Debates of Oct. 29th, 1998

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the advice of my colleagues and I examined the bill. I will speak on two points of it.

First, there is not a lot of collaboration in this Bill C-48. Worse yet, and I would like my colleague's opinion on this, one of the prerequisites to the government's establishing a marine conservation area is its ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established.

My colleague was talking earlier about a coastal region and about the regions near the major Atlantic ports. There is another interesting clause in this bill, which gives the governor in council as well, on the recommendation of the transport and heritage ministers, the right to limit or prohibit transport activities in marine conservation areas.

I do not know whether he looked at that in detail, but near the ports—even if he and I both would like to see all of us live in a healthy environment—there may be a problem that needs to be considered and resolved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois that there are some problems with the bill. At the outset I said we approved the bill in principle and went on to explain the kinds of things we want to see for the Atlantic region.

Certainly there are some obstacles that have to be overcome. The hon. member has identified some of them as has my hon. colleague. We hope that these can be worked through at the committee stage to the point where we are satisfied that what moves forward will be in the best interest of all.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit I stepped in a bit late and only heard the end of the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax West.

Just for the record I would like the hon. member to tell me if I heard correctly that he was actually making a statement in support of conservation measures taken in the Newfoundland lobster fishery and that they could be applied perhaps in Nova Scotia. I would like some clarification of that.

Specifically I would like to know if he is supportive of the recent conservation measures that have occurred in district 33 and of which he would hopefully be aware. If he is supportive of those measures I would like to know why.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member has asked a number of questions and I do not know if I will be able to address all of them.

The point I was making when I spoke about the Newfoundland experience was co-operation. I was talking about the consultation process and the process of people working together to try to find a solution. I was indicating that it must be a central part of the bill if we are to move forward.

I was not particularly endorsing the specifics of any kind of agreement, but I was talking about the co-operation principle as being necessary.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax West for his comments, as well as his colleague from Saskatchewan, for their constructive approach to this bill, which is an important one.

Like them, I am eager for this bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage so we can hear testimony, continue consultation, examine our colleagues' suggestions and improve the bill if necessary. If improvements are needed, we will try to acknowledge this and to make the required changes.

I hope he will convince our colleagues in the other opposition parties to refer the bill to committee so we may begin to examine it.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, with regard to influencing members of other parties, I firmly believe that each individual must decide for himself or herself as to which direction they go and how they see it in representing their constituents.

I would certainly put forward any suggestions we receive from our constituents that might help to improve the bill.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House to address Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. I speak to the bill on behalf of the member for West Nova who like myself represents many of the coastal communities in Nova Scotia.

The proposed piece of legislation is designed to protect and conserve representative areas of Canada's marine landscape for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians and the world.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always maintained a keen interest in helping protect the environment for future generations. Having been born and raised in Nova Scotia, I quickly came to appreciate the importance of our natural environment and the importance that this environment plays in our everyday lives.

Many of my constituents depend upon the ocean or natural resources for their livelihood. Many of our early settlers were attracted to this great land by the abundance of fish. Our aboriginal peoples fished these waters long before the arrival of any European settler.

Nova Scotia promotes itself as being the ocean playground of Canada. Deriving one's living from the ocean is a cultural way of life for many of us. We depend upon the preservation of this large habitat, not only for our survival but for the survival of the next generation. It is incumbent upon us all that we begin taking immediate steps toward protecting this ecosystem.

We do not have to look very far to see the devastation that can be caused when we take our natural resources for granted. The maritime provinces, in particular Newfoundland, have been decimated by the serious downturn in the fishery. Tens of thousands of fishers have been forced out of this industry because of government mismanagement. Cod stocks have been destroyed. There can be no telling how long or if they will ever rebound to previously sustainable levels.

Our marine environment is always under constant use from local fishers and under constant threat particularly from foreign fishing. Our efforts to protect our marine ecosystem will prove fruitless unless we stop foreign overfishing.

Recently our coastal regions have been faced by another menacing attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have been pillaging the ocean floor almost unabated by Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials. In Nova Scotia, specifically in St. Mary's Bay, this lucrative lobster fishery could be in danger if strong measures are not immediately taken to put an end to this illegal activity. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has an obligation to everyone in Nova Scotia to enforce its regulations on behalf of conservation and on behalf of the families which this fishery supports.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986 the PC government approved the national marine parks policy. In 1987 the country's first national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay was established. Unfortunately it has yet to be proclaimed. There are still outstanding issues to be addressed in this regard.

In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands. On April 6, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed an historical and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay estuary and the St. Lawrence River.

In December 1996 the government introduced Bill C-78, an act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Finally the agreement and the legislation were given royal assent, culminating with the proclamation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park on June 8 of this year.

I gave that little history lesson to try to explain to the House how long legislation takes and how important it is to begin it now.

The bill will provide the legislation needed to establish and manage a system of marine conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas in Canada, reflecting the relevant Parks Canada guiding principles and operating policies for them. The 29 distinct conservation areas identified by the legislation represent four broad and very distinct areas of Canada's marine ecosystem.

There are 10 specific areas associated with the Atlantic Ocean including the Bay of Fundy, Scotia shelf and Labrador shelf. The Arctic Ocean consists of nine specific regions including Hudson Bay, Beaufort Sea and Baffin Island shelf. The Pacific Ocean includes such areas as the Vancouver Island shelf and the Strait of Georgia. Finally we have Canada's Great Lakes.

It is important to note that although the proposed legislation is designed to establish and manage a system of marine conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas, it does not specifically identify a precise geographic location to be protected. These sites will have to be chosen through much consultation with members of the general public, provincial governments and obviously those individuals who earn their livelihood from these distinct waters.

I cannot stress the point strong enough that much consultation must be undertaken before any particular area is singled out for protection. There must be a balanced approach taken when exploring any area. The interest of our fishing community must be protected before any agreements on locations are finalized. Conservation is vitally important to all of us but particularly to those who make their living on the water.

We cannot simply target a location without exploring the long term effect it will have on the fishing industry. Our fishers must have a direct say in the management of their industry. We have already witnessed the disaster than can occur when they are excluded from the decision making process. It is also important that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be involved within the consultation process.

Earlier I briefly mentioned our aboriginal people's dependence on these waters for their food fishery. It is important that the aboriginal peoples be involved in the negotiations. With many land claims still to be resolved, it is imperative that they be consulted on creating any new marine reserve areas.

Under the bill there are restrictions on non-renewable resource extraction. I believe careful examination of any proposed site must be explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration.

Nova Scotia is finally going to receive the economic benefits of the Sable oil exploration. This economic boom for our province would not have been possible if the Sable area had been previously designated as a marine protected area. That is a thought that all of us in the House should carry with us. That is why I propose that as much consultation as possible is undertaken with all those who have a vested interest in our ocean floors in terms of both renewable and non-renewable resources.

I am encouraged by the fact that the department circulated discussion papers to over 3,000 stakeholders across the country, including fishing and shipping associations and unions; the oil, gas and mining sectors; aboriginal and environmental groups; and the academic community. This represents a very strong beginning in the consultation process.

In conclusion, the government had set a goal for itself of establishing 10 marine parks by the year 2000. The clock is ticking, but as we approach the new millennium we cannot afford not to carefully examine this undertaking. If it takes longer than the year 2000 then so be it. If we put the legislation in place and we actually go out there and establish some marine protected areas, let us do it so we do not have to revisit it again, renew it or change it in 10 years time.

Once we actually make a national park of a marine protected area it may be very difficult to get out of it. I do not feel there should be a deadline in this regard. It is something we should move slowly and carefully but distinctly toward.

It is important to send the bill to committee. Our party intends to support it. I am sure the committee will want to hear experts from every sector involved in the process. Hopefully at the end of the day we can put the bill before the House, have it voted on, approved, and have a better country because of it.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks my colleague, the member from the Progressive Conservative Party, just made.

He seems to stand up for the fisheries in his region, but there is so much duplication in Bill C-48 between Heritage Canada's marine conservation areas, Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine and wildlife reserves that one can wonder who will have the largest jurisdiction and be able to protect fisheries the best.

He also mentioned the critical situation resulting from the miscalculation in assessing fish stocks.

Does he feel safe knowing that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is the one who will be selecting the advisors and advisory committees on the management of the main resource in the Atlantic region?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, those questions from the hon. member are very good ones. On her first question on the overlap of jurisdiction, I think that is an issue we cannot put aside and one that requires further study. Her main question was whether or not it should be the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Because it is a heritage bill I see no other way to do it.

Certainly our member for West Nova has been very closely monitoring the bill. We feel comfortable with it because of his assessment. It would be incumbent upon each party in the House, all of the oppositions parties and the government as well, to make sure that they are comfortable with all of the details of this bill.

In answer to the hon. member's question, I would suggest that it would be incumbent upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage to confer with her colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment. It would be a very dangerous precedent, because of the overlapping jurisdictions, not to confer with those parties.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Water Exports; the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Canadian Coast Guard.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, as I did earlier for our colleague from Halifax West, I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore for his remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. I thank him for his positive contribution to this debate at second reading and for supporting the principle of the bill, so that a full and comprehensive debate can take place and that we can learn from the experts who come to testify before the committee.

I too look forward to starting work on this bill as soon as possible in committee with his colleague from Nova West, and I thank him for his remarks.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member on the government side.

Certainly that is the type of attitude we have to take toward this very important piece of legislation. My hon. colleague for West Nova has been following this legislation very closely and it is through this type of co-operation and understanding that we can promote this important type of legislation.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the government on introducing this bill regarding marine conservation areas and to express my particular delight because this is one policy area that all members of the House agree requires very urgent attention.

In congratulating the government I would also like to say that the Secretary of State for Parks earlier today made a very important reference to the commitment Canada made at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and also in signing the biodiversity convention in Rio in 1992. These are two very important points of reference in our participation and role in the global community.

The sooner this bill can be moved ahead the better because it will take time to implement. Today we are discussing legislation which is enabling, but that is all it does. It sets the foundation for the creation of the marine protected areas. That is the extent of the measure. It is the first step on the road toward a very distant goal.

Also I would like to make a note of caution at this point in connection with the ecological integrity of existing parks, such as the case of the Pukaskwa National Park where some threats are being noticed near the proposed marine park in the form of forestry companies which are now asking the Government of Ontario for permission to log closer and closer to the park boundaries.

In other words, the buffer areas around the national parks are in need of being firmly protected. There is, as we all know, a strong connection between our land-based parks and our marine parks. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to protect them both.

It is interesting to note that an agreement signed by Ottawa and the Government of British Columbia in July 1995 provides for the initiation of marine conservation area feasibility studies for two places: the Strait of Georgia and the Queen Charlotte Sound marine regions. One can see from this how long it takes, even when there is joint co-operation between two levels of government. Marine parks cannot be established overnight. This is an undertaking that is time consuming and complex. Marine parks cannot be established by the federal government acting alone, as we all know. It requires the co-operation of provincial governments and very much the support of local communities.

We are engaged in an undertaking which is probably the envy of the whole world. We are moving forward toward the establishment of a Canadian system in the field of marine conservation areas. The momentum is there, but we still have to add more pressure to see real movement.

The next step and perhaps the most difficult one is developing the management plans which will take into account the need for protecting biological diversity, plant and animal, and the need for ensuring that marine national parks are immune from the encroachment of various industrial pursuits and activities. In this way we can ensure that marine conservation areas become effective in achieving the goals of establishing themselves and, of course, at the same time preventing pollution.

Members will note that the preamble of Bill C-48 recognizes the role of the marine ecosystem in maintaining biological diversity. That is the beauty of such a bill. However, I noticed that the idea of pollution prevention does not appear in the preamble of the bill. Perhaps that is something that can be done at the committee level. I will have some other observations to make to this effect later on by way of amendments.

We can ask ourselves at this point whether the establishment of the protected areas proposed in this bill will create small ocean sanctuaries while the rest of the sea and ocean environment rapidly deteriorate, or whether we will have a critical mass, the beginning of marine conservation areas which will set models for the larger sea and ocean surrounding them. This is something I would like to deal with at the end, with future generations in mind.

A few minutes ago the hon. member for Churchill River spoke about the uses of our oceans in a manner consistent with sustainable development. He is right in doing so. He also spoke about pollution prevention. These are themes that I would commend to the parliamentary secretary in the hope that these themes will guide him and his colleagues in committee when it comes to the examination of this bill clause by clause.

The preamble provides a guide for the operation of the bill.

There is a definition of the precautionary principle, however, that is in need of examination because it makes reference to cost effectiveness as being a measure to prevent environmental degradation.

The suggestion I would make at second reading is that it would be desirable to remove the words cost effective because they can be potentially very damaging. It will not be possible to establish parks in conservation areas if we are guided only by cost effectiveness principles. There are many other values that come into play when proceeding with the purpose and the intent of Bill C-48.

Looking at the bill more closely, it seems to me that in the preamble the reference to cost effectiveness ought to be revised by perhaps just leaving the word “effective”. It is less limiting in scope and it still has value. It has merit. But the term “cost” is certainly one that will hamper future generations of administrators and political decision makers.

In examining the bill further, in subclause 4 of clause 9, I find that the minister will have to make agreements with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when establishing a management plan. This could have some negative effects because the goals of the minister in charge of Canadian heritage may differ from the goals of the minister in charge of fisheries and oceans. This limitation in the powers of the minister of heritage will not be very helpful and ought to be removed if we are to allow for a speedy process in the establishment of the conservation areas.

Moving on to prohibitions, on page 7 of the bill, it is a bit disturbing to read clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15. It seems to me that a bill establishing conservation areas ought not to envisage the disposition of dumping. Dumping should not be allowed in marine conservation areas. It is as basic as that. Dumping ought to take place in a safe manner on the land and subclause 14(1) ought to be deleted.

I notice also in clause 13 that, while it is desirable that no person shall explore or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates and other organic matters, there is no reference to fishing. Therefore, the question arises: Is fishing allowed in marine conservation areas? If so, under what restrictions, under what limitations and under which criteria? Obviously fishing in an unlimited fashion could not be allowed in a conservation area. Therefore, clause 13 needs to be clarified.

Clause 14 has some positive features to it, namely that the concurrence of the minister is required before issuing a permit under section 71 of CEPA, provided that the role of the minister will be as stringent and as disciplined as the role performed by the minister in charge of CEPA itself.

When we come to clause 15, permits and authorizations, it seems to me that the superintendent is given too wide powers. The powers given to the superintendent ought to be restricted. The issuing of permits should be examined very closely before the final decision is made at the higher level because this could have a serious and negative impact on the quality of the area that is to be conserved.

Under the regulations, clause 16(1)(a) is a very good one because it is the first and is very strong for the protection of ecosystems and the elements of ecosystems. Clause 16(1)(j) is for the control of the flight of aircraft and so on to prevent disturbances of wildlife et cetera. We all know the reasons and it is good to find it spelled out.

When it comes to clause 16(1)(l), authorizing the dumping of substances and so on, I would say with all due respect that the minister would be well advised in removing this subclause from the regulations. We cannot have a conservation area in which we dump substances. It is almost a contradiction in terms. We have to be very careful. We all know that there is waste and that human waste must be handled, be it industrial, commercial and otherwise, but there must be ways of doing it on the land in a very well controlled fashion so as to facilitate and enhance the quality of the conservation area.

In clause 16(4) there is a provision for air navigation that can only be made on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Transport. Here again it should be a decision by the minister alone because of the nature and the purpose of the bill. There has to be some degree of autonomy if we are to pursue this goal seriously and effectively. The Minister of Transport may have very important considerations but sometimes they will have to be modified by the will and intent of the minister himself or herself.

Clause 17 on page 10 indicates that the governor in council may exempt from any provision of the regulations a movement of a ship or aircraft. Why is that necessary? Surely a conservation area where we want to protect the marine quality ought to be also protected from the movement of ship or aircraft. These are not immense areas that cannot be bypassed or circumvented. Surely there are alternative navigational routes.

Here again I am appealing to the parliamentary secretary to add some words such as “under exceptional circumstances” to clause 17(a) or (b), to stress the fact that only under specific conditions the movement of ships and aircraft ought to be allowed. In other words, it would indicate that the legislators are giving a strong signal to the administrators that only under special conditions the movement of ships and aircraft is going to be tolerated.

I notice clause 29 deals with litigation of environmental damage. It reads something along the lines that any person who has management or control of the substance or who causes or contributes to the discharge or deposit, in other words, that could injure animals, fish or plants in the area, shall take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate such degradation or injury.

It seems an element of urgency is missing in this clause. The word immediate ought to be inserted. I do not know how the courts would interpret the word reasonable in this context, whether it would mean mild measures or strong measures. Clause 29(1) deserves to be examined in committee. There may be a way to strengthen this clause by inserting the element of immediacy and urgency.

The exception on page 16 under clause 29(4) is also a bit troublesome. It reads that no measures may be directed to be taken if action is taken under several other acts. Suppose the action taken under several other acts is weaker than what the minister would like it to be in order to protect and conserve these areas. In that case the loser will be the minister and the conservation areas that are being established.

A qualifier should be included in the exception, that if the action taken under such acts as the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, CEPA and so on are equally as strong, then this exception applies. If not, then a specific action ought to be identified so as to properly and effectively protect the affected area. Otherwise by leaving it to the Canada Shipping Act, the condition of the protected area would be in serious danger.

I hope what we are doing here today will be the creation not of sanctuaries under siege, namely of isolated beautiful areas, while the rest of the marine environment degrades and declines in quality. I hope Bill C-48 will create models for proper behaviour in the larger picture of the seas and the oceans.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. He went into a lot of detail, which sometimes needs to be brought to bear in these debates.

In terms of the legislation surrounding protected marine areas, there are three federal departments that can protect marine areas, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill will enable Heritage Canada to do the same. Can the member give me an impression of why he thinks it is that way?

The member for Davenport is the chair of the environment committee. He made a lot of detailed comments about this bill which falls under the heritage department. My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River and I were saying that this is really an environment bill and not a parks bill. I am adding to that same question by making that statement.

The member talked about his concern about navigation and the question of navigational alternatives. That is a very interesting question for me and the area I represent. Let us think about traffic control and some of the big ships that now utilize the inside passage on the west coast from Vancouver up to Alaska. There is a lot of cruise ship traffic, freight traffic and marine traffic of every size and shape. To control all of that there are vessel traffic control centres which are similar to the air traffic control centres.

The problem is twofold. The reality is that we are operating in two dimensions only when we are operating on the water. In the air we have three dimensions so things can be a lot more limiting and in many respects a lot scarier.

Another factor has come into being lately. Federal funding for the coast guard, federal fisheries and other areas that affect all of the marine oriented activities has been chopped to the point where we were not navigating for our freight traffic, our cruise ships or our large ships for a period of 12 hours just about a month ago. This was very scary indeed.

If we cannot do that for everything from cruise ships to oil tankers to major log transports and so on, how in heck are we going to enforce a new arrangement where we are trying to deal with navigation in a specifically declared conservation area?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Vancouver Island North for being so effective in compressing so many policy statements into one question.

The first one, if I understand it correctly, can perhaps be easily answered by saying that there is from time to time a reorganization of government structures and it is conceivable that one day the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of the Environment will be merged into one. It may well be that one day the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will incorporate certain activities or this particular one and become the promoter of conservation areas. We do not know.

At the present time, the member is quite right in pointing to this tri-dimensional responsibility. In a way it seems to me quite positive that we should see a conservation area as part of our heritage. Let us see whether it works this way. Hopefully it will, but if it does not, we will have to find a better administrative arrangement. It is only through trial and error that this can be established.

On his second question, I am glad to learn that the hon. member of the Reform Party regrets the cuts in federal funding. I thought that his party was passionately behind the idea of cuts in government expenditures. I am not. Perhaps he and I should have lunch more frequently and go over the kinds of cuts we do not want to have. Certain damages are being effected. As to what is the public interest and what are the activities that we would like to see better protected and better promoted, in that sense, he made some very good points. I do not have an easy and quick answer to his concern.

I would imagine that a partial answer would come from his third question, namely that with the lack of funds we ought to rely more and more where possible on the education of the public and all sectors concerned so we get co-operation through the means of a better understanding of the goal that is being pursued with this specific type of legislation.

This specific type of legislation has some very strong provisions for offences and punishment. Under section 24 it is not minor and therefore if this section is really enforced some of the recommendations of the hon. member may be met and satisfied once this legislation becomes operative.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief comment and a short question.

I find interesting the notion that, when it came time to pass the bill creating the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, few members seemed concerned about a three-party administration or about any sort of duplication. I hope members are not using scare tactics in order to impede the bill's progress.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Davenport on his usual fine work, his suggestions, and his very detailed recommendations. It will be not only my duty but also my pleasure to forward them to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and to the government for consideration.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. I must point out that, with respect to the bill as a whole and to his earlier remarks, I am in complete agreement with him.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I talk about the bill I would like to talk a bit about the area I come from. Almost half the coastline of British Columbia would fall into my riding of Vancouver Island North. That is half the coastline of Vancouver Island and a good portion of the adjacent mainland coastline.

Within the constraints of all that coastline there is a lot of activity going on at any given time. There are certainly a lot of aquaculture operations. There is a lot of fishing activity, commercial and recreational. There is a lot of under sea harvesting. There are a lot of transportation activities. I talked a bit about that during my questioning of the member for Davenport.

There is a history of oil and gas exploration. There is as much oil and gas identified without major effort on the B.C. coast which would exceed the Hibernia area on the east coast.

We have very active waterways. I mentioned cruise ships. When I am at home I very often see six or seven cruise ships go by on any given evening.

I think it is important to recognize that we have a somewhat unique circumstance in British Columbia when it comes to our ocean area. We have established that the Gulf of Georgia, the seabed and all that belongs to the province.

That tends to create some new and different wrinkles on things because generally in Canadian jurisdictions the oceans are federal.

I have great concerns about the politicization of the protection of marine areas. That is one of the reasons I brought up this question about why we have three different federal departments all involved in one way or another in protecting marine areas.

There are many ways to colour the response to that but if people really think about it, if they are familiar with the way this place operates, it probably has a lot more to do with politics than with protecting the marine environment.

The reason we have three different departments trying to protect marine areas is that this is a public relations exercise to various degrees for various ministers.

In the case of this bill, we think it is properly an environment bill. It is falling under heritage because we know who the minister of heritage is, what she is all about and what she wants to promote. She wants to promote the fact that she is out saving marine resources as well as land resources tied in with her parks mandate.

I would like to comment a little about my concerns regarding navigation on our waterways because I asked a question about it to the previous speaker. In the response it occurred to me that there is a non-understanding on the government side that when it comes to monitoring marine traffic we have signed treaties with our neighbour the United States.

We have signed collective agreements with our employees regarding how we are going to monitor marine traffic. This government, this administration chose to break those collective agreements and chose to break the terms of that treaty because it has mismanaged the funding for the coast guard and the department of fisheries for this year.

When it comes to making cuts, the government will make the cuts at the place where service delivery is hurt. It will not make it at the place where the comfortable bureaucrat is continued to be sheltered, protected and coddled. It certainly will not make it in the minister's office. The spin doctors are all still viably employed.

There was one other response I elicited to my question regarding why we cannot have all this legislation fall under one mandate. Why do there have to be three mandates? What is the difference between these protected areas? What will the rationale be?

All we got was “We don't know that. Maybe they will not all be under one mandate. At some point maybe they will all be under the same department”. Those are all fuzzy, feel good statements.

We do know what the current situation is. We know what today's situation is. This is today's legislation. Surely to goodness we can design legislation that maximizes the current structure of government in terms of getting results. That is all I am requesting.

It is useful when discussing this bill to think about how this came about. I realize it goes back to the early 1990s, but in October 1996 the Prime Minister gave a speech to the World Conservation Congress. He announced the federal government's intent to introduce new legislation to establish and administer a network of marine conservation areas in the Great Lakes and in the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.

Where did this great initiative start? Did it start from local concerns, ideas expressed and generated by the grassroots, by the communities or by the provinces? No, it started from the need of the Prime Minister to polish his international stature at an international conference two years ago. Is that not typical?

Afterward we heard the national parks directorate saying it wanted to consult with interested groups and individuals as the first step toward developing the legislation. Should the first steps not arise from a problem or a perceived need that is expressed by those who have a problem? Must we always have legislation imposed on us from above?

Let us look at some of these consultations. When the legislation package came out I sent out a request for comments from 22 groups. All those 22 groups are groups that should have been consulted by the government. These groups found they could not comment in a meaningful way on the legislative package because they did not know where the marine conservation areas were going to be created. It is that simple. How can any local group get its teeth into a piece of legislation that has a vacant schedule I and schedule II that are supposed to identify what the marine conservation areas are? It cannot do it.

We know there are 29 so-called representative areas in Canada with lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. There would probably be at least one marine conservation area established in each of these 29 areas. Where are they within the lines on the map? How big would they be? No one knows.

From previous so-called consultation processes we do know that the federal government has preconceived ideas about the process and about areas it would like to designate that have nothing to do with consultation and everything to do with special interest groups and squeaky wheels in the maintenance of bureaucracy. These are not in keeping with local priorities.

I want to explain something. The recreational sector, which will be heavily impacted by anything that comes out of this, has no effective lobby in many cases. For example, in my constituency fishing is a big thing. The private sector does not include sport fishermen. This recreational sector is composed primarily of individuals anglers. If the federal bureaucracy decides to close a marine area to fishing, this will put a whole bunch of local anglers out without no means of effectively protesting the government's action.

Certain marine areas are being targeted in northern Vancouver Island as sites for marine protection areas because certain squeaky wheel groups want to exclude activity from that area. However, these special interest groups do not represent the general public.

If we invent enabling legislation to create marine conservation areas and then we do not create the areas, we get a bureaucracy that becomes increasingly uncomfortable because it wants to fulfill its minister's agenda for the Prime Minister. So it creates as many of these areas as it has to.

In effect we create a self-perpetuating machine churning out regulations that have no business existing in the first place. We end up with marine conservation areas that have a very weak rationale which flies in the face of common sense and local sentiment.

There has to be a better way. We have to make sure local government is involved in a meaningful way. I am aware of how local government was involved in the consultations on protected areas. We are talking about a DFO mandate here, not a heritage mandate. They are paid lip service but their concerns are not what drives the process. DFO bureaucracy drives the process in that case.

There is nothing in the legislation that tells me the bureaucracy will be held to account in ensuring that the municipal level of government, the one that is in touch with local needs, will have any meaningful decision making power. Indeed that would be contrary to the philosophy of the government and so it is no surprise.

My own constituency concerns are primarily about fishing at this point. One thing the legislation does is create a reverse onus, the opposite of the current circumstance. This means that right now fishing is always open unless areas are specifically closed.

Bill C-48 will make a marine conservation area a closed area and the department or minister will have to take steps to open it for fishing. This is a comfortable place for bureaucrats, but it is a terrible place for fishermen.

The legislation is very good in appearances. It gives the minister the ability to say she has created marine conservation areas. This supports the international speech made by the Prime Minister in 1996. It probably will not cost the federal government that much because it is easier to create a water park than a land based park. The real cost of the exercise will be the people whose traditional activities have been proven to be sustainable activities over the decades or over the generations. These people will have a tendency to be dispossessed.

We can be almost certain that no cost benefit analysis and no sociological or socioeconomic analysis of the bill has been done by the government. I would guess the government has no idea what the program will cost. In any event it probably does not matter because the government's first order of business will be to offload any management responsibilities on to everyone but itself. After having taken credit for starting what it has brainwashed everyone into believing is the greatest thing, the federal government will point fingers at everyone but itself.

The U.S. has had similar legislation since 1972. It passed the marine protection, research and sanctuaries act at a time when there was a burgeoning global awareness of environmental issues and a real environmental bandwagon. We were all in the same category at that time.

Since 1972 the United States has created 12 national marine sanctuaries. There are five off the east coast, five off the west coast, one in Hawaii and one in American Samoa. The goal in creating these 12 areas has been to protect vital pockets of distinct and threatened ocean in American territorial waters.

The first such sanctuary made in 1975 consisted of less than one square mile off the North Carolina coast surrounding the wreck of the Monitor from the Civil War. The others include the world's third largest barrier reef, unique waters off California, and coral reefs.

The entire U.S. system of 18,000 square miles of water has an annual budget of $11.7 million and volunteers are an essential component of making sure its system works. There is a lot of buy-in in the U.S. system.

I do not think our government has thought about the cost in terms of capital outlay, human effort and the cost of people displaced by the system. We have created 29 zones and no realistic budget.

When we look at the problems we have had with our fisheries resource and are continuing to have on both coasts, it is very clear that we are unable to police effectively overfishing, poaching and other associated problems. Right now on the B.C. coast police boats have been taken out of service. Police airplanes have been grounded. They are under tight budgetary constraints.

I was in Owikeno, a native village on the mid-coast of British Columbia. It used to get a once a month visit from the RCMP. It does not get any visits any more unless it is an absolute emergency. The police are concerned about drug interdiction. They have all kinds of concerns. They cannot enforce the Criminal Code on the water any more, and there are very limited resources in other departments. I am very concerned about all of that.

Bill C-48 will not prevent or assist any of this. If the funds are not provided the legislation cannot be effectively put in place. I could say a lot more, but possibly in the question and comment period I will be able to say some of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on Bill C-48. I have a couple of questions based on some of them.

One of his suggestions was that this initiative or the whole idea of marine conservation areas simply began when the Prime Minister made a speech in 1996. Perhaps he may want to explain to the House how this could be an idea that only started in 1996 when the first marine conservation area, Fathom Five, was established in 1988, a full eight years before the time when he claims that this idea came forward.

The hon. member and others who spoke on this matter referred to some sort of diabolical plot by the Minister of Heritage to include this in her portfolio when it should rightfully belong somewhere else. Maybe he could explain why it is that there are already marine conservation areas which are administered by parks and have been administered by parks long before the current minister assumed her particular position. Perhaps he may want to address that point.

Most of all I would like to know how the member can blanketly oppose the legislation, even putting forward an amendment, after voting for a marine conservation area earlier this year at the Saguenay-St. Lawrence.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the way in which we have such disparate departments promoting legislation that does not seem to hang together or tie together and which tends to politicize the whole process. I am not blanketly opposing the protection of marine areas.

In terms of talking about dates and when things happen, I remind the parliamentary secretary that in 1957 British Columbia created marine parks. I have been in those marine parks in Montague Harbour on Galiano Island and at Rebecca Spit in my riding. Some of these marine parks actually contain no water, but they protect anchorages and scenic shoreline areas.

There were many activities in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. Now British Columbia manages—this is the west coast after all—73 provincial parks and recreation areas and 15 ecological reserves with marine components. Parks Canada manages 155 square kilometres of marine waters in Pacific Rim National Park. I spent seven years in that area. I am well aware of the plan to create 3,000 square kilometres of national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

That is not germane to the exercise. It is not whether we have protected marine areas. It is how we go about it. I am saying the legislation is full of holes. There are lots of concerns. If we are to do it, let us make sure we are locally sensitive and that the people with the most potential to be displaced have the most to say, particularly in the beginning, about how they will either be achieved or even whether it is appropriate to do so.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the member opposite. Would he tell the House which of the 29 areas he or his party do not want to be conservation areas?

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I never indicated that I did not want a marine conservation area in any of the 29 areas. Dividing Canadian waters into 29 slots told me that the federal government must be targeting a minimum of 29 marine conservation areas. When we look at the U.S. experience since the 1970s it has only created 12 areas.

I am questioning whatever rationale went into it, whether or not it was a realistic rationale. I will be happy to identify which of those 29 areas I would not want to see designated as marine conservation areas when the parliamentary secretary tells my caucus which industry he would like to see targeted if the split-run publishing bill is found wanting by WTO.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member expressed his concern at the overlaps within the federal administration.

Three departments are in fact involved with the same bill. In real life, experience has shown that, when a number of departments are involved, they generally do not readily cohabit, the exercise is costly and the bureaucracy is extremely cumbersome.

I can understand the member's observations, because we can end up with a single area that is zoned in several ways.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her question. I was trying to point out that the government has very scarce resources that are already fully allocated. Indeed it is suffering some obvious shortfalls that it had not anticipated in the marine field on the west coast. So I thank the member for pointing this out. Indeed when we have three different departments we have diffused management and it is less effective. We have seen that very clearly in the management of the fishery. When there is one manager we can attempt to manage the fishery. As soon as there are two or more, everything falls apart.

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion.