House of Commons Hansard #145 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was magazines.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious matter. It is like shutting the barn door after the horse has run away when the deputy minister now suggests that no documents be destroyed.
Monsanto has contacted departmental officials with concerns that the Senate committee disclosed confidential information. The company has also commented on leaks of confidential information.
Is the minister taking matters into his own hands and making sure Monsanto's information turns into dust?
Allan Rock Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
All the noise coming from the various parts of the House tends to obscure a simple fact. All the noise about inappropriate influences and pressures obscures the fact that BST has been under study for nine years at Health Canada.
It has not been approved. BST will not be approved for use in this country unless and until we are satisfied that it is safe and appropriate for use in Canada.
Aileen Carroll Liberal Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On the recent visit of the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, reference was made to the excellent trade relations between Canada and Ireland.
Can the minister tell us how important these investment and trade links are to the Canadian economy?
Bob Speller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, in fact the hon. member is right. Trade relations between Ireland and Canada are excellent.
In 1997, over 1996 figures, trade increased some 50%, reaching $1.1 billion. High tech and other finished products are the primary trade products, but there is room in many other areas.
I might add that Canada values its historic ties with Ireland and values Ireland as a very important trading partner.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's denial of any knowledge of the internal RCMP report on pending charges is unbelievable. The RCMP commissioner reports to the deputy solicitor general. Is he saying his deputy kept him in the dark?
He did say that he had not seen the report. Let me be very specific. Is he telling us that he had no knowledge of this report, yes or no?
Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I can say with great confidence I had no knowledge of this report.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Sekiya, Minister of Construction for Japan.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, as deputy opposition House leader today is my first question to the government House leader. I am sure he will give me a good answer and not disappoint me.
What is the agenda of the House for next week and the remainder of this week that Canadians should be looking forward to?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, to answer the question generally, Canadians will look forward to the entire legislative package of the government, but more specifically today we hope to complete the second reading of Bill C-48, the marine parks bill.
If there is any time left this afternoon and continuing Friday and Monday, we will return to measures on which debate has begun but is not yet completed. We will take up these items in the following order: Bill C-54, respecting electronic exchanges of information; Bill C-48 if it is not completed today; Bill C-49, the first nations land bill and adding if necessary Bill C-56, the Manitoba surface rights bill. Next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.
I will give the business to the conclusion of next week because the week after we will not be sitting. Here is the order as can be determined at the present time.
On Wednesday we expect to be in a position to consider the report stage and third reading of Bill C-51 which amends the Criminal Code. We shall then resume our list, bearing in mind that if and when Bill C-37, the Judges Act amendment, is returned from the other place, we would take up any amendments thereto at the earliest opportunity.
Similarly, if Bill C-53, the small business bill, were to be reported from committee, we would also give it priority over other business listed earlier.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence was reading from two documents when he was answering questions from the opposition. I would seek to have those documents tabled in the House.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I know that one of the documents from which the hon. member was reading was the cabinet briefing note to which parliamentary secretaries and ministers refer to and which are not tabled in the House.
There was another document from which he was quoting. It was a press release from the leader of the Reform Party. I will endeavour to have that press release tabled forthwith, because I know that all members will want to see very clearly the cutbacks the Reform Party wanted to inflict upon the Canadian people.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
I trust that settles the matter. Given the undertaking of the government House leader, I assume the point of order has been answered.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to determine whether or not that was a briefing note through his office. I seek to have both those documents on the table because he was reading directly from both of them.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
I think hon. members know that documents of this sort are not normally tabled in the House. I agree that if a member is reading from a document it should be tabled. The government House leader indicated what the parliamentary secretary referred to. I suppose it might be helpful if the parliamentary secretary himself clarified the position, but we have the word of the minister and I think that should end the matter for the moment.
We will see what document is tabled as a result of the undertaking given. If that is not satisfactory to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, I am sure he will raise the matter again and we will hear from him at that time.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act to respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, prior to being interrupted by question period, I was giving members of the House examples of irresponsibility on the part of the minister in terms of how she travelled around the world and around the country in Challenger jets.
Canada is hurting for financial support. Taxes are being raised through people who use national parks to make up for the government's shortfall. We just need to ask park employees about the cuts in the maintenance schedules, programs and infrastructure upgrades.
Here we have a minister who spends tonnes of money utilizing corporate jets that are a lot more expensive than the way most members in the House travel. I have said enough today about the minister's travels and would like to move on.
I applaud the Secretary of State for Parks for having spoken to many users of the parks system this summer. He does a good job, but the problem is that there is very little linkage between his efforts and those of the minister and the bureaucracy. I applaud the secretary of state for doing his best to resolve problems.
The purpose of Bill C-48, the marine conservation areas act, is to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks.
I made comment earlier in my debate that the bill had no business being under the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is not about parks. It is about conservation areas. In principle all Canadians believe that our ecosystems need protection on both land and on water.
I would like to make a number of observations on the bill. It is not properly a parks bill but an environmental bill. Bill C-48 seems to be the Government of Canada's response to the convention on biodiversity. The government signed the convention on biodiversity in 1994 in the last parliament when the heritage minister was the minister of the environment.
Although I was not a member in the last parliament, the voters of Dauphin—Swan River very kindly sent me here in June 1997. I understand the heritage minister did not have an easy time as minister of the environment. I even heard that a minister of the government had to resign because of her government's policy on the GST.
I understand the minister had trouble getting along with her counterparts in provincial governments. I heard that when the heritage minister was the environment minister she got very little done. I am not against a minister getting very little done if a minister is trying to do the wrong things. It is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing.
I would like to know why the Minister of Canadian Heritage is pushing a bill on the environment. Where is the current Minister of the Environment? To paraphrase a great Chinese playwright, “a rose by any other name is still a rose” and an environment bill by any other name is still an environment bill, not a parks bill. With this bill the heritage minister expands her domain and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the minister of environment, her old portfolio.
The official opposition believes in balance. The official opposition wants a balance in the management of the environment to preserve biodiversity and to conserve the environment for the enjoyment of all Canadians balanced with sustainable development. The bill has not balanced these priorities in any way, shape or form. Frankly the bill is preservationist.
The bill takes no account of future needs for development of resources in a marine environment. The bill would even require fishermen to seek and get special permission to carry on their work in areas designated under the bill. The bill controls not only the water but the air above the water and everything below the water. The bill would require special licensing for recreational activities and academic research in designated areas.
Given that the designated areas would no longer be available for sustainable resource development and given all the hoops through which fishermen, recreational users and academic researchers would have to jump, Canadians might assume that before the heritage minister designated a marine conservation area the minister would have to do so by amendment of the act with debate at all stages in parliament.
A change in the use of marine territory should be fully reviewed by parliament. However the heritage minister does not want a full review by parliament. The minister has instructed her officials to write what is known in legal circles as Henry VIII clauses.
Henry VIII seems to have so shaped the minister's approach to parliament that she has included three Henry VIII clauses. I will have more to say on that if the bill passes second reading. The heritage minister is already well aware of Henry VIII and his attitude toward parliament. I am sure some members of parliament will be interested to hear that. They will not be pleased, however.
Henry VIII believed in the divine right of kings. His motto was “God and my right”. Henry VIII did not like parliament since it tended to get in the way of what he wanted. Whether it was marrying wife number two, three or four or raising taxes, Henry VIII did not want to be bothered with parliament and the House of Commons. He looked for ways to side step parliament and its authority to pass laws.
The minister has learned a lesson well from old Henry Tudor about how to side step the proper law making authority of parliament. We wish she would learn some lessons on democracy. It is hard to learn anything these days about democratic rights in the Liberal Party. The minister wants to side step the proper role of parliament with the insertion of Henry VIII clauses that allow the cabinet to amend the act more or less at will.
It is bad enough that the heritage minister is still trying to be the environment minister. The minister's attitude toward parliament is even worse. What is left? Too much, far too much. Bill C-48 would shrink the federal crown territory available for ordinary use or occupation, for resource exploration and for extraction for dumping any substance. The bill requires specific authorization by permit for any activity in the areas.
There is an old joke that goes something like this. How many Canadians does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is one but she has to have a licence. If there is one thing that makes Canadians less competitive and lowers their standard of living it is overregulation. The bill would create yet another layer of regulation between Canadian resources and the ability of Canadians to do research, to fish, to create tourist recreation venues, and to engage in sustainable development of resources.
Bill C-48 seems to make clear there is not a regulation the minister has seen but does not like. There is one thing I would like to know. What is the minister telling the steel industry situated in her riding on the edge of one of the largest marine environments in North America? What is she telling the steelworkers will keep their industry from being shut down? One of her officials or a future heritage minister decided at whim that the western end of Lake Ontario should become a marine conservation area.
Yet this is the kind of bill the heritage minister has brought to this House. In fact, they have not scheduled any areas that would become effective immediately. They basically took a big swath of all the coastal areas east, west and north and all the inland waters as well.
This bill fails to balance preservation of biodiversity with the principle of sustainable development. This bill sidestepped the proper role and authority of parliament. Even if there were not problems with the bill on those counts, this bill is not properly a parks bill, it is an environment bill.
Let me repeat very slowly for the heritage minister's benefit she is no longer the minister of the environment. She should stop trying to enact environmental legislation and should withdraw this bill.
With that in mind I would like to propose the following reasoned amendment which I believe you will find completely in order. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, because the bill fails not only to strike a proper balance between the preservation of `bio-diversity' and sustainable development, but takes no account of future sustainable development in designated marine conservation areas.
Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The question is on the amendment.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to my Reform colleague's amendment to Bill C-48, the Marine Conservation Areas Act, at second reading.
Earlier in the week, I ran the Bloc Quebecois' draft amendment by my Reform colleague, who was considering not moving an amendment if ours suited him. Obviously, he changed his mind, but our goal is basically the same: that the bill not be debated at second reading.
The Bloc would have requested that the objectives of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Reform Party is taking a different approach by asking that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-48 as it does not take into account a number of fundamental elements that the Reform Party considers important.
So, let us take a closer look at this bill.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a legal framework for the establishment and eventual development of 28 marine conservation areas, including eight in Quebec, representing each of the ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and Canada.
The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill because it is covered by ad hoc legislation both in Canada and in Quebec.
The bill before the House today, Bill C-48, is part of a commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the 1996 convention of the World Conservation Union, held in Montreal.
For the benefit of the members of this House, I will digress to say a few words about this World Conservation Union. It is an organization representing 74 governments, 105 government agencies and more than 700 NGOs. It was founded in France in 1958 and will soon establish its first permanent secretariat in Montreal, which is already home to a number of international environmental agencies.
At its annual convention in 1996, as was the case in 1994, the World Conservation Union passed resolutions asking all coastal nations to put marine conservation measures in place quickly. For its part, the UN decreed that 1998 was the year of the oceans, and so exceptional acts were required in recognition of this event.
The most significant initiatives—some of them should be recalled—include, first: the world's fair in Lisbon, Portugal, held from September 22 to 30, 1998, the last great international exposition of the 20th century. This celebration coincided with the 500th anniversary of the voyage to India of the great Portuguese navigator Vasco de Gama and its theme was “The Oceans, a heritage for the future”.
Second, we must take note of UNESCO's adoption of the ocean charter. This charter was presented to the summit on the seas held in St. John's, Newfoundland, in September 1997. The document is not legally binding, but as we see in it at the UNESCO web site, it is a statement of principle, a commitment to undertake and continue co-operative efforts to preserve the oceans and coastal regions.
In this context, the creation of marine conservation areas meets an objective put forward in many international forums and documents, such as the World Conservation Strategy, which appeared in 1980, the report entitled “Caring for the Earth”, which was released in 1991 and drafted by the World Conservation Union, the UN program for the environment and the Worldwide Fund for Nature, funded in part by the Government of Quebec.
It should therefore be very clear that the Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment. I would remind you that 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 a legal framework to ensure co-management by the two levels of government.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor. The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation or in partnership with the federal government, on any project designed to ensure or promote the protection of the environment, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-48 for the following reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and of the environment.
Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas.
In short, the federal government, which claims to have met all of Quebec's demands, and which states in its Speech from the Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one way or another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec and the other provinces.
One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established.
Subclause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister can establish a marine conservation area only if he is satisfied “that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in Right of Canada, excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada”.
Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including 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 within this legislation is to authorize, by order, the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction. However, 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.
According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, 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.
Also, 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 and provincial departments concerned, and which provides for an investment of $250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.
Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of resorting to bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?
The environment is a jurisdiction shared by the two governments.
Under the Constitutional Act of 1867, the governments of Canada and Quebec share responsibility for the environment. Under paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91, the federal government has control over a number of areas.
Under section 91, the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the following classes of subjects: navigation and shipping, in paragraph 10; quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of marine hospitals, in paragraph 11; sea coast and inland fisheries, in paragraph 12; and ferries between a province and any British or foreign country or between two provinces, in paragraph 13.
Quebec's exclusive powers are also recognized in the British North America Act, 1967, under sections 92 and 92A.
Section 92 provides that, in each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the following classes of subjects: the management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon, in paragraph 5; property and civil rights in the province, in paragraph 13; and generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province, in paragraph 16.
Section 92A(1) provides 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.
Accordingly, section 2 of the legislation passed by Quebec's National Assembly with respect to conservation and development of wildlife sets out the role of the province's minister of the environment and wildlife, and I quote:
The minister of the environment and wildlife is responsible for the conservation and management of wildlife and its habitat.
Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has authority to appoint conservation officers.
By refusing to follow the example of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act and by making ownership of the territory an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is behaving, as Robert Bourassa used to say, like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.
Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. Let us look at how ridiculous it gets.
Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has already created marine protected areas. Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves.
It should be noted that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category. The Department of Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine conservation areas in the preamble to the bill. Heritage Canada is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine areas; provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and 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 describes 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.
In both documents, departmental officials indicate that local people will have a significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected areas. The Bloc Quebecois wonders how many information or organization meetings local people will be invited to, serving bureaucracy instead of democracy.
Following DFO's consultation meetings on marine protection zones in Quebec in June 1998, federal officials wrote the following in their minutes of these meetings:
There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas (marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas, wildlife marine preserves, etc.). The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the view of those who participated in those meetings and feels that this is an abuse of democracy that will be prejudicial to the public which, incidentally, is not at all reassured by the existence of an interdepartmental committee made up of officials from these various departments. Indeed, we know from experience that having a number of departments involved in the same project makes it difficult for them to work together and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money.
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.
Now, Environment Canada is proposing to establish 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.
In short, let us summarize, because the triple federal overlap at the federal level—setting aside its overlap with provincial jurisdictions—becomes almost 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. The same territory could, according to Fisheries and Oceans, be zoned in various ways and subject to various regulations that could simply confuse users.
All that remains for me to do is extend to the ordinary citizen a most cordial welcome to the real world of Kafka.
Is even more confusion really possible? The answer, unfortunately, is yes.
In fact, the bill provides that each federal department retain jurisdiction over its own marine conservation areas. However, when Heritage Canada deems it appropriate, it may, in co-operation with the minister concerned, pass regulations regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the existing provisions.
In this case, the amendment agreed to between Heritage Canada and the minister concerned takes priority over the regulations under other legislation: 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.
Although this might seen 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.
Preliminary consultation on the bill was a resounding failure, but Heritage Canada points to it as proof that it has public support to go ahead with the bill. Here are a few facts.
In February 1997, Heritage Canada released a consultation document entitled “Charting the Course—Towards a Marine Conservation Areas Act”. This document was sent to 3,000 groups across Canada.
In June 1998, Heritage Canada boasted about its consultation in the document “Towards a Marine Conservation Areas Act.” It wrote, and I quote: “The discussion paper was circulated to over 3000 stakeholders across the country— Over 300 sheets and briefs were submitted providing comments and suggestions”.
The Bloc Quebecois requested copies of these 300 sheets, which really fill only 73 pages that I have right here. The vast majority of these pages are nothing more than the reply coupon attached to the discussion paper.
Under the Privacy Act, the names and addresses of respondents cannot be disclosed, and Heritage Canada rightly withheld this information. However, of the 62 replies we received from the department, only one was in French.
Would it be unreasonable to conclude that Quebec did not participate in the consultations conducted by Heritage Canada? After looking into Heritage Canada's consultations on its draft bill, the Bloc Quebecois came to the conclusion it was a miserable failure and it was really too bad that, with all the resources at its disposal, the department did not see fit to conduct real consultations, which would have exposed all the flaws in the bill.
The consultations conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Quebec on the establishment of marine protected areas were also a miserable failure. According to the report on the working sessions on the marine protection zones program, prepared by officials of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in January 1997, the working document was sent to 650 organizations in Quebec. Working sessions were planned in a variety of cities in Quebec. A number had to be cancelled because of the considerable tension in the fishing industry at the moment. In the opinion of the officials, participation at these sessions was low—5% on the average.
In the fishing sector, nothing is resolved. The Heritage Canada bill arrived at the moment Fisheries and Oceans and Human Resources Development Canada raised an outcry over their streamlining of the fishing industry, which is out of synch with the needs and the reality of the industry and the communities affected by the moratorium on fishing.
The industry still does not know the plans of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for its future and the number of fishers who will remain active. In addition, the industry claims the federal government has badly handled the fishing industry and criticizes it for its part in the collapse of the groundfish stocks.
So as relations between the coastal communities and the federal government are strained with respect to the livelihood of these communities, especially in Quebec, where there is a dispute over our right to our historical fishing quotas, the Bloc Quebecois fails to see how the federal government will be able to convince these people to co-operate in the establishment of marine conservation zones, marine conservation areas or marine wildlife reserves.
Since co-operation with coastal communities is essential to protect ecosystems, the Bloc Quebecois urges the government to find workable solutions to the economic woes of coastal communities, if it really wants to eventually co-operate with them to protect the environment.
What are the Bloc Quebecois' objections to this bill? The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed on an act 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.
The park includes only marine areas. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.
In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by the Quebec and federal governments confirm the creation of a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly by the two governments, at least once every seven years.
Any exploration, utilization or development of resources for mining or energy related purposes, including the building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park boundaries.
By means of regulations, 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, 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.
Phase III follows on the first two phases, in which both governments invested over $300 million.
But the Government of Canada is not happy when everything is running smoothly. They prefer to stir up trouble, ill feelings and even discontent in the population. They do not understand that Quebeckers have had it with their arrogant policies that cost a fortune, and the people will let them know unequivocally in a very short time.
Another example of abuse of power is the incredible arrogance displayed by Heritage Canada in stating in the bill that it will have a say in the selection of advisors.
Clause 11 provides for the establishment of advisory committees for each marine conservation area. Subclause 11(3) reads as follows:
(3) The minister shall consult with such ministers or agencies of the government of Canada or a province or other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate with respect to the composition of advisory committees.
Given this government's centralizing view, all these or's do not sound very good. The minister made sure she could consult whomever she wishes.
We have a number of concerns about this bill. Clause 11 provides that the federal government will establish the boundaries of the marine conservation areas in each region of Canada in consultation with the local communities. We know what kind of “consultations” they conduct.
Clause 9 states that “The minister shall, within five years after a marine conservation area is established, in consultation with any...parties that the minister considers appropriate”—I repeat, any parties that the minister considers appropriate—“prepare a management plan”. This plan is reviewed every five years.
Clause 9(4) states:
(4) Provisions of a management plan respecting fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety are subject to agreement between the minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Here, I must point out that, in our experience to date, this sharing of responsibilities by two ministers has always proved catastrophic in this government.
Every two years, the heritage minister will table a report on the state of marine conservation areas. The minister establishes a management advisory committee for each marine area created. Since, as it will be recalled, clause 11 allows her to consult whomever she wishes, the department will, once again, be able to appoint whomever it wishes to its management committees to suit its own purposes.
One of the prerequisites for creating a marine conservation area is ownership of the territory by the federal government. According to preliminary information we have obtained, the federal government would own the ocean floor in areas 7, 8 and 9 of the Arctic Ocean and area 1 of the Atlantic Ocean. The Government of Quebec, however, owns the ocean floor in areas 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Atlantic Ocean region, that is to say the region taking in the St. Lawrence Estuary, the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.
The bill gives the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit activities in commercial zones in order to protect the resource.
Given the relations that now exist between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and fishers, there is reason for concern about the enforcement of this clause of the bill.
The bill also gives the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the ministers of Transport and Canadian Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit transportation in marine conservation areas.
Given all the pressure to keep airplanes out of certain areas, there is also reason to be concerned about relations between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Transport with respect to these marine conservation areas.
The bill also makes provision for orders-in-council regarding public safety, research activities and so on in these territories. All government orders-in-council are suspect in principle.
The bill provides that anyone who pollutes these marine conservation areas will have to pay clean-up costs.
Obviously, we cannot, in the limited time at our disposal, mention all the concerns we have regarding this bill.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to oppose the amendment proposed by the Reform Party, because it does not deal with issues we feel are truly important. Our reading of the act, in fact, leads us to believe that the reasons mentioned by the Reform Party are not acceptable. In fact, I was even surprised that the amendment was deemed in order, because it is not consistent with the legislation.
We will also oppose the bill, primarily because it is an intrusion into the jurisdictions of Quebec, and of the other provinces, when they are concerned. Quebec cannot function in that system. We were very open with the federal government when we dealt with managing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and we regret that the government did not act in a similar fashion this time.
In a way, we are pleased about that, because it gives us yet another reason to want to leave this intrusive country.
Rick Laliberte NDP Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague, the member for Halifax West.
I rise today on behalf of the riding of Churchill River in Saskatchewan, and the New Democratic caucus, on Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. The bill provides legislation to establish and manage a system of national marine conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas in Canada. The 29 conservation areas represent unique biological and oceanographic features. These areas include fresh and salt waters.
A Parks Canada systems approach has identified 29 areas within Canada's Great Lakes, internal waters which are tidal, and the territorial sea and also the exclusive economic zone known as the EEZ 200 mile limit.
The process to establish the conservation areas began in 1986 with ministerial approval to establish national marine parks. This decision led to a 1987 agreement with Ontario to establish Fathom Five in Georgian Bay; a 1988 agreement with British Columbia for a marine park at South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area. An agreement with Quebec to examine the feasibility of a federal-provincial marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fiord and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, became Bill C-7. The New Democratic Party supported this bill which established the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
The years of consultation between governments and communities were successful. Consultation is a major part of creating conservation areas in the future.
As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore noted, a hallmark of intergovernmental co-operation took place when Bill C-7 was under way. The Government of Quebec and the federal government both looked at their unique responsibilities and jurisdictions in dealing with the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and came up with the unique opportunity to have a consultation that looked at the tourism aspect, the economic aspect and the environmental aspect of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Bill C-7 was an important step toward fulfilling a commitment to future generations. Today we mark the next step in the marine ecosystem protection, Bill C-48. This bill will set the template for marine conservation areas for future generations.
Several key points that the New Democratic Party has raised throughout the parks and environment debates and the legislation are contained in Bill C-48. There are two main parts we can focus on.
The precautionary principle and ecosystem protection are specifically defined in this bill. This is an improvement over previous legislation introduced by the Liberal government, bills which affect all Canadians in all regions of this great country where an ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle and ecological integrity were barely mentioned, if even described at all. It is nice to see that the precautionary principle and ecosystem protection are major components of this bill. This shows progress which we must acknowledge as parliamentarians. We must ensure the goals of sustainability, conservation and preservation of Canada's vital marine areas are achieved.
Through Bill C-7 the New Democratic Party raised the issue of monitoring in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence, monitoring where necessary the pollution impacts of critical areas and the flow of the rivers. We must be willing to monitor the pollution impacts of industries further upstream on the Saguenay and further upstream on the St. Lawrence. Pollution will impact this conservation area. The monitoring aspect must not be taken lightly. These noble conservation objectives can be met but they must be monitored.
Adequate resources must be defined and committed to pollution monitoring. The Liberal government's repeated statement to Canadians that the high standards of environmental protection are being met is not true. There is continued devolution and abdication of environmental responsibilities. This government can sign a piece of paper and have a photo opportunity for the news. Then the government has a program review and always cuts the budget and at the same time says that things are going great. This cannot continue with Bill C-48.
Adequate resources for feasibility studies must be defined and allocated to the marine sciences, to community consultation and to education and interpretive programs. All these issues require adequate resources. Will this government commit to additional resources? Will this government commit to action on Bill C-48, or will it sign this bill, establish one or two conservation areas and rely on skimpy laurels and continue to mislead Canadians?
Our communities need a future based on sustainable development. Communities depend on our marine environment for income, for food sustenance and as a source of our biological diversity. This is for our physical and spiritual well-being.
Bill C-48 provides the opportunity to reverse the outrageous decimation and degradation that mismanagement has created. Unsustainable practices destroy Canadian communities; they do not build and strengthen them.
The New Democratic Party calls on the Liberal government to prove that this bill is not simply paper in the next budget. Proof of the Liberal government's commitment to marine conservation and preservation and sustainable practices does not mean continued cuts to a once proud Canadian Coast Guard. It does not mean continued cuts to the pollution prevention capabilities of the environment department. These budget cuts have been cloaked in the auspices of program review.
Commitment is not the continuance of understaffed, overworked and rarely appreciated departments with the major responsibilities of the atmosphere and ocean sciences. Commitment is not continually ignoring advice that is based on scientific evidence or the precautionary principles in favour of a political agenda. The DFO is a fine example of this.
The marine conservation areas will be a key component of the proposed representative system of marine protected areas. Three departments have been identified as working on the marine protected areas, the departments of fisheries, environment and Canadian heritage. This system could be in place along all of Canada's coasts and the Great Lakes by the year 2010.
We hope this bill is not another noble opportunity lost by lack of leadership and commitment. Lost but not forgotten, such as another Liberal promise to complete our national parks system with 39 representative terrestrial zones by the new millennium. This is far from being complete. They are big words that create big hopes but Canadians are used to dashed hopes with this Liberal government.
Through the committee of the New Democratic Party we will raise a number of concerns that will improve Bill C-48. Some concerns are minimum protection standards to include prohibition of fin fish aquaculture and bottom trawling, ballast water dumping and recreational artificial reefs, better controls for outfalls of waste discharge and pollution prevention, and complete consultation with communities, provincial jurisdictions and aboriginal territories and communities.
We must define and identify the issue of no take zones within marine boundaries, critical zone 1 areas to be expanded to reduce impacts through calving, spawning and nursing periods.
The issue of DFO and parks is a major concern. Both are going to be participating in conservation areas but one of the worst histories and a major area of concern is the history of DFO in terms of mismanagement regarding resources. The NDP will be raising these and other concerns forwarded by Canadians through the committee process.
A key question we will also ask is why there was the exclusion of other great inland Canadian waters such as Great Bear lake, Great Slave lake, Lake Athabasca and Lake Winnipeg. These are unique waters and require protection and conservation measures.
I would like to speak on the additional challenges Reform Party members mentioned but we cannot lend our support to their motion.
I look forward to empowering our youth and look toward conservation for them.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, in light of the comments he just made, I want to ask the hon. member if, as a member from British Columbia, he has consulted his province, and whether his province agrees with this federal intrusion in an area that comes exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.
Does he also agree with the maze that Parks Canada and the Department of the Environment—another federal department—want to create? I would appreciate an answer from the member who spoke just before me.
Rick Laliberte NDP Churchill River, SK
Madam Speaker, I cannot speak specifically on British Columbia. My home province is Saskatchewan.
Reflecting on a federal government initiative, the fisheries minister announced that the race rocks in Gabriola passage were on the way to becoming Canada's first marine protected area. All this was well and good for the federal government to identify but Chief James Johnny of the Nanaimo First Nations said there was no consultation through the band which has aboriginal title to the Gabriola passage.
When we speak about consultation, I believe that is what the hon. member was alluding to. The federal government has to have a full consultation process with provincial governments, with communities and impacted areas along with aboriginal territories and communities that have title for regions and waterways in this country.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Halifax West to speak on an act respecting marine conservation areas.
Halifax West, as we know, is a riding that embodies many coastal communities, Portuguese Cove, Hatchet Lake, Peggy's Cove, Ketch Harbour all the way down to Sambro right through to Hubbards.
These coastal communities know full well the importance of marine conservation. Being a people by the sea, we recognize the importance of having a pristine environment and keeping it that way for our children and our children's children.
This bill is designed to provide authority for the establishment of marine conservation areas with the objective of protecting and conserving a variety of aquatic environments.
This bill also confers a range of regulatory powers for the protection of living and non-living marine resources and their management and use in a sustainable manner.
That is a very important feature for those of us living in the Atlantic provinces. We realize it is important to have a sustainable environment.
There are important principles embodied in this bill. The preamble talks about establishing a representative system of marine conservation areas that are of sufficient extent and such configuration as to maintain healthy marine ecosystems.
Halifax where I grew up we have a beautiful harbour. It is a harbour that is sheltered and does not freeze during the winter. It is ideally situated for shipping and transporting goods and yet this beautiful piece of nature is being polluted daily by many runoffs of raw sewage and effluent being dumped directly into it. This has gone on for years and years.
It is hard to imagine in this day and age that we would allow such a thing to continue. There have been studies on the shelf and off the shelf, back and forth, about how to clean up the harbour and yet today we still remain with that very serious problem.
It is important that we look at marine conservation. Anything that can be done to improve those situations is certainly going to be welcome in the Atlantic provinces.
The preamble further talks about ensuring that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine protected areas. It emphasizes the globalized nature of our society today.
We know that what happens in one part of the world certainly affects what happens in another part of the world. We have to be able to share our environment and to look after our environment in a way that will benefit all.
It talks about considering implications for ecosystems in the planning and management of marine conservation areas to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate and enjoy Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage, and provide opportunities, and this is important, within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities.
In Atlantic Canada we are a people who live by the sea so I rise on behalf of Atlantic Canadians because we know full well from past experiences what can happen from resource exploitation.
We know about the overfishing off the Atlantic coast. We know how the large trawlers have been allowed to come in and deplete the fishing stocks. We know about the mismanagement of the fisheries. We see lost stocks and we see the impact on the communities in these areas, people who have come to rely on subsidy programs and so forth, people who are unable to find new occupations because their livelihood has been destroyed and yet they know of no other than fishing.
We know full well that the environment must be managed in a sensible way. The marine conservation areas provide opportunities for Atlantic Canadians through preservation and conservation.
If this bill is implemented properly with some of the improvements that have been mentioned by my hon. colleague, we know that such things as ecotourism and research will provide opportunities for Atlantic Canadians. There will be opportunities in the field of marine biology and the ocean sciences and so forth. We would welcome those opportunities in Atlantic Canada.
The Atlantic Ocean has 10 identified marine conservation area natural regions. These are Hudson Strait, Labrador shelf, Newfoundland shelf, the north gulf shelf, St. Lawrence estuary, Magdelan shallows, Laurentian channel, the Grand Banks, Scotian shelf and the Bay of Fundy.
My hon. colleague has already mentioned the experience of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, Bill C-7, which the NDP supported last fall. This was indeed a wonderful example of the possibilities of co-operation between governments and community consultation.
I can assure my colleagues that the NDP will be encouraging community participation on this bill because it is very important that we have true consultation, not just a quick hello, how do you do with the communities involved but true consultation to receive the input from the communities that will be affected by this bill.
The sea is very important for people in Nova Scotia.
I can recall as a young lad going to the sea with my parents and grandparents and digging clams along the seashore, fishing off wharfs, that type of activity. We did not worry about whether fish were contaminated, if we could eat the fish we caught or whether to be concerned about the clams.
But nowadays the first thing we think about if we go fishing is whether the area is polluted. It is a shame that our society has come to that stage. Certainly we want to encourage marine conservation and do everything possible to present a pristine environment for people.
I could talk a bit about some of the successes that have taken place around this issue. We have the Bonavista and Notre Dame Bay project which requires the participation of 32 diverse and proud communities with a wealth of experience.
Following the memorandum of understanding signed between the federal and provincial governments there was a number of feasibility studies done and there was initially some skepticism around this. But eventually this was followed by acceptance and hope. There has been a lot of local input and ideas that are now being listened to.
It is a remarkable about face on fisheries and ocean matters in Newfoundland, a region that has been decimated by government interference and bungling. Indeed the entire Atlantic region has been interfered with and bungled in terms of the fisheries.
We can see why this initial skepticism in that area was warranted but now we see that things are starting to turn around as a result of consultation and community input. Local fishers in the community came up with an idea related to local lobster. They started the East Port Lobster Conservation Authority and designated some of the best lobster areas within the bay as no take zones. These types of measures are being taken.
We see this type of community co-operation and this community based program works. Catches are up by 97% through proper resource management. It is a combination of conservation and common sense based on science. These successes can be carried forward through the legislation that is being looked at here.
While this progress is being made in Newfoundland we have to ask ourselves what is stopping this government from proceeding with consultation and identification of specific conservation areas for the remaining natural marine regions.
Comments that have been received by the New Democratic Party on Bill C-48 carry a common theme, conservation and preservation and good stewardship of our marine areas. This is a necessity. It is a requirement for our future generations of Canadians.
As noted by my hon. colleague, this process began 10 years ago but much more needs to be done as we enter the next century. We would trust that this legislation will be carefully examined at committee stage. We trust there will be appropriate improvements made and that hopefully at that stage there will be more community input, more opportunity for aboriginal people who may be affected by these areas, to have their say around what is happening as well as others who are concerned.
Working together we can come up with something that is going to make our environment something we will be proud of, something we will be pleased to leave to succeeding generations.
I call on my colleagues to look at this bill, seriously examine it, give input to improvements and do not, once it is passed, allow the government to delay when royal assent is given. Move quickly. Atlantic Canadians deserve our best efforts.