Madam Speaker, after trying unsuccessfully to amend the bill, after attempting to be heard in committee, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill for several reasons, some of which I am going to mention.
This bill, which is entitled an Act respecting the oceans of Canada, is prefaced by some rather surprising "whereases". This is indeed surprising in a bill that is supposed to outline the way things will be done; these "whereases" are statements of intent, the kind one would expect in the preamble of a policy paper rather than a bill.
I will read a couple of them to give you an idea of what I mean. The first one states:
Whereas Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in oceans and marine resources management;
This bill might have been coloured by the minister who initiated it, but the, not a policy statement, states:
Whereas Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in oceans and marine resources management;
In our opinion, this is not only pompous, but in view of the resources not provided for the implementation of such a policy, rather misleading.
I will read another one:
Whereas Parliament wishes to affirm in Canadian domestic law Canada's sovereign rights, jurisdiction and responsibilities in the exclusive economic zone of Canada;
What is interesting, in this instance, is that Parliament wishes to affirm its sovereignty or Canada's sovereign rights over its exclusive economic zone when, in the first whereas, it was said that Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role.
In committee, the Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment to clarify that "Whereas" so that this paragraph would not mean we are changing the respective roles of the provinces and the federal government in the control of the territory.
Yes, as Quebecers, we are concerned by this provision and no, the government did not follow-up on our propositions.
Let me quote the bill again:
Whereas the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies,-is encouraging the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.
That statement, which appears in various other places in the bill, is quite clear on the role of the provinces in the distribution of powers and responsibilities as the government sees it. Even if it comes from one department, that bill is presumably endorsed by government as a whole.
It is odd that, at this time in the history of Canada, the federal government would present a new bill where it treats provinces as private individuals or corporate bodies with whom it could eventually co-operate if it sees fit to do so, considering that, during the recent Jasper conference, in the absence of Quebec, provincial premiers examined their respective powers, agreed to follow-up on that point and talked about their eventual shared management of canadian federalism in areas like social programs and such, and at a time when there is, all over Canada, and not counting Quebec once again, a great determination to review the dynamics of Canadian powers and responsibilities.
I am talking about this issue because, in Canada, Quebec has been too often identified as the spoilsport, the one making it impossible to come to an agreement, while what we find out is that, on many issues, aside from Quebec which has its partnership project, Canadian provinces or at least a number of them say they want to take part in the management of this country. It is true in the social sector and in many others.
This bill is totally unacceptable to us because it divides the Department of the Environment who is already conflicting with the provinces in some areas of jurisdiction. It seems to divide the department into sectoral components. Thus there would be a sector for fisheries, oceans and ecosystems, which is very surprising and worrisome because it is obvious that, when dealing with ecosystems, even though it says in chapter 2 that this part does not deal with rivers, the department can also meddle throughout the territory.
Since the Department of the Environment is announcing 30 per cent cuts over three years, how can we increase its activities if it does not get any means to do so?
Finally, it has been said time and again that the department's power to impose user fees for the coast guard and the minister's authority to impose registration even on pleasure craft constitute an
outrageous abuse that leads us to foresee further centralization that makes no sense at this time, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.
We asked that this bill be postponed; it is definitely in no shape to be passed by this House.