpet.

That may be a weak analogy, but it presents a picture of what is currently happening within our park structure. With the correct intention of not wanting interaction in the back country human interaction in over 90% of the area would be excluded. That is a very laudable objective, but it has not been fully thought out because of the wear and tear on the last 10%.

We are trying to learn from what we are doing on land within Parks Canada to see how we might apply these things when it comes to lakes, rivers and oceans. The difficulty is that under the legislation there is a sufficient amount of discretion on the part of the government. We may see government whims gaining speed and decisions swinging back and forth like a pendulum.

People have some very legitimate concerns and a commitment to preserving what we have in terms of aquifer, species, flora and fauna that exist below the surface of the water. These people share the concern of Parks Canada and governments. They are saying that if we have not learned how to correctly do what we need to do on land, what will we be doing with respect to the parks or the water area?

I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton North. Taking a look at intent is one thing, but we should also keep in mind the legislation and history. For example, we created a situation in Kootenay National Park, which is in my constituency, that does not make any sense. At one point there was no road there. The road I am referring to is now called Banff-Windermere Highway 93-97. It ends up circling its way down from Lake Louise, up over Storm Mountain, down into the Kootenay River, up over the top and into Windermere.

There is a bottleneck at Sinclair Canyon, which is right between Radium Hot Springs and the town of Radium itself. Sinclair Canyon is exceptionally narrow and only wide enough for a two lane highway. As a matter of fact a river went through the canyon that has rock going about 200 to 300 feet straight up in the air. We put in a two lane highway at that particular point and had to dig the river underneath the highway.

When the national parks built Radium Hot Springs, it encouraged service providers and private industry to build chalets, bungalows and tourist accommodations so people could enjoy the hot springs. These people have ended up having a constant, neverending battle that has been increasing in noise to the point where they are now talking about removing those facilities at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Why? They say it is because it is a wildlife corridor.

It could not have been a wildlife corridor in the past, particularly for the larger animals, without the highway there. Putting in the highway meant that the animals could now, at very low traffic times, walk back and forth through Sinclair Canyon while dodging the 18-wheelers and the ore trucks.

We will be spending $4 million to $6 million to buy out the tourist service providers. These service providers are people who have been paying taxes and fees to Parks Canada. Not only will we spend $4 million to $6 million to remove those facilities but in addition we will lose the revenue from the facilities once we have removed them. This is the concern that I have with Bill C-10.

I realize this will be the fifth or sixth time that I have said this but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the Canadian Alliance is in favour of the intent of Bill C-10. The difficulty is that once the bill is enacted it would be under the control of Parks Canada which has a history of not managing its assets very well.

For example, there are people on the Queen Charlotte Islands who have seen the establishment of a park on the islands. They have also seen the husbandry of the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the west coast trail and all these things. Parks Canada's track record makes people concerned and nervous about the commercial access to the Pacific Ocean, and I understand their nervousness. It does not have a good track record of consistency and of following through on a prescribed course of action.

I have consistently accused Parks Canada of using the word consultation as a noun instead of a verb. It says that it had consultation. No, it did not. It came out and let people talk but it had already made up its mind. Consultation is a noun, not a verb. It is not a form of action. On the basis of the history of Parks Canada, it is with a tremendous amount of trepidation and concern that we look at Bill C-10.

There are literally hundreds of examples but I would like to present one or two more.

Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba has an area with a lot of natural grasses. Back in 1910 someone decided to plant some spruce trees. Those spruce trees did very well and grew to be very tall, straight, clear spruce. This wood is almost priceless. Each tree is counted in the thousands of dollars. Then some people from Parks Canada said that the trees did not really belong there, that we should get rid of them. Not only did they chop them down and uproot them, they burned them. Does that make sense? Hundreds of thousands of dollars in trees were chopped up for firewood so the grasslands could be restored.

Let us assume that the Creator did not intend there to be trees there and that someone planted them. By the same token, we could go to Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, which is an absolute wonder. It is a wonderful place to go and I recommend it to all Canadians if they want to see something absolutely spectacular and be treated wonderfully by the people in Rocky Harbour and Corner Brook. The park has moose like we have never seen before. Mr. Speaker, I know you have very large moose in your constituency but we could have a contest with these moose. They are that big and there are about 7,000 moose.

Gros Morne is kind of interesting. It is like the top of a mountain that has been taken off. It is perfect moose country full of marshland. In its brilliance, in the same way that someone planted the spruce trees, Parks Canada decided to import moose to Newfoundland, a place they should never have been. As a consequence, Gros Morne is literally being eaten into extinction by the moose.

Someone said that there should be a culling of the moose. Heaven forbid, we could never do that. Parks Canada can chop down the trees and burn up invaluable wood, but it cannot have anything to do with the management of that area because moose are animals that walk on the earth. The inconsistency of Parks Canada in its management, as I stated, gives us great pause for concern with respect to Bill C-10.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-10.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10, the marine conservation areas act. I do so as a supporter of parks and marine conservation. Yet I have serious doubts about the bill, as do many people involved in the marine industry in British Columbia including environmentalists.

In a recent conversation with one environmentalist from British Columbia it was pointed out to me that the best approach to protecting our marine environment was good fisheries management. Marine protected areas create little zoos and make us feel good, but good fisheries management is the best way to go. Marine protected areas are no substitute for good fisheries management.

There have been discussions in other jurisdictions in the world on these marine protected areas. I would like to read a short newspaper article from the February 1999 issue of Fishermen's News published in Seattle, entitled “Marine Reserves: Friend or Foe”. It reads:

The effectiveness of existing MPAs in the US should be assessed. A whole lot of MPAs already exist, particularly in California, but nobody knows whether they are having any impact. A thorough and science based review needs to take place of all existing marine protected areas and the myriad of already existing `no-fishing zones' along the California coast and elsewhere to determine their effectiveness for either: (a) providing baseline research information; (b) protecting critical marine habitats, or, (c) protecting specific marine fish or ecosystems. This review should be undertaken by a panel, including marine scientists, appropriate fishery agency representatives, knowledgeable commercial and sport fishermen, and knowledgeable marine conservation representatives. This review should include a report with recommendations for each existing MPA and no-fishing zone as to their effectiveness, whether there should be any changes in regulations or boundaries, and whether each should be maintained, reduced, expanded or eliminated.

That is a good recommendation, which our government would have done well to follow before it proceeded with the legislation.

What is the object of the bill? Is it marine conservation or merely the creation of marine parks? I am concerned that it is the latter, that it has little to do with conservation and much to do with the creation of marine parks.

I am concerned that the bill is only a further signal that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given up on marine conservation and protection. Canada does not need a few marine zoos with the rest of her marine ecosystem laid waste by a failure to manage the marine resource.

Canada has fundamentally sound legislation to protect the marine environment, namely the Fisheries Act. The government has failed to enforce either the letter or spirit of this environmentally powerful act. It is considered one of the best pieces of environmental legislation in the world. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act prohibits any activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. In section 36 it specifically prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance of any kind in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any water frequented by fish.

At this very moment the minister of fisheries is working to dumb down these sections of the Fisheries Act that were designed to protect the marine environment. The minister of fisheries wants to make the marine fisheries act aquaculture friendly, forgetting that it was designed to protect fish rather than to promote an industrial activity that if not carefully regulated could destroy the fishery.

Last week in Halifax the minister's Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Yves Bastien, said that the Fisheries Act and its regulations “were not drafted with aquaculture in mind and this causes significant problems both for the industry and the regulators”.

The Fisheries Act is not now nor was it ever intended to be an aquaculture promotion act. It causes problems for aquaculture because the government refuses to implement siting regulations that would prohibit locating farms in areas that would threaten productive lobster and other shellfish beds, prohibit locating farms near the mouths of fish bearing streams or in the migration route of migratory species such as salmon or would prohibit the use of lights at night that attract and disrupt migratory species. Without clear ground rules that are consistent with the Fisheries Act, the aquaculture industry will not be sustainable either in British Columbia or in the maritime provinces.

The government has called aquaculture the industry of the future. Until the fin fish aquaculture industry has clear and effective rules prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish and can abide by them, it is merely another polluting and environmentally destructive industry, an industry without a past or a future.

Canadians want seafood that is safe to eat and clean drinkable water. The two go hand in hand. Seafood grown without chemicals are a food of the future and part of any industry of the future. The commercial fishery is an industry of the future with a past that reaches back to the earliest days of exploration and settlement.

Aquaculture will also be an industry of the future when the government puts in place regulations consistent with the spirit and intent of the Fisheries Act. We have not arrived there yet.

Only a few months ago the auditor general tabled in parliament a report entitled “The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”. The auditor general advised parliament that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department were not meeting their legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild Pacific salmon and habitat from the effects of salmon farming.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the auditor general found, was not ensuring that salmon farms were monitored for the effects on fish and fish habitat with a view to enforcing the Fisheries Act. “The department”, he said, “is not currently monitoring effects on marine habitat or on juvenile or adult Pacific salmon in the vicinity of net cages”. According to the auditor general, fisheries and oceans scientists drafted siting criteria in 1985 but never enacted them.

Much of Canada's water is neither fit for the survival of fish nor for human consumption. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has failed to enforce the Fisheries Act prohibition against dumping. Too often municipalities, industry and forest cutting operations have been allowed to undertake activities that have led to the destruction of the marine environment.

The Fisheries Act is not designed to protect our drinking water but if enforced it makes the job of providing safe drinking water to Canadians much easier. If the Government of Canada were serious about protecting the marine environment, its first priority would be conservation and protection of our marine resources.

Setting aside a few marine parks may be well intentioned but it is not in itself a serious conservation measure. We already have under the Oceans Act the authority to establish marine protected areas. When such marine protected areas are established the first question that must be identified is: What are we trying to protect? Then, what measures must be undertaken to protect it?

Under this marine conservation areas act, large areas along our coastline would be set aside, not because there was a species in need of protection, if there were the fisheries act or marine protected area under their oceans act could be used. No, the marine conservation areas act is about setting aside large so-called representative areas.

I am concerned that these areas will become like land based national parks, no go areas for fishermen, men and women whose livelihood depends on the conservation and protection of the marine resource. Without fishermen on the water in these no fish zones there is likely to be rampant poaching, hardly an effective conservation measure.

Abalone fishing has been prohibited for the past decade, but the species has not returned because poaching has continued on unabated. One of the most effective measures for knowing the state of fishing stocks is to have fishermen fishing.

While the parks minister might deny that these marine conservations areas will become no take zones for fishermen, Bill C-10 appears designed to do just that. For example, in section 4 we are told that marine conservation areas are established for the purpose of protecting and conserving representative marine areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world. No mention is made of fishermen. If the areas really were intended to be multi-use areas we would see specific mention of fishermen in such a section.

The parks minister is required in section 10 to consult with the provinces, affected coastal communities and aboriginal organizations established under a land claims agreement. No reference is made to those whose livelihood depends on the resource. Fishermen are not at the table.

If it were intended that fishing was to continue, fishermen would be listed in section 10. The same is true for section 11 and so on. Section 11 requires for each marine conservation area that the parks minister establish a management advisory committee to advise the minister on the formulation, review and implementation of the management plan for the area.

Fishermen have been excluded from the act and I am concerned it will not be long before they are excluded from marine conservation areas. If I were convinced the bill would consider fishing and fishermen a legitimate activity and recognized fishermen's constitutional and common law right to fish, the bill would have my enthusiastic support.

I would support any action that would lead to rigorous conservation and protection of the marine resource and recognize the objectives of good fisheries management.

According to a recent series of articles on the advantage of marine protected areas in the Vancouver Sun by Larry Pynn, it would appear that is the case with the large marine protected areas around Australia's Great Barrier Reef. We are told that fishermen there are an integral part of the management regime with 95% of the area open to fishing.

That is not the case with our proposed marine parks act. We must have legislation that will require marine protected areas or conservation areas to develop reasons and scientifically defensible criteria for any and all areas of no-take zones in the marine environment which are over and above the regular management measures taken by DFO under the fisheries act.

Under Bill C-10 fishermen would have no place at the table. There is no recognition of their dependence on the resource. In addition if they are shut out of a marine conservation area there is no recognition of their financial loss and no recognition that they must be compensated.

When Parks Canada creates a land based park, there is no question that any private owners or crown tenure holders on the land are compensated, either a fee simple purchase of the land or buying out of the value associated with tenures such as timber or traffic. Just because marine resources are considered by some to be a common property resource, as are trees on crown land, does not mean that fishermen who have licenses to harvest marine areas do not experience an economic loss and are not entitled to compensation for that loss.

Fishermen must be compensated for any exclusion from licensed harvesting areas resulting from the creation of no take zones in marine conservation areas.

We are told Australian fishermen were compensated for the small area they lost in the Great Barrier Reef marine protection or conservation area.

A requirement for compensating losses is absent from Bill C-10. This would be unthinkable in a land-based park. Why is it not being considered in the marine environment?

Parks Canada has identified areas for the establishment of large marine conservation areas in the Queen Charlottes and the central and south coasts of British Columbia, all areas of significant fishing.

Let me identify several failures of marine conservation management. Let us consider if this bill would deal with these problems. If it did it would have my support.

A fisheries management failure is often camouflaged as a result of climate change, when in fact it is merely a management failure. I am thinking of the near collapse of Fraser River sockeye stocks.

Government ministers and DFO, in particular, blamed the collapse of sockeye on climate change that has caused, they said, changes in the water temperature and the like in the north Pacific. An internal DFO document reports documented evidence that there had been a management failure on the Fraser camouflaged as an environmental failure. Let me refer to the DFO report which, as I said, supports my contention.

The report entitled “Unsanctioned, Partially Monitored First Nations Fisheries on the Fraser River: A Conservation Risk”. The report warned the department that its failure to account for illegal or “unsanctioned fishing represents an egregious affront to salmon conservation”.

The report examined DFO's failure to account for the significant numbers of sockeye that were illegally caught on the Fraser River between Mission and Sawmill Creek. It said that the department had failed in the year 2000 to account for the illegally caught fish due to political and budget reasons.

The report documented how over the past several years that unsanctioned and unquantified in river catch had essentially added to the en route mortality account, the estimated number of fish that died en route to the spawning grounds from natural stress and temporary contact with fishing gear.

It came to the startling conclusion that this consistent failure to account for illegally caught fish together with the misleading practice of lumping them in with en-route mortalities:

—may be wrongly inflating the perceived significance of environmental effects on rates of migration mortality (an area receiving considerable attention since the 1994 Fraser River Public Review Board report).

The report said:

Overall, it is crucial to have a complete picture of catch to determine whether realised catch levels (by all user groups) are consistent with the achievement of desired spawning escapement goals—the fundamental measure of conservation success.

It also said that the estimate of total unsanctioned catch between Mission and Sawmill Creek on the Fraser for the weeks ending June 11th through September 10th was 30,952 sockeye.

The report said that Indian bands fishing in the Cheam and Yale First Nation areas caught 23,415 of these fish, 76% of the unsanctioned catch.

It further said:

Underestimating catch contributes to an underestimate of stock abundance, underestimating rates of exploitation, and difficulty validating and improving in-season abundance estimation that are crucial for implementing fishing plans and successfully achieving spawning escapement goals.

The report observed that conservation and protection that Officers adopted a more passive policy towards unsanctioned sockeye fishing in 2000, seizing fewer nets than previous years, especially 1999, despite valid conservation concerns for co-migrating species such as coho. It said that this was true especially true in the area fished around the Cheam First Nation band.

British Columbians are often presented with a particularly confusing picture of salmon stocks, the state of salmon habitat, and the health of fish populations generally, according to the report. Reasonable and simple questions about the state of the fish and fish habitat in British Columbia are often met with contradictory and confusing answers. Unsanctioned fishing activity is unsanctioned expressly because the fishery is closed to ensure long run conservation of various migrating fish stocks.

Canadians have a right to know about any substantial illegal fishing activity by any user group. Unsanctioned fishing is an area that receives little public attention despite the potentially serious consequences to the status of some stocks.

I could go on and talk not only on the issue in British Columbia but also on the problem of maintaining adequate lobster stocks on the east coast, especially in the area of Burnt Church.

I will quote a short statement from December 13, 2000 question period briefing note to the Prime Minister. It said:

The Burnt Church and Indian Brook bands have refused to acknowledge the government's right to regulate the fishery...They have, instead, asserted treaty rights claims and, in Burnt Church, put in place a large scale illegal lobster fishery.

The government knew about the problems and yet it blamed them on the environment. It is now putting in place marine protected areas as an excuse for failing to enforce existing fisheries regulations. The minister has the power to protect all the fish habitat and all fish in coastal waters but he is not doing his job. The bill will not help him.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1993, we have indeed witnessed considerable interference by the federal government in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It did not take into account what Quebec had to say concerning areas under its own jurisdiction.

Bill C-10 is a blatant example of the federal government not respecting provincial legislation, in this case Quebec's environmental legislation. I also think there is a certain consensus about this bill.

Other provinces say they are concerned about the federal government's approach. We know that the federal government is often referred to as a centralizing government, not only in Quebec but also in the other provinces. This causes people to become frustrated instead of establishing a dialogue of creating a partnership.

When the federal government says that it wants to negotiate in good faith, it must sit down with the other party or parties, whether the issue concerns a shared or an exclusive jurisdiction. However it does not do that. It announces billions of dollars in spending and legislates. It spends money, but who is footing the bill? All the taxpayers are footing the bill.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

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.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, which replaces the now defunct Bills C-48 and C-8 dealing with the creation of marine areas, more specifically 28 marine conservation areas.

The Bloc Quebecois is not against protecting the environment, but it is against Bill C-10 for several reasons I will list now.

First, we are opposed to the bill because the federal government is grabbing the power to create marine conservation areas without any regard for provincial jurisdictions. Why is the federal government not consulting the provinces on this, more specifically Quebec, as it did for example with regard to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? Why in the case of Bill C-10 on the establishment of marine conservation areas is it not consulting Quebec and working together with it?

There is another example, phase 3 of the St. Lawrence action plan. There were consultations. Why is it that when it comes to Bill C-10 there was no consultation, which would be desirable and would benefit the population? Although it is being said that the federal government wants to establish marine conservation areas for the benefit of the people and their social life and to help the economy, it is ignoring the government of Quebec and provincial jurisdictions in this area.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes any attempt to duplicate and trivialize Quebec's jurisdictions over the environment, fisheries and oceans.

Again, this goes to show the bad faith of the federal government. When Canadian Heritage is involved, not too much attention is paid to Quebec's jurisdictions and to shared jurisdictions.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has just announced an investment of $500 million in culture. It is typical again of this department: no consideration for provincial jurisdictions and no consultation. It just goes ahead without examining the action plan, if only on culture, with Quebec. Here again, in the marine conservation areas issue, the federal government's way of doing things is there for all to see.

Several witnesses appeared before the committee and said that there would be duplication and that there would be a new structure. The government wants to duplicate even within its own bureaucracy. We are wondering how consistently this bill will be applied.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment are both involved in the protection of the environment. When I talk about duplication inside the federal government, I am referring to these two departments.

How can we accept such a bill when several witness have told us there will be inconsistencies in the way it will be applied and in the management of marine conservation areas? A number of witnesses told us that this made no sense. Among those appearing before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was the vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada.

The Fisheries Council of Canada is a trade association representing provincial fisheries associations in Atlantic Canada and Ontario. He told us:

If there's a need for legislation to establish marine conservation areas, it is our view that such legislation should be incorporated into the recently passed Oceans Act under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is simply inefficient—

These are his words, not mine.

—cumbersome public administration to bring forward this MCA initiative in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department.

We can therefore see that there is duplication, inconsistency and inefficiency to come, if Bill C-10 sees the light of day. He goes on to say:

The fishing industry, for example, is working with the Fisheries and Oceans minister and Fisheries officials regarding development of an oceans strategy for Canada and an approach to the introduction of marine-protected areas. These tasks are the result of the establishment of the Oceans Act in 1996, an act that states that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.

He went on:

Bringing forward this MCA initiative at this time under the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to be administered by officials of Canadian Heritage, undermines the oceans leadership role assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act.

If the challenge for Canadian industry in the milieu of globalization is to be streamlined and efficient, we should be able to demand government structures that are also focused and streamlined. Regardless of the merits of MCAs, of this initiative, the manner in which it is brought forward will lead to confusion, duplication and conflicts in its implementation.

This witness testified at the committee hearings on the defunct Bill C-8, and the government has not really made any changes in Bill C-10. This is nearly exactly what was found in C-8. The witness called for the withdrawal of the bill and added:

The bill should be withdrawn. Discussions should be initiated with officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with a view to bringing forward an amendment to the Oceans Act to specifically provide for the establishment of marine conservation areas, where warranted, as part of Canada's oceans strategy.

Another quote comes from Marc Kielley, the executive director in Newfoundland of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, in February 1999. This is an association representing the interests of regional and sectoral aquaculture associations and their members, who raise fish and shellfish. He said:

Overall, while we respect the need for conservation, we object to the bill for a number of fundamental reasons. At issue: The coming into force of an act to create the national marine conservation areas will result in unnecessary and expensive duplication of existing legislation, specifically the Oceans Act, 1996, as well as the National Parks Act as amended in 1988.

Again, a witness representing the aquaculture industry felt that Bill C-8 should have been withdrawn. Therefore, if Bill C-8 should have been withdrawn, so should Bill C-10, because it is basically headed in the same direction, except for a few changes. The French version of the preamble of C-8 provided that marine areas had to be “représentatives et protégées”, whereas in the new bill, they must be “protégées et représentatives”. This is a very cosmetic amendment that does not deal with the core issue, namely duplication, overlapping and the ineffectiveness of this legislation.

In a number of departments, including two in particular, it would be hard to be consistent in implementing the law. The organization also stated:

So with regard to the implementation of the integrated management plans, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall develop and implement policies and programs with regard to matters assigned by law to the Minister, and shall coordinate with other ministers, boards, and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies and programs of the government with regard to all activities or measures in or affecting coastal waters or marine waters.

Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that Bill...is redundant legislation and, if passed, would only serve to confuse and complicate issues relating to the protection and conservation of marine resources and marine ecosystems.

To empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the MCA initiative effectively undermines the authority and mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as provided for under the provisions of the Oceans Act. This should not be permitted to occur.

What is the difference between a marine protected area and a marine conservation area? How do these two seemingly similar elements fit into the overall tapestry of integrated coastal zone management? What about marine wildlife areas?

So, there are several issues here. It is somewhat in that spirit that we can emphasize the inconsistency of such a bill and its ineffectiveness. A number of people may have difficulties making a decision.

When the minister tells us that this is for the good of people, for the good of the community, from an economic, cultural and social point of view, we wonder.

When credible people, people with a certain amount of expertise on the issue, come and testify, we as parliamentarians are there to analyze the experience behind and the relevance of their recommendations. We always listen in good faith. However it is always disappointing when we see the government dig in its heels with a bill. The government has gone back to the drawing board three times and each time it has come back with a bill that is no different. It has ignored what the witnesses had to say.

I wish to cite what Tom Lee, the Director General of Parks Canada, told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. He said:

The marine conservation areas fall under a partnership with other federal departments, basically, under the general direction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes leadership in putting in place the protective and management measures for Canada's oceans. That involves a number of federal departments, and the two other major ones are noted here, Environment and Canadian Heritage.

Once again, there are doubts about Heritage Canada's effectiveness in managing marine conservation areas.

I have here more testimony, this time by Marlon Quinton, a project co-ordinator who appeared before the committee. He said, and I quote:

This brief is submitted to the House of Commons standing committee on behalf of the Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay National Marine Conservation Area Advisory Committee Cooperation.

As a committee, we have held a series of stakeholder meetings to exchange information and obtain feedback on the suitability of the proposed marine park, to date.

He continues:

Stakeholder workshops have been held on commercial fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and mistrust of government and how to build trust. In our deliberations we have taken a careful look at what impact this initiative would have on the Newfoundland people who earn a living on the water and at whether Bill C-48 and the proposed NMCA could negatively affect traditional and existing livelihoods, incomes, property rights, and freedoms.

He added, for another reason:

We are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of legislation.

We were presented with about two pages full of objections in connection with Bill C-10, should it ever see the light of day.

There is another. I wonder how all these recommendations came to be ignored, when they simply suggested that Bill C-10 be withdrawn and not proceeded with, as there were so many witnesses who were opposed to it.

Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, also indicated the harmful nature of the bill. He spoke of the alliance membership, describing them as primarily inshore fishers who generally use fixed gear and fish along the coastline.

He went on to say that, for all manner of reasons, he would:

—not be interested in seeing a marine conservation area as intended by the spirit of the law. This is unlikely to be accepted by those industries or communities that depend on the sea for their livelihood. It will clearly have to be acceptable to stakeholders.

Once again, we see economic concerns expressed.

In light of the inefficacy Bill C-10 would have, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to going ahead with and supporting, this bill.

Then there is the matter of Quebec jurisdiction. Why in this bill did they ignore Quebec jurisdiction over marine areas? We find it regrettable that Bill C-10 did not respect the integrity of the territory. Why did we set up the Saguenay marine park in consultation with the community, the federal government and the Quebec government?

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park would 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. 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.

There was also the St. Lawrence action plan, another example the government could have followed. The environment ministers of Quebec and of Canada announced phase 3 of the St. Lawrence development plan, representing a total bill of $230 million. How did they manage to agree in these two examples, and in the case of Bill C-10, which is on the table, and in the establishment of the 28 marine conservation areas, the government ignored Quebec's jurisdiction?

The government also knows that jurisdiction over the environment is shared under the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal and Quebec governments share jurisdiction over the environment. Here again, we can see the federal government's bad faith in this matter. The Constitution Act provides that: “in each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to: exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom”.

When we see the lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions, which pertain to the exploration for natural resources, development, conservation and the management of natural resources, we see the government is ignoring provincial jurisdictions.

By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model and by making title to the territory an essential condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas, the federal government would be able to establish marine conservation areas on submerged lands to which it claims to have title and thus bypass Quebec's environmental jurisdictions.

We are very disappointed with what the federal government did with the recommendations made by various witnesses, including with regard to the protection of provincial jurisdictions.

There is more. The witnesses came to tell us that marine conservation areas should not be the responsibility of Heritage Canada because of duplication within the federal government, with Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada both having a certain role to play with regard to the protection of ecosystems.

National parks come under the responsibility of Canadian Heritage, which is not necessarily doing its job. There are serious problems in some national parks. I could mention the case of Forillon park, where a cliff is threatening to slide and collapse. Nothing has been done to reinforce it, which puts the life of tourists and workers in danger. In the case of Mingan Islands park, money is needed. Several islands are threatened by erosion. Witnesses raised several problems in national parks.

Why does Heritage Canada not fulfil its responsibility in this area instead of dealing with problems that are not its concern? If it wants to do things right, it should start by doing the things for which it is responsible.

Business Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that the House is eager to give unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the decision taken by this House earlier today with respect to the third reading of Bill C-26, when debate on Bill C-10 is completed this day, the House shall revert to consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-26, provided that, at 6.30 p.m. today, Bill C-26 shall be deemed to have been read a third time and passed.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. The Canadian Alliance supports sustaining and developing national parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. The Canadian Alliance also supports sustainable development and environmental protection regulations that have been fully debated by parliamentarians.

The bill is bad legislation in that it strengthens the power of cabinet while diminishing the effectiveness of elected representatives. No valid argument exists at this time for the need for the legislation.

It is obvious the government is not fully committed to the file, as legislation has been allowed to die on the order paper at least twice previously. We know it is unnecessary in that the regulatory framework already exists to accomplish what the bill purports to want to achieve. To sum it up, it is a power grab by the heritage department, and other government departments are not saying anything when they should be.

I have a living example from when I was in the Atlantic provinces last week with the fisheries committee. There is a fisheries department with its set of regulations for marine conservation. There is a lot of offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Newfoundland and off the south coast of Nova Scotia. There is a board called the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board which has full representation from the province and from the federal government for joint decision making. Its job is to issue the leases for oil and gas development.

If there is one thing that would be at complete conflict with oil and gas development, it is obviously the creation of a no-go marine conservation area. One would think that would also have joint federal and provincial administration and decision making. Guess what? It does not.

Where is the natural incentive for the province if it is fully represented on the offshore petroleum board and unrepresented on marine conservation areas as envisioned under the Fisheries Act or under the fisheries department and by this legislation? Obviously, it sets up a federal-provincial problem and an incentive that is unbalanced in favour of offshore oil and gas development at the possible expense of the environment. It is hardly a balanced approach to take and an obvious shortcoming of this and other marine conservation legislation.

In my question to the Bloc member for Trois-Rivières I spoke about my concerns regarding knowing where these 29 parks contemplated by the marine conservation legislation of the Department of Heritage existed. The legislation should describe the location of the parks it intends to create and insert the information into the schedule.

There was lots of time to do it. If the department did not have time when it first submitted the legislation to the last parliament, it certainly has had time by now to fill in lots of the gaps. However it does not want to because it might mobilize even more people concerned about the legislation.

Right now if the government was going to create a land based park, a new national park, it would have to bring it to this place. If the bill goes through and it wanted to create a new offshore park, order in council or cabinet could make that decision. It never has to come here. That is totally inappropriate. However, if we ever wanted to reduce or remove one of those areas from that status, then it would have to come back here. That is what I call hypocrisy, a double standard and any other number of negative terms.

I spoke on the bill before in its previous form. It has not changed a whole bunch. There are things that are not well known to the public that need to be known. For example, fishing activity, aquaculture or fisheries management, marine navigation, marine safety plans are all subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage under this bill. That is a power grab.

One can see there is already difficulty, and I saw examples of this last week, between the agenda of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the agenda of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in terms of which one is the lead agency, which one deals with the stakeholders and all that when it comes to offshore oil and gas development on the east coast. We are going to get there on the west coast in terms of oil and gas development. The debate and the discussion is going to move forward. Quite honestly, it is a mess. We do not need this piece of legislation.

Right now it is very clear whose mandate and responsibility some of these activities are. It is going to become diffuse, subject to competing agendas. We are going to see the special interest groups and the lobbyists using leverage on various government ministers and departments. They can go to one department and ask for their wish list. If they do not get it, they can threaten, cajole or do other things to go to the other department. They can handout their Brownie badges to whoever they think is appealing to their special interest, and the greater good gets lost. This is a way to fudge the ability to act in the national interest. It compromises the ability to act in the national interest and increases the viability of special interests to win the day rather than the greater good.

The bill, without any social economic studies, could for example prohibit exploration or exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic material.

Let us think about what I just said a few minutes ago. To set up one of these areas which excluded or prohibited fishing, the minister of fisheries and the minister of heritage would have to say it was okay. Why would the minister of heritage be asked if it was okay for fishing to be allowed some place on the British Columbia coast, or off the coast of Nunavut or off the coast of Nova Scotia? This is a problem. Any stakeholder that has looked at the legislation is very concerned about the implications. Those are all problems.

What is the lead agency? If we have a marine conservation area, which agency? With this we would have three federal departments that could set up marine conservation areas. Which department would set it up? How would they make that determination? Which would be the lead agency of the three to help chair this discussion?

I asked those kinds of questions last week in Halifax of fisheries officials and others. There were no answers. We are debating legislation that would change the status quo, which has been long contemplated. Nobody is even trying to respond to this kind of request in the public domain. This is nuts. The government members should be embarrassed at the mess it has created on marine conservation areas.

I have a major problem too in that provincial responsibility is potentially being completely co-opted by the federal government. I already talked about the natural incentive for the provinces when it comes to the offshore petroleum board, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. However it has major implications. Let me talk about west coast oil and gas again.

We will have a new provincial government this week. The election is on Wednesday and I think even the governing party has conceded of which is unheard. So we will have some new directions.

British Columbia worked long and hard and fought the federal government over who owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland coast. It went to the supreme court. This was a very long, detailed, expensive debate and proceeding. Guess what? The province won, it owns the seabed.

There is nothing in the legislation that excludes the ability of the Government of Canada to pre-empt that provincial jurisdiction by creating a marine conservation area in that area. That is a very clear conflict of jurisdiction and one that should be automatically clarified in the bill but it is not.

However the other parts of the coast where the province does not own the seabed are still problematic in terms of a federal power grab and a federal administration that is largely out of touch, particularly with remote coastal concerns on the British Columbia coast. I can speak to that with great authority, so can virtually all of the municipal level politicians and many of the provincial politicians from that part of the country.

We will have a major debate and a major initiative on things like what we will do on west coast oil and gas development. We do not need this piece of legislation hanging around in the current format to muddy that whole debate.

We know the heritage department has an agenda, but it will not fess up and tell us what it is. I have already said why it will not. One reason is because it does not want to stir up people who would be very upset with the specifics of what it is contemplating. Therefore, it wants to keep it general and broad, then it will only have to deal with the large, urban based groups that will look at the legislation more as a framework or a legal document rather than as something specific that is affecting a bunch of stakeholders. Somebody called it the mushroom syndrome, and that is right.

The bill requires provincial governments to obey it. The bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways. It will prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas exploration workers, local anglers, recreational boaters and others from being able either to earn a livelihood or enjoy themselves, at the possible expense of achieving almost nothing. If this were truly going to do something for the environment we would be more than happy to support it. The reality is quite different.

I did attend some of the heritage committee meetings. I was party to helping bring some witnesses to that committee. I was embarrassed at the treatment they received from some of the government members. The chief of the Campbell River Band was at the committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there. West coast fishermen were there. Rather than hearing the committee accept their legitimate face value concerns, what did we hear? We heard a lecture from the chairman of the committee. Quite frankly, I was amazed at the treatment meted out to people who had travelled so far. I expressed my great concern at that time. Now, much later, I am still out of sorts about what happened on that particular day.

This is a sloppy piece of legislation. As I said, we would have three federal departments that could protect marine areas, two being Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill would put Heritage Canada into that picture as well. Any time we have more than one party responsible for managing something, we get diffused management and diffused objectives and things tend to fall apart. I learned that during my long working career. I think most Canadians would understand that precisely.

Also we have provincial governments that have legislation. Believe it or not, we have had provincial governments far-sighted enough to create marine conservation legislation. I ask members to guess what they have done under that legislation. They have actually created marine protection areas. We have quite a few in British Columbia that have been set up under the provincial government. Is that not marvellous, Mr. Speaker?

The legislation does not appear to deal with all of that. Yes, the government has had a very complicit government in British Columbia to deal with in the last 10 years. Hopefully we will have a new government in British Columbia that will set some new directions and new initiatives in terms of dealing with the federal government on a much more equivalent basis rather than in terms of the mushroom syndrome.

We are very concerned that we will be pre-empted from an opportunity to fully develop industry in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions by legislation that blindly creates parks without taking a lot of stakeholder interests into account. It is clear from the way this bill has been developed that those things have not been taken into account.

We recommend that the municipal level of government be put into this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a decision making role in whatever these specific areas are that municipalities are interested in. There has been no movement in that regard.

In summary, this is a bad bill and we should kill it.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in the debate on Bill C-10, on marine conservation areas.

We know that the bill reflects the pan-Canadian vision that is characteristic of the present government. History will probably remember this government as the champion of centralization, as far as the development of this great beautiful Canada is concerned, a country that is more and more untied because Ottawa wants it to be so, even though it does not necessarily have the agreement of the Canadian population. Of course, members understand that if I mention the agreement of the Canadian population, it is because it is obvious that there are doubts about the agreement of the Quebec population.

We know that the present federal government, under this parliament and under the previous one, has been guided by the social union framework agreement, signed in February 1999 by nine provinces out of ten. Mr. Bouchard, the head of Quebec state, like all his predecessors no matter their party allegiances, refused to take part in a scheme aimed at trivializing Quebec by refusing to recognize its specificity and the existence of its people.

This is why Premier Lucien Bouchard refused to sign the social union framework agreement, which has nonetheless actually been implemented. It is a tragedy for Quebec and for the people of Quebec to see the actions of this institution, which is so pretentiously democratic. We saw it recently at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Canada praised democracy and demanded democracy from other countries, even taking a tough stance against the Cuban government. This does not ring true when one knows how things work in this great Canadian democracy, where returning officers are still appointed on a partisan basis.

When the premier of Quebec, the head of the Quebec state, refused to sign in 1999, as one of his predecessors refused to sign in 1982, the unilateral patriation of the constitution under Prime Minister Trudeau, it did not change anything to Canadian logic. It did not disturb the federal steam roller, which is there to level the provinces. It is there to standardize them, which may be necessary. That is one of the constraints of globalization to increase efficiency in Canada, but it is a tragedy for Quebec to be stripped of its specificity and of its distinct character and to be moulded, week after week, month after month, into the great Canadian whole with no attention being paid to its distinctive features.

No attention is being paid to the fact that Quebec is supposed to be, according to the member for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister of Canada, a distinct society. It is the government people themselves who invented this concept, following the commitments made in Verdun, where Quebecers were told that they were a distinct society. Then, without even using that expression, commitments were made during the referendum campaign, just as Mr. Trudeau had made commitments in 1980. He had said that he would put his head on the chopping block if changes were not made, although he did not say which changes exactly. They put theirs seats on the line for Quebec to be duly recognized within the Canadian federation.

What happened in the following months? They announced that the constitution was being patriated, which happened in 1982 without Quebec's consent. This phenomenon occurred again in 1999 with the social union.

This is quite a change; the more it changes the more it is the same. No efforts were spared, through a shameless propaganda campaign to the tune of $1,000 or $2,000, as we say in Quebec “The sky is the limit”, to try to convince Quebecers they can be good Canadians. They have tried to convince Quebecers slowly and carefully of the value of the concept of nations, founding nations in particular, and distinct society to mention a few, to get back to this one, which was put forward by the Primer Minister himself. They never said to which areas distinct society would apply.

Would it apply to marine conservation areas? No, it would not. Would it apply to parental leave? No, it would not. Would it apply to the young offenders issue? No, it would not. Would it apply to privacy policy, where I dare say Quebec is far ahead of Canada as it is in many other areas?

We could also mention the personal information issue about which the Conseil du patronat as well as the Quebec Bar and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux told the government “stay out of this. Quebec's legislation is excellent. We do not need the strong arm of the federal government interfering in the area of personal information. Stay out of this. We have good legislation in Quebec”.

Distinct society does not apply in this area any more than it does with regard to parental leave, marine conservation areas and 5$ a day care. If the government was consistent, it would say “We made commitments during the referendum campaign. With all due respect for democracy in Quebec and for the people of Quebec, we are going to implement what distinct society means. Distinct society means an unconditional right to opt out, because Quebecers are distinct, because they have successfully handled a particular responsibility of our collective life. We therefore have no need to duplicate what already exists”.

No, that is asking too much. Why? Because we know perfectly well that, if this government dared to do such a thing openly, particularly with the knowledge of the English majority in this country, there would be quite an outcry from English Canadians, who would once again massively reject, as they did the Charlottetown accord, any vague desire by this government to recognize that the people of Quebec have distinct rights or characteristics.

It is a dead end for Quebec. Slowly but surely, Quebecers are coming to the realization that there is no future in this country. There is no future for characteristics specific to Quebec or for the normal evolution of the Quebec people in this country. It is two countries in one. It is two different kinds of logic: the Canadian one and the Quebec one. This was the simple description that Marcel Léger, the well known and marvellous Parti Quebecois organizer, came up with during the constitutional debate. René Lévesque described it as two scorpions in the same bottle. If we go further back in time, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission referred to two solitudes in 1963.

That is the real Canada, a country in which the provinces are all put on the same footing, a country in which the power will be inexorably displaced to Ottawa, where decisions from coast to coast will be made in Ottawa. It has no time to lose with Quebec, which will be made to fit in and slowly disappear.

People need to be aware that, particularly because Quebec cannot control its immigration, some demographers feel that the Island of Montreal will be non-francophone within eight, ten or twelve years. People need to be aware that, as a result of immigration and the birth rate, Quebec will go from its present 24% of the Canadian population to just 21% within 25 years and just 16% within 50 years.

There is, therefore, an implacable process under way that will end up with Quebec's being trivialized, neutralized, if it continues to be part of Canada. Quebec must leave, and the necessity of this is illustrated by Bill C-10 on marine areas, in which the government announces quite openly that the ownership of these will be federal, whereas there is a law in place which states that the beds of the rivers, the St. Lawrence and its estuary are the property of the government of Quebec.

This is confrontation. This is what all these squabbles about overlap are, these meetings of public servants who want to wage administrative battles to the detriment of the public purse. It is the poor old taxpayers who will have to pay through the nose for all these multiple meetings, evidence of how conflicted this country is, while the federal government ignores the recent example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which offered a model of a well administered conservation area. This is no longer a model for the new Canada that has been under construction since 1999, with social union and all the logic that goes with it. This needs to be understood in future by all concerned.

I am sure that some hon. members on the other side are unaware of the gravity of this situation.

There are social democrats and humanists among the Liberals, and among others, who have not assessed the situation. There are people of vision, who love Quebec and know it. I am sure they do not want Quebec to be minimized and ultimately wiped off the map.

Under the democratic process mentioned earlier, what are we reduced to, if we want some degree of vision? The people of Quebec are reduced to being cut down, and systematically so, and will end up looking like Acadia, with all its charming influence. Then, the next stage is Louisiana and folklore. That is the sad truth. It is relentless.

My colleagues from Quebec sitting opposite must understand what machinations they are involved in. It is abnormal to be so negligent, so careless. Or perhaps they are happy, I do not know. There is one thing, though, there are things to be said between Quebecers and between right thinking persons, on the evolution of this people.

I must mention the article by Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse on Saturday, which gave rather nasty and cavalier treatment to a report on the constitutional position of the Liberal Party of Quebec . The report was written by an eminent constitutionalist, Benoît Pelletier, from the Outaouais region.

It is a discussion paper for right thinking federalists, those who still dream of a Canada where Quebec will be respected, something I see as Utopian, a dead end. Ms. Gagnon says, and I quote:

In the next round, if there is one, God help us—

As if the problem were resolved.

—all the provinces, all the native nations and all of Canada's lobby groups will put their demands on the table, and the effect of this would probably move Quebec's position away from the status quo.

As if the status quo existed. This is the type of smoke and mirrors that we get from these types of individuals, such as Ms. Gagnon, and from others in Quebec, but Quebec is caught up in Canada's moving ahead.

It is somewhat like what the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport wrote in his document entitled “Building Canada through Sport”, which is a monumental mistake, but which at least is transparent. Since February 1999, Canada has been moving ahead, it is not the status quo. What we have is a Canada that is moving ahead like a steamroller, a Canada that trivializes the role of the provinces, something which may be necessary for its own good performance, but which is tragic for Quebec.

Ms. Gagnon continues by saying:

What would be achieved, for example, in having enshrined in the constitution a specificity that is obvious and that exists in any case?

“A specificity that is obvious and that exists in any case”. This “that exists in any case” is the type of smoke and mirrors used by Quebec federalists; it would exist in any case if it were enshrined in Canada's constitution. However Quebec's specificity does not exist in writing. According to these people, it is a perception, and yet, Quebec exists, the Quebec nation exists, the Quebec homeland exists. This is not recognized here and this is what is tragic.

In my opinion, this is why Quebecers will not always be able to have it both ways. We will lose at one level or at the other. If we do not react, as we are being asked to by the Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, it is going to be a matter of life and death for Quebec, in terms of its influence.

We know the influence Quebec has right now. Those who, like us MPs, have had the privilege of travelling, of meeting people on the international scene, see the planet differently. They see a planet with a rather impressive Quebec geographically, a Quebec that is home to seven million francophones who have a definite role to play and who contribute to humanity, which is unique, with its French influences, of course, and its English influences, with its important Montreal minority, a minority that is very respectable and very rich in every sense of the word, and its allophone population, because Quebec is incidentally a wonderful destination for immigrants.

There is also the Anglo-Saxon influences, particularly from Canada and the United States. We are a truly unique people, which is clearly an asset in terms of its contribution to the planet and to humanity. One just has to look at the situation from afar to realize that the fact that Quebec is not sovereign is a complete aberration, Mr. Trudeau would have said that it was a crime against humanity.

It makes one wonder where Canada's social democrats are and why they are not leading the fight for Quebec's sovereignty. Quebec has things to say. Quebec is different. What Quebec has to say would benefit not only Canada, but the international community as a whole.

I cannot get over how this great country of Canada has failed to grasp that Quebec's sovereignty would benefit everyone.

I cannot get over the naïveté, bad faith or cynicism of which Lysiane Gagnon is capable when she writes things like this about Quebec's specificity, which exists anyway. I cannot get over it. It is sticking one's head in the sand to reason like this when one is aware of the constitutional problem, because there is one. There is a constitutional problem in Canada.

I think we must go back to the basics of Quebec-Canada relations. There is something wrong with the course of action adopted following the 1995 referendum, which, in my view, consisted of three scenarios.

The first was the status quo, business as usual. The second scenario, driven by English Canadians frightened by the 49.4% of votes in favour, and the 60% of francophone votes in favour, and I think we are still allowed to say this, was to try to please Quebecers. The government would try to amend the Constitution of Canada so that Quebecers would feel comfortable in this country moving ahead. The country would amend its constitution to reflect the will of the people, because it had had a real scare, because for much of the evening on October 30, 1995, Quebec had decided in favour of sovereignty. As luck would have it, around 11.30 p.m., that sovereignty slipped out of our grasp. We have lived with this.

I think that English Canada could have learned something from this. The Liberal government therefore had the choice of making the country more welcoming to Quebecers.

A third scenario, which was the one the Liberals adopted, was to dig in their heels; let Quebecers do what they liked, let them make their own choices, but in Canada, this was the direction they were taking. Take it or leave it. They had no time and no energy to spare to try to find approaches that would make Quebecers happy because they would never be happy anyway.

So, they have chosen the hard line. They came up with Plan b and they enlisted the ineffable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. All of this was part of one big scheme. The style the minister has chosen is not conducive to problem solving.

They dug in their heels and said that that was the way to go and that Quebec could get on board or withdraw. The ball is now in Quebec's court. I think this deserves more in depth consideration. To help us with our reflection, we have before us today a technical bill that is utterly misleading and is part of a Canadian centralist vision where the federal government calls the shots and the provinces have to yield. In 8, 10, 12, 20, or 25 years from now, the provinces will be just big regional county municipalities.

This may be a good thing for English speaking Canada, but I maintain that it would be a tragedy for Quebec. I will fight tooth and nail to prevent this tragedy.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the member suggested that Bill C-10 interfered in provincial jurisdiction. He also noted that the proposed legislation had areas of overlap with provincial legislation.

Would the member advise the House of one example of overlap to which he refers?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

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.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak with great concern about the government's Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. Before I comment on the areas of the bill that I find quite concerning, I would like to make the following statement.

I believe that Canada's natural heritage should be protected and that it is our responsibility to ensure a viable environment is passed on to our children and our children's children in perpetuity. However, I also believe that the very survival of many remote and coastal communities, particularly those in my riding in northern British Columbia, depend on natural resources.

British Columbia has been blessed with beauty and an abundance of natural resources, many would say more than enough to go around. Yes, we must protect our natural environment, but we must do so with the understanding that not all industry is harmful to the environment and that the economic sustainability of many coastal and remote communities hinges on their ability to extract or harvest those natural resources, be it fisheries, forestry, mining or drilling for fossil fuels. This is a reality we cannot overlook.

As members of the House undoubtedly know, the bill has had a rather difficult time making its way through parliament in the past.

An earlier form of the bill was introduced in the House of Commons during the 36th parliament as the then Bill C-48. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage which heard evidence in February and March of 1999. Bill C-48 then died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued.

It reappeared in the second session of the 36th parliament as Bill C-8. It made its way as far as report stage. Although it was amended slightly in committee, it too died on the order paper when parliament dissolved to the call of the October 2000 election.

Bill C-10 before us today is a reincarnation of both Bill C-48 and Bill C-8, taking into account the 1999 amendments.

I would venture to suggest that a lack of broad public consultation is the reason for previous versions of the bill being dumped from the government's legislative agenda in the past. I would say that it still needs much amending.

I do urge the government whip to allow her members to take a long hard look at the effects of the bill and allow their conscience to guide them in making much needed changes in committee and report stage.

At this time I would like to shift my attention away from the scope of the bill and narrow in on what I believe are some key areas of the bill.

To begin, let us take a close look at the preamble, specifically lines 4 to 10 in the government's definition of precautionary principle. The bill begins by stating:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to adopting the precautionary principle in the conservation and management of the marine environment so that, where there are threats of environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing preventive measures;

The hon. members in the House today and the viewers at home may not realize that Bill C-10 considerably expands the concept of the precautionary principle. There is broad support for the wording of principle 15 of the 1991 Rio declaration on environment and development, which states:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Members of the House should be concerned that since the precautionary principle guides the government in its decision making process, this substantially expanded version allows the government to essentially create marine conservation areas wherever it pleases; the definition is that broad.

By removing the words serious or irreversible when dealing with threat assessment, the government has carte blanche to decide what warrants a designation of a marine conservation area and what does not. This is not in accordance with the Rio declaration that Canada signed on to and, as such, is not an appropriate definition of the precautionary principle.

I would urge members of the House to demand the amendment of the definition. The precautionary principle is the guiding force determining what regions become marine conservation areas. It is not acceptable that this definition be expanded arbitrarily.

I am concerned with a few other clauses of the bill, which I believe either need to be amended or entirely deleted.

The government has said that the purpose of the bill is to establish the rules that will allow for the creation of national marine conservation areas to protect and conserve marine ecosystems that are representative of the 29 marine environments in Canada's coastal zones and the Great Lakes.

Unlike national parks, whose resources are fully protected, marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use, except where forbidden by clause 13, which deals with the exploration and extraction of any and all mineral or other deposits within a marine conservation area.

The bill would allow for sustainable use within the marine conservation area, with a focus on recreation, tourism, education and research.

Currently, federal-provincial agreements are either in place or under consideration for four parks, representing five of the twenty-nine marine regions. The proposed Gwaii Haanas park on Queen Charlotte Shelf in the Hecate Strait marine regions is in my riding of Skeena. This park could represent an area roughly equivalent to one-sixth of my total riding.

I must say that there are those who believe the intent of the legislation is to forbid any form of development within marine conservation areas and, further, to go beyond protecting the original 29 marine regions the legislation was designed for and to create many more new marine conservation areas. This is of grave concern to me and to many other Canadians.

As is mentioned in the bill, these 29 marine conservation areas would be zoned for different uses. Some may be zoned strictly for tourism, others for science, and there are many who believe most of these marine conservation areas would severely restrict any human activity, but more specifically industrial activity.

Whatever the original intent of the bill may be, I would urge members to take specific notice of clause 13, which specifically forbids any mineral or inorganic resource extraction within all marine conservation areas. Allow me to quote from the bill in clause 13 on page 9:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

I ask the House to reflect on why the bill needs such a severely restricting, overarching clause affecting all marine conservation areas when it is supposed to be the intent of the bill to zone each area for specific usage, unless of course it is the government's intention to shut down those industries in Canada that rely on the extraction of such materials.

Furthermore, I find it quite strange that members of parliament representing areas of Atlantic Canada would not strongly object to such a clause since some of them hail from a province like Newfoundland, where the famous Hibernia offshore drilling program has successfully and, may I say, in an environmental manner penetrated the ocean's floor, and its very existence is ensuring the lives and well-being of many Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians. Should such a bill and clause have been introduced prior to the Hibernia project and even prior to any exploration for that project, it possibly would never have been.

I would like to press on in this vein a little further and say that the legislation could prevent any further exploration and development off the shores of Newfoundland. For that matter, it could prevent such development off the shores of Canada, period, be it in our Atlantic, Arctic or Pacific oceans. Of course many will say that is true only if those specific areas are designated as marine conservation areas. That brings me to my next concern with the legislation.

I ask hon. members of the House to take note of clause 5 on page 4. Subclause 5(1) is most distressing and represents what is fundamentally wrong with the government. It seriously undermines the effectiveness of elected representatives in the House. I believe that once the members in the Chamber today hear what I will read from the bill they cannot help but understand that there need to be serious changes to the bill for it to be accepted in the Commons. I will quote from subclause 5(1):

Subject to section 7, for the purpose of establishing or enlarging a marine conservation area, consisting of submerged lands and waters within the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of Canada and any coastal lands or islands within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule 1 by adding the name and a description of the area or by altering the description of the area.

In plain English what this means is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet can decide out of the blue to create a marine conservation area in any member's riding or backyard. Yes, the bill does recommend that the Minister of Canadian Heritage consult with those she or he deems to be affected people, but it does not guarantee that their opinions will be heard and agreed to. It is conceivable, should parts of the St. Lawrence be considered a marine conservation area, that the government could restrict or reduce fishery catch levels for various species, or even shipping levels. The heritage minister might even choose some of the most fertile fishing grounds on the east coast or, for that matter, the west coast, and deem them marine conservation areas. There would be nothing we as elected members of parliament could do about it.

How does the minister think this will sit with Canadians and more so with coastal communities whose very survival in many cases depends on the resources they can extract from the sea? The power the bill in this clause takes away from Canadians and their parliament and places in the hands of a very few insiders, cabinet members, is appalling. I know my constituents will not stand for it and neither will I.

I implore members of the House to demand the amendment of the clause and to return the power of creation and enlargement of these marine conservation areas to the hands of parliament, where it will receive much reflection, consultation and thought. We are accountable to our constituents and to Canadians.

I know my comments in the House today may seem strong and passionate, but when I read on to the end of clause 5 to subclause 5(3) my blood really boils. There is no doubt that Canadians listening today should be outraged at the fact that cabinet is the sole body creating and enlarging marine conservation areas. However, it should incense them even more to learn that the body that creates these areas does not have the power to reduce or eliminate them.

Let me explain. It is all right for the government to expedite the creation of these marine conservation areas and to wield the swift power of cabinet to that end, but to reduce or eliminate an area would take an act of parliament. Allow me to read once again from the bill. I would ask members to take note of subclause 5(3) on page 5:

No amendment may be made by the Governor in Council to Schedule 1 for the purpose of removing any portion of a marine conservation area.

Of course I agree that parliament should be the body deciding on whether or not a marine conservation area should be designated. However, what Canadians may not realize is that only the government can raise in the House an amendment to an act of parliament, meaning that it would have to be the will of the government of the day to amend or remove a marine conservation area. It would not be up to individual members to do so. Although we as elected members would have the opportunity to debate such a bill, we could not make any changes on our own.

It is also important to note that it is not uncommon for a bill to take up to one year to make its way through the House of Commons and its standing committee, to the Senate and then to receive royal assent. Depending on the priority the government places on the bill, it could take even longer.

We know that in reality the time a bill spends in the House of Commons or the Senate is controlled by the government. It has been known to push bills through in weeks and it has also dragged its heels on some bills for years, not unlike what has happened to the history of this bill, I might add.

The point I am trying to make is that the government does not need to abrogate its democratic responsibility by allowing clause 5 to stand. It already has the power to push bills into law and could create as many marine conservation areas as it likes.

I would urge the government to do the right thing and allow parliament its due evaluation, consultation and amendment of bills relating to specific marine conservation areas, not ram this omnibus piece of legislation through the House.

I would ask members to support amendments to the legislation that would see the need for the government to introduce specific legislation for every marine conservation area it plans to designate.

I would ask members to support amendments to remove clause 13. As mentioned, that clause would eliminate the ability to ever extract resources from the marine conservation areas regardless of the environmental viability of any project.

I will leave you and my hon. colleagues with these final words of caution and conscience. Members should ask themselves how their constituents would react if their fishing grounds were to become protected under the bill. How would their constituents feel if their activities, those which, I might add, put food on their tables and clothes on their children's backs, could not be continued? What if they were told they could not work or that the bill would drastically affect the future of their community? I would venture to suggest members of parliament would want to consult widely, bring their concerns to the attention of the minister and have their day in the House to express those opinions and to convince their colleagues to support their endeavours.

As this bill currently stands, hon. members will never have that opportunity. That is wrong. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the first opportunity I have had to respond to the hon. member in that capacity. Let me begin by congratulating her on the position she holds.

This afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill S-11, followed by Bill S-16 respecting money laundering. As a matter of fact the debate on Bill S-11 may have collapsed just before question period. That means we will start with Bill S-16 respecting money laundering, followed by Bill C-14, the shipping legislation. Afterward, if there is any time left, we will resume debate on Bill C-10 regarding marine parks.

On Friday we will begin consideration of Bill C-22 respecting income tax amendments at report stage and third reading. We will then return to the list I have just described should we not have completed Bill C-14, Bill C-10 or Bill S-16, for that matter.

On Monday next, if necessary, we will resume consideration of Bill C-22, followed by Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill, at third reading. We will then return to the list that I described a while ago.

On Tuesday it is my hope that we will be able to commence and hopefully complete the third reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco taxation bill, as well as the second reading of Bill C-15, the criminal code.

Next Wednesday it is my intention to call Bill C-7, the youth justice bill at report stage. We also hope to deal next week with Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles, Bill C-11, the immigration legislation, if reported, and Bill C-24, organized crime. As well there has been some discussion among political parties and hopefully we can deal with Bill S-24 respecting the aboriginal community of Kanesatake at all stages in the House of Commons, provided that it has been reported to the House from the other place.

Natural Resources

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is a full public debate. Bill C-6, now before parliament, licences water exporters and its sister bill, Bill C-10, will establish where the water will be taken through cabinet order.

Why is the government not telling the people who live along the Great Lakes that it is setting the stage to allow the selling of their water in bulk?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our party to indicate that, with some significant reservations, we intend to support the bill at second reading stage.

However, as happened in the last House, after committee and the refusal on the part of the government to make the necessary amendments to make the bill more meaningful, if we do not get those amendments then we will be opposing it at third reading.

By way of background, I will reflect on the need for the legislation. Canada is behind the times on having this type of legislation. We have this huge, magnificent country, surrounded on three sides by water. Unlike a number of our other allies, we do not have this type of legislation to protect our marine areas. Specifically, the United States has had legislation since, I believe, the mid-seventies. Australia and New Zealand both have had legislation for some period of time which goes a long way to protect their marine environment by creating these types of parks or conservation areas.

With regard to the environmental issues that confront us, Canada has been slow in preparing and advancing this type of legislation. It is high time that we have it. The proposed bill that is before the House today and which will eventually go to committee would empower the government to move into this area.

I want to take a moment to mention some of the areas that environmental groups in particular, and local communities, including, in some cases, provincial governments, first nations, individual local municipal governments and environmental groups, have been working on. There is a good number of these around the country and they are becoming very frustrated with the lack of involvement by the federal government in providing assistance to develop and protect these marine areas.

My friend from Nova Scotia raised the issue earlier this week or at the end of last week of the gully that is off Nova Scotia. It is a gully that is larger than the Grand Canyon but it is underwater and it is at serious risk. The oil and gas leases, which are not being exploited at this time, would create very serious damage and/or danger to the marine life and the ecosystem if they were to proceed.

A great deal of work has been done on a very large park that is being proposed called Gwaii Hanaas off the coast of British Columbia on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Some of the briefing background I have indicates that environmental groups worked very hard and for a great length of time on the particular marine park. They have done it in co-operation with and with a great deal of assistance from the oil industry that has oil and gas leases in the area.

To its credit, the industry has given up its right to those leases. Everything is ready for the area to be designated. I believe all the work was completed by 1997. They have now been waiting for over four years for the designation. Obviously it will still be some time before we get the legislation through.

There is an area in the north off Baffin Island where a significant amount of background work has been done to prepare the area to be designated and hence protected.

There has been work done in Lake Superior, in the northern part of my home province, to designate an underwater park, which would enhance some of the other work done by the provincial government to preserve underwater parks for the enjoyment of the population. All these projects are at significant risk, so the importance of moving ahead cannot be overstated.

The NDP will be supporting the legislation. Hopefully it can be moved to committee where there will be amendments to strengthen it. The importance of the legislation is that it rounds out other legislation, to which we have had some reference today by other speakers.

Certainly the Fisheries Act provides some mechanism for the government to protect marine species and ecosystems, but it is not enough. We have the terrestrial land in the form of the work Parks Canada does in its empowering legislation, but this legislation fills a gap in the jurisprudence required to cover off the need to protect these areas. I emphasize it is our responsibility to act as good stewards of the marine territory in a country the size of Canada. The legislation is lacking in that regard.

I would like to cover some of the strengths and weaknesses in the specific legislation. There is provision in the bill to provide for public consultation. That would require consultation specifically with the provinces and the first nation communities involved.

We have some serious reservations. We heard concern expressed by the previous speaker from the Bloc on whether the consultation process was broad enough, extensive enough and meaningful enough to satisfy the provinces and the first nation communities. We share that concern. In fact we feel it does not go far enough in that the bill needs to be amended and strengthened in that regard.

I will deal specifically with a number of other issues now. One is with regard to the lack of prohibition in the legislation in terms of bottom trawling. It would be very detrimental to the ecosystem in the canyon off Nova Scotia. It is deep water trawling. It would be very damaging to fish species if it were a permitted use of that area. The legislation does not deal with that, and we will seek an amendment to prohibit such commercial activity in designated marine parks.

We have a similar concern with regard to dredging and the impact it has on fauna, currents and the general ecosystem. The legislation does not prohibit dredging, deep sea or otherwise, in marine parks. We will seek to change that.

The bill is also lacking in the whole area of aquaculture. The royal society's report on genetically modified organisms warned in very strong language that genetically modified fish must absolutely not be allowed into the general fish population. The bill does nothing to address that concern. It is a serious issue because we know of instances around the world where whole fish stocks have been wiped out. One can only imagine the impact on our marine parks if genetically modified species escaped and ran wild. The bill must be amended to address that issue.

We are concerned that the bill does not make ecological integrity the primary consideration when drafting management plans. The bill's emphasis on ecosystem management is reasonably strong. It applies the precautionary principle and I applaud it in that regard. It may be the first piece of legislation in Canada to do so. That is the good part of it.

Again, however, the bill does not recognize that ecological integrity must be the primary consideration. It is a glaring omission, and the preamble and other sections must be amended accordingly.

We have other concerns which our colleagues in the Bloc have expressed. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is a model for co-operation among all three levels of government. The arrangement is not perfect but it has worked reasonably well. It is a model that should be incorporated into Bill C-10 and we will be pressing for that when it goes to committee.

A final point with regard to the bill is that it does not take into account terrestrial sources of pollution or other impacts that terrestrial activity could have on marine parks.

That has implications at the national, provincial and international levels. Activities may be carried on in the United States, for instance, that have a negative impact on marine parks in Canada. The legislation does not contemplate that but it should.

It will often be land based pollution that impacts on marine parks. There are all sorts of examples where this has occurred. Forestry and farming in British Columbia have affected coastal rivers and streams and led to problems with salmon stocks. The bill does not take into account that risk or the need to deal with it.

Those are all the points I will make. We will be supporting the bill at second reading with the reservations already mentioned. We hope the government will adopt the amendments. They would make the legislation more meaningful and help it achieve its aim of preserving marine parks for the Canadian population and for global use.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the national—they have now become national—marine conservation areas of Canada. They were only marine conservation areas before. Now they have become national marine conservation areas. It is a huge change that occurred between the 36th and the 37th parliaments.

For the benefit of the people who are watching us, I would like to remind the House that, in the first session of the 36th parliament, the government introduced Bill C-48, which dealt with this issue but left out the word national and just talked about marine conservation areas.

The bill died on the order paper, because the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House and start a new session.

There was a new throne speech, in which the Prime Minister told us that his government had realized that it was time to put an end to federal-provincial overlap. That was quite a major announcement. We looked forward to see how it would come about. It was a disaster.

Soon after, Bill C-8 was introduced. It came earlier in the session, as we can tell from the number it was given. It was introduced at the beginning of the second session of the 36th parliament.

During the first session, the bill had gone through first and second reading. Witnesses had appeared before the committee, a report had been tabled in the House and recommendations had been made. At the time, we thought that Bill C-8 would include improvements since the government had taken its time and had let public officials, lawyers, parliamentarians and witnesses spend time on it. We thought “All this money will not go to waste; the government will improve Bill C-8".

No such luck. Bill C-8 was a carbon copy of Bill C-48. The bill went through first reading, second reading, and was referred to a committee, which heard witnesses and reported back to the House and made recommendations.

My former colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf who made the wise decision of going back to teaching, would be very disappointed to see Bill C-10, because after spending so much time on Bill C-8, he would feel that it was a waste of his time.

However, in all fairness to the government, I must say that Bill C-10 does include a few changes.

Some changes were made in the preamble. For example, the French version of the old bill provided that marine areas had to be “représentatives et protégées", whereas in the new bill, they must be “protégées et représentatives". It goes without saying that this change, which is found in the preamble, adds a lot to the bill.

The government also seeks to "recognize that the marine environment is fundamental to the social, cultural and economic well-being of people living in coastal communities". If the marine environment is essential to the development of coastal communities, from a social, cultural and economic point of view, why should we have marine areas where people will have to pay, as is the case with every national park? We have beautiful national parks, but we must pay to visit them.

The idea was to protect ecosystems. The idea was to make sure that future generations would see the splendours of this vast country, but those who do not have money can no longer see this natural beauty, because they have to pay to do so.

One has to see how the government behaves. I will use an example with which I am very familiar. I see my colleague from Charlevoix. We both live in a coastal area, an area where there are problems in the lumber industry. What is being done to help our loggers? Nothing.

We have a lot of problems with fishers. What is being done? Sure, there are all kinds of problems. Quotas are being given to other provinces, but the government is even unable to honour Quebec's historic fishing quotas. We are demanding our fair share, but it is being denied. Quotas are being given to people who never had any before, when the policy has always been to honour Quebec's historic quotas.

We have problems with loggers, with fishers, with seasonal workers. We were promised a reform of the employment insurance plan, which is not forthcoming. How do you think our coastal communities will react when the government tries to take their lands to create national marine conservation areas? I think we will be able to occupy our lands to fight expropriation. We will take action in due course.

This government's arrogant attitude in forging ties with the communities will not serve it well when it tries to take their marine property, ignoring all social, cultural and economic considerations. A marine area will not put food on the table for people in our ridings.

There is something else. The government wants to promote an understanding of the marine environment and provide opportunities for research and monitoring. If being ridiculous were fatal, the people in the government over there would all have been dead long ago.

I am going to return to some of the statements referred to by my colleague, which I find extremely important.

In the 1996 report of the auditor general, chapter 31, on the management of national parks by Parks Canada, the auditor general makes the following statement “In the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete except for La Mauricie".

It seems that everything is fine in La Mauricie National Park. Curiously it is in the Prime Minister's riding. In five national parks out of six that were studied, there were problems with biophysical information. What are we going to do to promote knowledge of the marine environment and encourage research and monitoring activities? How can the minister do so when the parks have been in existence for some time and are incapable of doing this at present?

The text continues "Monitoring the ecological condition of the ecosystems in national parks is a high priority, according to Parks Canada policies and guidelines. However, in many national parks—he looked at six—the ecological conditions are not monitored on a regular, continuing basis." What will be done in the marine parks if this is not even being done in the major parks?

The text also states that management plans for 18 national parks were an average of 12 years old, even though they ought to be reviewed every five years. A fine business: the plans are to be reviewed every five years, but 18 parks had an outdated plan. This is the best that can be said in order to be elegant.

The plans set out strategic guidelines to protect the parks' ecosystems. If the plan is out of date after five years, what state can the ecosystems of the park be in when the business plan is 12 years out of date? That makes no sense.

The auditor general added “Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks".

The auditor general's findings on the state of our national parks were pitiful. He said that in almost the majority of the parks visited there was no link between business plans and management plans. That is pretty terrific.

I wonder why officials are asked to do them if there is no link between the two. The auditor general also expressed concern about the fact that, in some instances, park management plans focus mainly on economic and social factors and little on ecological factors. This is what they are setting up in the parks to protect the ecosystems, and this is the department's last concern. The least of Parks Canada's concerns is looking after ecological factors, the very reason for its existence.

When the government says it is going to do this in marine areas, how can we be expected to believe what is written in black and white? The government's intent, its political desire, is not worth even the cost of the paper these things are written on.

The auditor general is also concerned about the impact of the marketing plan on the preservation of ecosystems. Thanks to its marketing strategy, Parks Canada expects to draw an increasing number of Canadians and foreign visitors, who will stay longer. This is about making more money, not protecting our ecosystems. This strategy should increase visits in off seasons.

We are concerned that Parks Canada's ability to preserve ecological integrity in national parks and ensure sustainable park use will be seriously challenged.

We want the legislation to be updated through Bill C-10, which includes good intentions, but already the government is not capable of doing what it is supposed to do with the parks, and I am not at all convinced that it will be able to do it with marine areas.

Another change is the provision to involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected aboriginal organizations and coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including bodies established under land claims agreements, in the effort to establish and maintain the representative system of marine conservation areas.

Again, I see a good intention. However, when we look at how the government proceeded with the consultations on its own bill, we cannot give any credibility to that process.

When the original bill, Bill C-48 was introduced, we told the government “Show us the results of the consultations that took place". We talked about these consultations in committee. Officials came to meet us and said that consultations were held and that this or that came out. However, when we wanted to get the real results of the consultation process, we had to apply under the Access to Information Act.

You know what happens when you make an access to information request, Mr. Speaker, because you were once an opposition member. What it boils down to is that we have access to nothing, because what we receive are eight and a half by eleven sheets, usually with so many lines blacked out that it is impossible to read the text.

When I was young, we did exercises where we filled in the blanks. It would seem that access to information officials have retained memories of this experience and are supplying us with all sorts of blanks by blacking out the important bits that would allow us to understand the text. Since the text is full of blanks, it takes quite a bit of imagination to be able to make any sense of it.

Consultation produced absolutely nothing. We received 300 sheets of paper. Only 73 of them resembled a sort of little reply coupon, which was attached to the consultation document. Even then, we were unable to see the real results of the consultation.

When the department tells us that the purpose of its bill is to respond to the concerns of those consulted, I say that that is false. There is no evidence of this in the bill. In any case, we are unable to obtain the evidence. When someone is unable to prove what he is telling me when questioned, it is because there is no proof.

If there were, we would be handed the results of a real consultation, without a fuss, and told “Here are the questions we asked, here are the answers we received, and here is what we did with those answers". Instead, we are kept in the dark and told “Yes, we consulted".

It is very important to be increasingly more democratic in this country. The government just had 34 heads of state sign a declaration to the effect that democracy is the most important value. The government should apply democracy here, in our own country, before asking others to do it.

The bill also expands on this. This is an addition to the bill. After all, I can be fair. Clause 2(2) reads as follows:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

This was added in response to a request that they made or a concern they had expressed. I can see that the government responded positively to that concern, and this is a good thing.

Clause 2(3) provides the following:

The establishment of a marine conservation area within the exclusive economic zone of Canada does not constitute a claim to any rights, jurisdiction or duties beyond those set out in section 14 of the Oceans Act.

Earlier, my colleague pointed out the interesting points in this bill. When the government decided to end the overlap in federal-provincial jurisdictions, it forgot to look at itself.

The government will find itself with all sorts of marine areas. We will no longer know how to distinguish among them, what to call them, or who is responsible for what. I assume that at some point, if something happens, everyone will pass the buck and people will be left asking what is happening and who is responsible for what.

The Department of Canadian Heritage wants to create national marine conservation areas. Under the Oceans Act, Fisheries and Oceans Canada may create marine protection zones.

Frankly, how can one tell the difference between a marine protection zone and a national marine conservation area? The government is playing with words, with concepts, trying to take over as much territory as possible.

Under the Canadian Wildlife Act, the federal government, through Environment Canada, can create national wildlife areas and marine wildlife areas. Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, it can create migratory bird sanctuaries.

I am thinking about the beautiful area I come from and about my colleague in whose riding the beautiful Saguenay-St.Lawrence park is located. The government might want to create not far from there a national marine conservation area, a marine protection zone or a national wildlife area because they might be useful to have in this area of the country. This would bring in more tourism, since this seems to be the goal. Moreover, a marine wildlife area could be created there, as well as a migratory bird sanctuary.

That would mean five things in the same spot because it is a beautiful area and the federal government will say “It is so beautiful, we are taking it over".

The government always finds a way to get into trouble. I hope that this session will quickly be prorogued, so that this bill will die on the order paper, because the government did not do its homework on this bill.

It has already been considered twice. We will have to ask witnesses to come back, once again. The government will probably say “So many witnesses were brought before the committee that there is nothing more to add". On the contrary, they would say “You did not understand a thing about what we said before".

The bill must be overhauled. It must take into consideration what the public wants. I see that my time is running out, so I will conclude.

I hope the government members have been listening carefully and have realized that the time has come to follow up on things that make sense. I really rely on the member opposite.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with today's issue, namely marine areas, I would like to point out that the members who are wearing a carnation today are doing so to mark the tough battle that is fought by people suffering from multiple sclerosis, a disease that primarily hits young people, including my daughter.

The bill before us today was introduced in the House by the Liberal government for the third time, after dying on the order paper during each of the two sessions of the last parliament, as Bill C-48 and Bill C-8 respectively.

This government, which is short on ideas, is coming back with the same bill, except for one thing: it has a different number. As for the rest, it is all the same as before. One would have thought that after listening to a large number of witnesses in committee during the last parliament, after hearing the concerns of parliamentarians in this House and after seeking a new mandate from the public, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have changed her approach.

I would have thought the minister would have gone back to the drawing board to come up with a bill that was a bit more sensitive to the concerns raised by witnesses before the committee and by members in the House. Nothing was done. We are therefore very disappointed.

By introducing a bill which is a carbon copy of the previous version, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and her government have once again ignored anyone who did not share their views. That is why the bill is no more acceptable today than it was earlier.

The purpose of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, is to provide a legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is the 29th marine conservation area. It will not be governed by this legislation since it already has its own legislation.

It is also important to note that this bill follows a commitment made by the present Prime Minister at the 1996 convention of the World Conservation Union, held in Montreal. On this occasion, as in 1994, the World Conservation Union, which represents 74 governments, 105 government agencies and more than 700 NGOs, passed resolutions calling on all coastal nations to put marine conservation measures in place quickly.

First, I wish to say that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of measures to protect our environment. I remind those listening that the Bloc Quebecois supported the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to this bill? Despite the fact that we support the establishment of environmental protection measures, the Bloc Quebecois opposes it because, instead of focusing on working together, as it did in the case of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park or phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan, the federal government is introducing marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

Heritage Canada is planning to introduce a new structure, marine conservation areas, which will duplicate the marine protection zones of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the protected marine areas of Environment Canada.

Heritage Canada wants to have marine conservation areas, while it has shown itself incapable of protecting the ecosystems in existing national parks.

One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the area is to be established. Moreover, clause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister cannot establish a marine conservation area, unless, and I quote: a ) the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area, other than such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada;

There is a fairly significant legal problem here, because subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. There is therefore no federal title in this context.

Furthermore, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec national assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including the 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 is to authorize the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction.

According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to the bill before us, 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.

This almost sick propensity for the federal government to interfere where it has no business being is quite simply unacceptable. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here to remind it of this, and to condemn its actions.

This approach is even more incomprehensible because 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 departments and Quebec departments concerned.

There are two examples that should be followed: the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.

In 1977, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed identical acts to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area.

One of the main features of that legislation is that 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.

This park includes only marine areas. Its boundaries may be changed only through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.

This ought to have served as a model for the federal government in the creation of other marine conservation areas, but no.

Another model that the Minister of Canadian Heritage could have followed is phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. That phase, which was announced on June 8, 1998, represented a total investment of $230 million that was shared equally by both levels of government.

Why does the heritage minister not follow these two successful initiatives and why is she now claiming exclusive ownership of the seabed to set up marine conservation areas, when partnerships in the area of the environment have so far been successful?

We wonder about the true intentions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will the federal government respect Quebec's constitutional territorial rights in that regard, or will it again ignore it to create marine areas where it believes such areas are necessary?

The environment is a shared jurisdiction. Let us never forget that, under the Constitution Act, 1867, the governments of Canada and Quebec share responsibility for the environment.

Under section 92(1)( a ) of the Constitution Act, 1867, Quebec passed an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife that specifies, in section 2, the role to be played by the Quebec minister of the environment and wildlife. It is the following:

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

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

By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model and by making title to the territory an essential condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas, the federal government would be able to establish marine conservation areas on submerged lands to which it claims to have title and thus bypass Quebec's environmental jurisdictions.

This is why it is important to be on the lookout and to reject any form of regulation or action which would undermine the national assembly of Quebec in this regard.

The Bloc Quebecois will not let the federal government have its way on this issue nor let it fulfil its insatiable desire to trivialize our institutions, our rights and our laws, just as it is not giving in on social policy in the young offenders legislation saga.

Respect for the integrity of Quebec's territory alone justifies the fight the Bloc Quebecois is waging against this bill, but there are other reasons we must oppose it.

The federal government intends to create marine conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, so there is a lot of overlap within the federal government. On the one hand, there is Heritage Canada and, on the other, there are marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of Environment Canada. A lot of people are involved here.

One question immediately comes to mind. What are Heritage Canada's reasons for establishing marine conservation areas? They can be found in the preamble to this bill.

It is establishing marine conservation areas “to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity"; second, “to establish a representative system of marine conservation areas"; third, “to ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine areas"; fourth, “to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage"; and, fifth, “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 proposed the establishment of marine protected areas. However, in a discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January 1997 and entitled “An Approach to the establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act", the purpose of marine conservation areas is also described.

In both cases, we are told that local people will have a significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected areas. I wonder how many information or organization meetings local people will be invited to in order to satisfy its bureaucracy.

Finally, Environment Canada is proposing, so as not to be left behind, to establish marine and wildlife 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 Canadian Oceans Act.

These areas are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but require a different set of regulations, as the Fisheries and Oceans Canada discussion paper states on page 49. It is quite the pandemonium from what I can see.

At the hearings in February 1999, almost all coastal groups who appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to speak out against this bill emphasized their lack of understanding of the federal government's position.

They argued that the Canadian heritage initiative would duplicate what is already being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and create a great deal of confusion.

I will read from some of the testimony given. According to Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada:

If the challenge for Canadian industry in the milieu of globalization is to be streamlined and efficient, we should be able to demand government structures that are also focused and streamlined. Regardless of the merits of MCAs, of this initiative, the manner in which it is brought forward will lead to confusion, duplication and conflicts in its implementation

Quoting from another witness, Marc Kielly, executive director, Newfoundland, Aquaculture Industry Association:

To empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the MCA initiative effectively undermines the authority and mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as provided for under the provisions of the Oceans Act. This should not be permitted to occur.

Here is another excerpt, from the testimony by John Melindy, project co-ordinator, NMCA feasibility study advisory committee:

Now, through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is empowered to declare marine protected areas to conserve species under threat. In view of this fact, we are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of legislation.

Why, then, call witnesses and then not pay any attention to their concerns? Why not look into the areas we were directed to by the various witnesses?

One thing is clear. The government would have been better advised to have a single department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating their responsibilities to the one chosen to be accountable in this matter, but the Minister of Canadian Heritage refuses to listen to reason.

A number of witnesses emphasized the duplications within the bill, but that is not all. Is there even more confusion in this bill? If you answer yes, you hit the jackpot.

As unbelievable as it may seem, the bill provides that each federal department will retain its own jurisdiction over the marine conservation areas.

However, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate, it may, in co-operation with the department concerned, adopt regulations regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the existing provisions.

Although this might seem normal in other circumstances, the difficulties can only increase when Heritage Canada regulations are enforced in marine protected areas, marine wildlife reserves and marine conservation areas, each with their own regulations.

We have another good reason for opposing this bill: Heritage Canada is incapable of protecting the ecosystems in existing national parks.

In 1996, the Auditor General of Canada published chapter 31 on the management of national parks by Parks Canada. In this chapter, the auditor general made some, to say the least, embarrassing observations, some of which follow:

Monitoring the ecological condition of the ecosystems in national parks is a high priority, according to Parks Canada policies and guidelines. However, in many national parks, the ecological conditions are not monitored on a regular, continuing basis.

On average, the management plans for the 18 national parks were 12 years old, when they should have been reviewed every five years. The park management plans provide strategic direction for the protection of park ecosystems.

The auditor general added:

Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks.

They cannot do their own homework regarding the follow up on national parks. How will they be able to do it for marine areas? The auditor general went even further when he said:

We are concerned that Parks Canada's ability to preserve ecological integrity in national parks and ensure sustainable park use will be seriously challenged.

Before duplicating what is basically being done elsewhere, including with marine wildlife reserves by Fisheries and Oceans, would it not be logical for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to ensure that national parks ecosystems are protected for future generations, as stated in the National Parks Act?

This bill is a means that the Liberal government wants to have to impose its centralizing vision.

This is a government that is anxious to intrude in provincial jurisdictions. With this bill, we are seeing the exact opposite of the “flexible federalism" that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs boasts about.

Thank goodness the Bloc Quebecois is there to condemn what the federal government is planning on doing, namely to duplicate and totally lack any consistency.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak as the official opposition critic for Canadian heritage on this bill, Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, at second reading.

What we have before us today is the third attempt to pass this legislation. This bill was Bill C-48, then Bill C-8 in the last parliament, and now returns as Bill C-10 in this parliament. What does this tell us about the commitment of the government to this legislation? It tells us that the commitment is not very great and it is very evident why. Even after three tries this legislation remains seriously flawed.

First, let us not be fooled by the language that was originally used to introduce this legislation. I certainly would not disagree with a proposal that would require marine conservation areas to be established for the protection and conservation of “representative marine areas of Canadian significance” and would be “for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world”.

However, upon closer inspection the bill does far more than the government is prepared to admit.

The first area of concern I wish to draw attention to is one involving the consultation process and where these 29 representative marine conservation areas are to be established. As with the first two bills, in this current bill the schedule is blank.

What is the government afraid of? The government is afraid that the same thing will happen as what occurred in the Bonavista and Notre Dame Bays area in Newfoundland, when political pressure from the local Liberal member, and I suspect from the current industry minister and former premier, stopped a marine conservation area from going forward.

I am not criticizing the former member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for representing his constituents and their well founded fears that unemployment and economic hardship would follow the good intentions of a federal bureaucrat over 2,000 kilometres away in a comfy office, drawing a salary of $100,000 a year.

What about those ridings that have upheld the democratic process and elected a member of the loyal opposition or, worse, have an elected or weak or too compliant member of the government?

We have real fears when we read the literature from the minister's department that talks about replacing the checks, balances and safeguards of parliament for, in the words of her department, the “simple, cost-effective procedure” of order in council to establish or enlarge marine conservation areas. Previous debates have pointed out this very serious flaw and yet here it is a third time and still this flaw remains.

I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River, for his input when this bill was Bill C-48. He very clearly pointed out the Henry VIII clauses in the bill. I encourage recently elected members of the House to read the hon. member's speech. Henry VIII believed in the divine right to rule and was always looking for ways to sidestep parliament and its ultimate authority as an elected body. It seems some things never change.

The current process, where the act has to be opened up and amended when a new national park is contemplated or changes to an existing park are considered, may not be as efficient as the government would like but it is consistent with our democratic heritage.

As the government is now beginning to realize, democracy can be messy. It is this style of legislation, the Bill C-10s, that will span more Quebec City types of demonstrations. As this government seeks new and creative ways to exclude people from the democratic process, unfortunately we will all pay the price with a fractured nation. Separatism feeds on these sorts of government dictates. If the minister were truly interested in freedom of speech, she would not be proposing government by order in council legislation.

The people of Canada have much to fear from the consultation process of the Department of Canadian Heritage. The process is so flawed that not only does it ignore the advice of the people, it will not follow the advice of its own studies. Nowhere is this more evident today than in the example of Parks Canada and its reaction to a health and safety issue regarding park wardens.

The minister should know that there have been three separate reports since 1993 that have identified unsafe working conditions for park wardens, particularly with the significant increase in fines for poaching in our national parks. Park wardens are being put at greater and greater risk in the performance of their duties.

It took a ruling from the HRDC labour program inspector to force the department to respond. Did the department and the minister do the right thing and accept the recommendations of three separate reports, recommendations, I might add, that are supported by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Animal Alliance of Canada? No.

The minister chose to ignore the best advice given and is blundering forward with an ill conceived and costly measure that makes no sense at all. It is very clear that the minister has a very poor record when it comes to taking good advice.

The only reason we in the official opposition can see for the government to ignore its own advice would be because of some hidden agenda. The reported plan to replace park wardens with RCMP officers, with a detachment in every national park in Canada, is absolutely sinister. What better way for a federal government to enforce unpopular laws, laws that the provincial governments want no part of, than to do it with its own police force?

As the federal government enacts more unpopular laws on an unwilling rural population, how convenient that the federal police officers are there for the Liberal government to call upon.

This labour dispute that Parks Canada is having with its park wardens will impact upon this legislation in a very significant manner. Clauses 18 to 23 of Bill C-10, the enforcement section of the act, in the current labour dispute means the act would not be enforced. It is one thing to require RCMP officers on land to go after poachers. Has the minister, in her $37 million request to the treasury board for the money to replace park wardens with RCMP officers, also put in a request for boats?

This is beginning to sound like the gun registry boondoggle, where an $85 million cost has skyrocketed to $600 million and counting. The people of the city of Pembroke in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are currently in the process of raising the money locally to buy a CAT scanner, thanks to the federal government's two tier health care policy. That $637 million would save a lot of lives in the community of Pembroke and a lot in other parts of rural Canada.

I and members of the official opposition are very concerned about the consultative process, based on the concerns expressed to our members over the bias of this government against rural Canadians.

While I understand that the letter from the Mayor of Kitimat was made available to the members on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when this legislation was called Bill C-48, I would like to quote from his letter as I believe it to be a fair reflection of the thoughts and feelings of rural Canadians:

Sadly, urban Canadians and senior levels of government seldom grasp the values associated with rural life, whether it be fishing, farming or forestry. All too often, regulation and legislation occurs that impacts rural Canada and rural Canadians significantly, while having little or no impact on urban life and, therefore, is supported wholeheartedly by the non-rural vote. In the best case scenario governments end up conceding ignorance. At other times a blatant disregard for rural Canadians occurs and is only rectified once social or economic crisis occurs.

It continues:

As a misunderstood rural population, we often wish the same commitment and daily practice toward our environment would be evident in urban centres. Often it appears that those who push for environmental and conservation laws do not enact the same values with their own regions...We understand our rural and remote populations are small, however...we chose to live in rural locations. At best, it is our hope that Canada be governed based on assessed needs and values of all Canadians...Further, we hope that persistent inaccuracies and ignorance of rural and remote lifestyles can be overcome.

The letter is quite a bit longer. However, I hope the essence of what the mayor was trying to convey about the legislation is apparent. The majority of Canadians, especially those of us in rural Canada, do not trust the federal bureaucracy to represent our interests fairly.

Even when we get good people who as public servants are trying to do the best job possible, they are overruled by their political masters, as is the case with the park wardens. Too often our interests have been sacrificed to political expediency.

There are too many votes for the Liberals in the city of Toronto to require it to deal with its own garbage. It is so much easier to dump it in someone else's backyard, in this case the backyard of the people in the riding of Timiskaming—Cochrane, near the pretty town of Kirkland Lake. Better to lose one seat than to jeopardize that big urban vote, and this government wonders why rural people should fear Ottawa when cynical calculations such as this are made by a troika of political manipulators. Actions speak louder than words. Where was the Minister of the Environment? For a government that is constantly looking for ways to intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction, it suddenly became remarkably silent on the issue of Toronto's garbage.

I am optimistic that maybe this time, the third time the legislation has come forward, the government might surprise Canadians and address some of these concerns. For this I look beyond the minister and her cabinet cohorts to her caucus colleagues, in particular those MPs who represent rural constituencies.

Those Ontario MPs whose ridings border the Great Lakes should be very concerned about how the legislation will adversely impact farmers, fishing enthusiasts, resort operators and other small business people who are the backbone of our nation. They should not be fooled by the soothing words of the minister and her bureaucrats when they tell them not to worry, be happy.

How about the farmer who sprays his or her crops with herbicide? Once the marine parks act is in place the regulators will move into the watersheds. The legislation will finish off those farmers who have not already been pushed out of business by foreign subsidies.

The people of Newfoundland got off lucky when the marine conservation area in their backyard was stopped. Will others be so lucky when the legislation is passed? It was lucky for them when they raised their objections that it was not yet law. Do rural constituents favour letting the bill drop the way it was the first two times?

It is ironic that the minister's own riding borders Lake Ontario. It has been pointed out previously that her own legislation could be used to shut down her constituents' largest employer. Cootes Paradise is certainly a unique waterfront, so unique in fact that several years ago the answer to the pollution in Hamilton harbour was to pave the bay. I am very surprised that the minister is proceeding with the legislation that has the real possibility of doing great harm to her constituents.

By the department of heritage's own admission there is already enough federal and provincial legislation in place to protect and conserve heritage resources. Federal-provincial agreements are in place for marine conservation areas in Ontario and British Columbia.

Currently federal legislation is in place for the Saguenay region of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. The federal legislation for St. Lawrence park was accompanied by complementary provincial legislation. Obviously the Quebec government saw the threat of federal intrusion and reacted accordingly. Why is there a need for the legislation other than the usual power grab by the Liberals?

It is no secret that the Liberal government is being pressured by NAFTA and the United States to allow bulk water sales. The trial balloon floated by the member for Toronto—Danforth before the summit of the Americas was no coincidence. Some Canadians are concerned that Bill C-10 is a Trojan horse for bulk water sales.

The legislation clearly impacts on provincial jurisdiction and would give the Liberal government the wedge it needs to start negotiations for bulk water export from the Great Lakes to the United States. These people are concerned that the government operates on the basis of multiple hidden agendas, except this agenda for water sales is being exposed for what it is.

What a coincidence that at the same time as Bill C-10 shows up on the parliamentary agenda a sister bill, Bill C-6, shows up. Surprise, surprise, it is all about licences for those people who want to engage in bulk water exports.

Perhaps it should be the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is identified as the sponsor of the bill. The legislation is a clear encroachment into an area of provincial jurisdiction. Once the bill is in place, the minister has arranged for any changes to be by order in council and thus avoid public debate in the House of Commons and in the media.

The province of Ontario is on record as opposing bulk water exports from the Great Lakes, and the federal government is currently unable to act without provincial agreement.

The legislation is conceived in such a way as to avoid that scrutiny. I challenge the federal government to accept amendments to the legislation that would expressly prohibit the bulk export of water from the Great Lakes and a clearer definition of sustainable use in national marine conservation areas.

The decision about whether Canada should or should not allow for the bulk export of water should be done in open and in public. The Toronto Star , as the in house organ of the Liberal Party, is opposed to bulk water sales. We know the government is deathly afraid of doing anything to disturb that Toronto vote and recriminations that would be heaped upon it by the Star in any debate regarding water.

The government is government by stealth. Unlike the Liberals we in the official opposition want open debate regarding any issue that impacts the public. Barring that and other changes we in the official opposition intend to propose, we are willing to tell the government to let the bill drop once again until, and only until, the concerns of all Canadians are met.

It is clear that the third time out the government is timid about Bill C-10 in public. I have had the privilege of meeting some parliamentarians on the government side who feel the same way the rest of us do who represent rural constituencies and must share the same fears I have expressed about this type of legislation.

The legislation, even if it were needed, is too flawed to go forth in its current form. We in the Canadian Alliance affirm the role of the federal government in the preservation of Canada's natural and historic heritage such as national parks.

We also affirm the right of Canada as a sovereign nation to govern itself in a way that benefits all its people. We do not recognize the inevitable loss of sovereignty every time the Prime Minister goes off and makes a commitment before an international body, in this case the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October 1996, without first consulting the people who will be most severely affected by such an agreement.

More important, we require the input of parliament before the people of Canada are put on the hook for something they may be very unwilling to support. The pretext for the legislation was that it was an international agreement. I do not believe the framers of that agreement at the UN intended the Government of Canada to use it in any other way to erode democracy in Canada.

This is not an issue for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This is legislation, albeit in a greatly changed form, that more properly should be in the name of the Minister of the Environment. This point was made previously in debate on Bill C-48 and Bill C-8. The point needs to be emphasized here again: the issues before us and our international commitments concerning the environment should remain with that ministry.

On behalf of the Canadian Alliance I would like to be able to support legislation to create national marine conservation areas. However as the legislation is presented it is not justified in its current form.

I would now like to respond to those individuals who might be tempted to say that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater because there are some worthwhile aspects of the bill that we surely can support. To those individuals I say there is nothing in the bill the government could not accomplish if it would just sit down and take the time to talk to the provinces, which in turn would require the federal government to talk to those communities that would be affected by the creation of a marine park. As proposed, the shortcut the bill is all about is not acceptable.

In conclusion, I call upon the minister to send the bill back to the drawing board. Maybe the fourth time out the government can get it right.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years, Canadians and their governments have built up a network of national parks of world renown. This parliament now has the opportunity to prepare the way for the establishment of a network of national marine conservation areas.

Accordingly, future generations of Canadians will be able to appreciate the diversity of our magnificent marine environments and benefit from them as they already do in the case of the exceptional natural spaces of our parks.

The long term objective we are promoting is to have each of the 29 marine regions in Canada represented in the national network of marine conservation areas. We will similarly establish a national park in each of the 39 natural land regions in Canada.

Each of the marine conservation areas, like each national park, should illustrate the region it represents exceptionally.

There are some who believe that national marine conservation areas will be just watery national parks. That is not so.

In the national parks, the first priority is preservation of ecological integrity where park zoning and visitor use are concerned. In other words, parks are administered so as to keep them basically unchanged by human activity.

However, marine conservation areas are designed to be models of sustainable use. They are administered so as to balance protection and use. That is why we need legislation that is specifically adapted to the national marine conservation areas.

I will take advantage of this opportunity to provide a brief overview of the legislation, indicating how it is designed to manage protected areas in our complex marine environment.

The bill establishes the legal and regulatory framework for creating and managing national marine conservation areas. It does not by itself create any specific area. Instead, it provides the mechanism for formally establishing national marine conservation areas under the act.

A national marine conservation area is formally established when its land description is added to a schedule of the act. This brings those lands under the formal protection of the legislation.

As in a recently proclaimed Canada National Parks Act, Bill C-10 sets out an order in council process for the establishment in law of national marine conservation areas.

While the order in council process will speed up the scheduling of new areas, I want to assure the House that the supremacy of parliament remains. The bill requiring the proposals to establish new national marine conservation areas must be tabled in both Houses and referred to the appropriate standing committees for their consideration. Should either House reject the establishment of the new areas, the order in council would not proceed.

I would like to stress, however, that the order in council process would not be used for any proposal to remove lands from a national marine conservation area. Like national parks, these areas are established in perpetuity and thus the bill requires an act of parliament to reduce the size of any existing site.

As is the case for our national parks, Bill C-10 requires federal ownership of all lands to be included in a national marine conservation area, both above and below the water. This ensures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have administration and control of these areas.

If a province owns all or part of the seabed in an area where Parks Canada proposes to establish a national marine conservation area, the province would have to agree to the use of those lands for a marine conservation area and a federal-provincial agreement would be required to transfer ownership to the federal government.

Again, without such an agreement the proposed national marine conservation area cannot proceed, and for greater certainty, this requirement is specified in the legislation.

In marine areas where there is contested federal-provincial jurisdiction, I would like to assure the House that the federal government has no intention of acting unilaterally. There will always be consultations with the province concerned with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory resolution.

I would now like to address the role of consultation. There is a very clear requirement for public consultation in the establishment of any national marine conservation area, with particular emphasis given to affected coastal communities. The nature of these consultations is set out in Parks Canada policies. The steps required by these policies can take years to complete. The national marine conservation area feasibility studies, which have already been launched by Parks Canada, illustrate that this policy is already in action.

I wish to emphasize again, if there is no public support for the creation of a national marine conservation area in a given location, then the proposal would not be brought forward to parliament. Parks Canada will look to another area with which to represent the marine region.

When the government decides to take the final step and formally establish a national marine conservation area, parliament will have an opportunity to examine the proposal in detail and satisfy itself that there is indeed community support.

Bill C-10 also calls for active stakeholder participation in the formulation, review and implementation of management plans. Again, the legislation provides for accountability to parliament through the tabling of management plans for each marine conservation area. In addition, the minister must table a report in parliament every two years on the state of national marine conservation areas and on progress toward completion of the system.

Coastal communities need certainty before an area is established. Therefore, when a new proposal comes before parliament, along with the report on the consultations held and any agreements reached with the provinces and other departments, there will also be an interim management plan. Management advisory committees will be created for each marine conservation area to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders continues on an ongoing basis.

The management plans for each area must be reviewed at least every five years. Thus the government will take a learn by doing approach for every national marine conservation area. Ongoing consultations within each marine conservation area will allow Parks Canada staff to learn from local people, drawing on the traditional ecological knowledge of coastal communities and also aboriginal peoples.

Parks Canada has taken a partnership approach in the management of the program and this is clearly reflected in the bill. Other ministers have statutory responsibilities that will affect the management of national marine conservation areas. Bill C-10 has been carefully drafted to take that fact into account.

I would also like to address how Bill C-10 reflects the government's commitment to working with aboriginal peoples. The legislation includes provisions to establish reserves for national marine conservation areas. These are established when an area or a portion of an area is subject to a claim by aboriginal peoples that has been accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada as a comprehensive land claim. Reserves are managed as if they were national marine conservation areas, but without prejudice to the settlement of the claim.

A non-derogation clause has been added regarding aboriginal and treaty rights. No provisions of the act will derogate the right guaranteed to aboriginal people under the constitution. There is also a specific requirement in the legislation to consult with aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claim agreements.

Finally, the legislation explicitly recognizes traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge in carrying out research and monitoring studies in national marine conservation areas.

Certain activities are indeed prohibited throughout all national marine conservation areas. The most important of these prohibitions concerns non-renewable resources, specifically mineral, oil and gas. Marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use and by definition extraction of non-renewable resources is not sustainable.

Other activities would also be regulated through zoning. I would like to emphasize to the House the importance of zoning as a powerful and flexible tool for managing use within a marine conservation area.

In each national marine conservation area there will be multiple use zones where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged, including fishing. There will also be zones where special protection is afforded. For example, critical spawning grounds, cultural sites, whale calving areas and scientific research sites would be protection zones where resource use is not permitted.

Each marine conservation area will contain these two types of zones. At the same time enough flexibility is left in the bill to ensure that each area can have a zoning plan that is appropriate to its individual situation. Parks Canada will identify the location of protection zones and surrounding multiple use zones for each proposed marine conservation area during the feasibility study for that area in full consultation again with local stakeholders.

Federal legislation, such as the Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act, is already being used to manage activities in the marine environment. These statutes were not intended to cover the special requirements of national marine conservation areas. Thus, Bill C-10 includes a number of regulation making authorities which would be used to fill in the gaps in these other statutes.

For example, the bill includes authorities to make regulations for the protection of cultural resources, for visitor safety, for the establishment of zones and the control of activities within those zones, and finally, for the control of overflights by aircraft that pose a threat to wildlife.

The bill also provides checks and balances on the substance of the regulations that may be made under the act. Specifically, any regulations that impact on the jurisdictions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Transport must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the affected minister.

The proposed legislation also includes penalties for offences against the Canada national marine conservation areas act or its regulations, which would be exactly the same as those that are in fact under part II of the Oceans Act. Fines of up to $500,000 may be levied for offences under the act.

I would like to reiterate that Bill C-10 is framework legislation. It provides the tools needed to create national marine conservation areas and to manage each one in a way that is appropriate to its unique characteristics.

I believe that we have indeed struck an appropriate balance between protection and sustainable use. Very few activities are completely prohibited, but tools are available to regulate activities to ensure that the structure and function of each area's ecosystems are not compromised.

We have an obligation to consult affected communities during feasibility studies, in the management planning process, and in preparing the applicable regulations.

Each area will be unique, unique in its characteristics and also uniquely managed. A national marine conservation area in Georgian Bay will be distinct from one in the Beaufort Sea or in the Strait of Georgia or in the Bay of Fundy.

Canada needs this legislation so that outstanding examples of our country's natural and cultural marine heritage can be provided with long term protection and so that all Canadians can learn more about and experience this shared heritage.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved that Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be read the second time and sent to a committee.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the opposition House leader on his appointment and to extend as well similar words of congratulation both to his seatmate, the new chief whip, and the other officials of his caucus.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the second reading of Bill C-6, the water export bill. I intend to seek adjournment of the debate after the speech from our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on this matter.

If there is any time, we will commence the second reading of Bill C-25, the farm credit amendments bill. It would be my intention as well to adjourn the debate after the lead off speech from either the government minister or parliamentary secretary, as the case may be. We would then propose to move immediately to private members' business this afternoon.

Friday we will debate second reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco tax legislation.

On Monday we will return to Bill C-6, which will not be completed this afternoon. We will then continue with Bill C-25 for the same reason, and then, if necessary, to Bill C-26, the tobacco tax legislation, if we do not complete it tomorrow. If we have any time left, it will be spent on Bill C-10, the marine parks bill, as I previously indicated to my colleagues at the House leaders meeting earlier this week. In the afternoon we will debate Bill C-16, the charities bill. I wish to give notice pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) that the government will propose that this bill will be referred to committee before second reading. This should, in essence, take roughly the time between 3.00 p.m. and the adjournment later in the afternoon.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. In the evening it is my intention to seek the usual co-operation to hold the second of the take note debates on the modernization of House rules. It would be pursuant to consultation with others. My intention is to see if we want to have this debate using the forum we used very successfully earlier this week, but, as I said, I intend to consult with other House leaders on that.

On Wednesday I would propose that we continue with any unfinished business from the previous days, adding thereto Bill S-16 which was introduced in the House earlier this day. Should we be ready to do so, and should time permit, I would then commence the report stage and third reading of Bill C-22, the income tax amendments bill.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the introduction of this act respecting the national conservation areas of Canada. I think it will add to the framework that we have for ensuring that our collective heritage is saved not just on land but also at sea.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)