Debates of Nov. 16th, 1998

Tobacco Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 1 with the following:

“peared on the facility on June 3, 1998.”

Mr. Speaker, I very pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-42 at report stage and to discuss the amendment to the amended bill before us.

It is important for the record to say that the speed with which the bill is being put through the various stages of the legislative process is remarkable. The opportunities for public participation have been limited and the significance with which amendments have been treated is of deep concern to all of us.

Bill C-42 waters down, weakens or dilutes many of the provisions under Bill C-71 passed by the House in April 1997. Its tobacco sponsorship restrictions would have come into effect on October 1 of this year but for the amendments to Bill C-42 before us today.

We have been concerned throughout the process and will continue to register concerns about the dilution of the tobacco sponsorship restrictions which creates more opportunities for young people to be influenced by tobacco advertising, by lifestyle advertising, as opposed to the kind of leadership we expect the government to offer in terms of being as proactive as possible in ensuring that young people are not influenced in any way to take up smoking.

My amendment deals with a very significant issue in the package before members this morning. It should be noted that during committee stage members of the government on the health committee included a weakening amendment that they did not explain at all. The original bill grandparented sponsored permanent facilities, for example a theatre having tobacco signs, as of the date of first reading of the bill. The amendment has the grandparenting effective as of the date the bill receives royal assent.

It is very clear from this change that the government is prepared to allow newly sponsored permanent facilities which engage in tobacco advertising between June 3, 1998, when the bill was first introduced to the House, and the time when the bill gets royal assent—there is no specific date for the royal assent; no one can be assured of just how fast it will happen—to sponsor advertising and the display of tobacco promotions for five years.

It is a significant development. It slipped through committee. There was no justification. There was no explanation. It is our firm belief that as a minimum the government should be changing the bill back to the original intention so that the date of June 3, 1998 comes into effect. This would at least be a minimal step toward restricting the amount of tobacco sponsorship advertising that is taking place. It would also be a tiny step toward limiting the exposure of young people to lifestyle advertising.

We have tried through every way possible to convince the government to accept some amendments that would take us back to the original intentions of Bill C-21, which is about protecting the health of Canadians. We have reacted strongly and consistently to the amendments before us today which put the whole thing off and allows for a greater period of unfettered advertising by tobacco companies at events attended very heavily by young people who are influenced greatly by the advertising that takes place.

In conjunction with the amendment we put forward it is important to remind all members of the House that we are dealing with a very grave and growing public health problem. Although I do not need to remind members, I will remind them that we are dealing with at least 40,000 deaths per year, if not more, as a result of tobacco related illnesses. We know that every year 250,000 young people get hooked on smoking. We also know that 85% of adults today who smoke are addicted because they started before the age of 18. We know that there is a high rate of smoking among young people between the ages of 15 and 19.

We know we have a serious problem which will lead to enormous health costs down the road. Yet on every occasion the government has taken the most feeble, cautionary approach possible. It is an approach which flies in the face of everything we know about the seriousness of the issue. It also flies in the face of what other jurisdictions are doing.

It is shameful that the government is so unwilling to act and show political courage to deal head on with the tobacco industry at a time when jurisdictions like British Columbia are prepared to take serious steps toward making the tobacco industry accountable for the damage it has caused among young people.

It is time for the government to show leadership. Whether we are talking about Bill C-42 and the attempts by the government to dilute and weaken the Tobacco Act; whether we are talking about resistance to Bill S-13, the Tobacco Industry Responsibility Act; or whether we are talking about the government's refusal to expend money it promised in the last election for tobacco prevention and education among young people, we must keep in mind that the government promised $100 million over five years. It has spent about 2% of that and has shown no sign of moving rapidly and quickly to put in place the kinds of programs which actually deter young people from getting started and becoming hooked on cigarettes.

Our concern is for the government to show leadership and not to run away and hide from the serious issues before us. We would urge the government and all members to support our amendment so that Bill C-42 is not diluted any further and the true intentions of Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, are adhered to and held up as a starting point for Canadians.

We implore the government to continue working with parliament and the many health organizations that want stronger tobacco laws for the sake of our health and for the sake of our kids.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-42. We had a good and thorough discussion at committee. The government proposed several amendments. I thought I would like to use my time today to repeat for all members of the House and those watching this important debate the government's position, the government's intention and the government's commitment.

I am pleased to be here today with the support of the Minister of Health on this important initiative. Bill C-42 amends the Tobacco Act. I reiterate the government's view that Bill C-42 will toughen the existing Tobacco Act. It is another step forward in our work to control a substance that we recognize is a killer. It is at the root of about 40,000 premature deaths each year in Canada.

Bill C-42 places us consistently among international leaders in controlling the promotion of tobacco. I hope all people watching the debate and those in the House know that the primary focus of the bill is a five year timetable to end the marketing of tobacco products through event sponsorship. That is a very significant and important component of Bill C-42.

At the end of five years there will be a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship. We propose to accomplish this through a transitional process. Sports and cultural events that were in place with tobacco sponsorship prior to April 25, 1997 would have a two year period without new sponsorship restrictions but only during that period. During the following three years we want to tighten the limits significantly.

Onsite promotion of tobacco sponsorships would be able to continue. Offsite promotions would have to meet the 90:10 rules of the existing Tobacco Act. We would place stringent conditions on these offsite promotions to limit the exposure of young people to the marketing of tobacco products. In five years there would be no more promotions of tobacco sponsorship. Event names and facilities would not longer serve as a none too subtle reminder of tobacco and tobacco products.

Bill C-42 came after substantial discussions and consultations with all interested parties. We heard from the arts, sports and other groups that would be affected these changes. They indicated that they needed appropriate time frames to line up new sponsors. Bill C-42 recognizes that reality.

We also heard from the health community. Health organizations have been front and centre in the important work of the Government of Canada to help make Canada tobacco free and to ensure tobacco strategies and smoking cessation policies are in place. The Government of Canada acknowledges and supports the important work of the health community.

In particular I mention the work of the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada and the Non-Smokers Rights Association in the broader effort. Many health groups have been a part of pushing appropriately for tobacco reduction strategies and strong anti-tobacco policies and legislation. They have been the leaders in the action overtime to get the anti-smoking message out to Canadians. They have been powerful forces in encouraging Canadians to keep moving the tobacco agenda ahead and ensuring that Canada remains among world leaders.

Health organizations look at what we were doing in the bill. Most understand where we want to go and how we want to get there. Most support the directions we are taking in Bill C-42 toward the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotions. We recognize that most have concerns, and we are aware of those concerns.

They understand that the tobacco industry has constantly sought new ways to market its products. As we in government and previous governments have closed off old channel bylaws such as this one, we know the tobacco industry has found new channels. For example, tobacco companies have begun to use the Internet to support events marketing in Canada, something many could not have foreseen three or four years ago.

With that in mind, the Canadian Cancer Society identified amendments that it wanted to see in Bill C-42. During second reading debate many members of the opposition indicated support for those amendments. Many opposition members and I can tell the House that many members on the government benches also supported the amendments proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Therefore, at committee, during the second reading clause by clause debate, we announced that we were not only intending to amend the bill, but we brought forward three particular amendments which were supportive of the proposals that had been made by the Canadian Cancer Society and supported by many, many others in the House and outside the House.

First, we proposed that October 1, 1998 would specifically be identified as the start date for the transition under this bill. In effect, that means that the five year clock has already begun to tick down on sponsorship promotions. If that amendment passes, as it did at committee, and this bill passes in the House, the clock has already begun to tick and the original intent of the timeline is firmly in place, being October 1, 1998.

Second, we proposed that the only events that could be grandfathered would be those that were already promoted in Canada. Although we never intended that it would be otherwise, this change makes it crystal clear that an event cannot be moved from the United States or Australia or wherever into Canada and be treated as if it had already been here.

Third, we proposed that only events that had been held in Canada during the 15 months prior to April 25, 1997 could be grandfathered. Once again it was never the intention of the government to allow events to be resurrected solely for their value as tobacco marketing vehicles. However, this amendment, which was agreed to by the committee and is presently before the House in the amended format of this bill, formalizes that intent and makes it absolutely clear as to the way this bill will function and operate.

The Canadian Cancer Society, as I said at committee, proposed two other amendments. One would ban point of sale advertising and the other would set a ceiling on sponsorship spending. We looked at these very seriously and, after review, we believed that both raised questions of feasibility and enforceability. For those reasons we listened very carefully to what witnesses had to say at committee. Today we have a bill before us that does not reflect moving on anything that we do not believe is either feasible or enforceable.

We launched the tobacco control initiative in 1996. We started by setting aside $50 million a year over five years. We have made a commitment to public education, another key component of our strategy, one that we believe is critical, and we committed yet another $50 million.

From the very beginning we knew that getting the greatest impact out of these resources would take co-operation with the provinces, territories, communities and non-governmental organizations. We will be designing and are designing and implementing the elements of the strategy in conjunction with all of those stakeholders who share with us the determination to move the yardstick.

Many years of anti-tobacco programming have given us a great deal of information about what seems to work. Those years have taught us that to battle against tobacco is a step by step process and that it requires action in many areas.

Bill C-42 is one of the many valuable contributions to that work and I look forward to the debate and the passage in the House of the next step forward, a step that will lead to a complete ban in tobacco sponsorship within five years.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here we have good old Bill C-42. I listened to the words of the parliamentary secretary carefully. Her words are that Bill C-42 will toughen the Tobacco Act.

I do not believe we should always listen to politicians as to whether or not a bill will in fact toughen legislation. I believe in asking the groups which are affected and I took the opportunity to do that. I asked the Canadian Cancer Society, the Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, physicians' groups and nursing groups throughout Canada whether or not Bill C-42 would in fact toughen the Tobacco Act. The answer was universal. No, it would not.

The answer was really quite specific. They all said that in the short term this would significantly weaken the Tobacco Act. Interestingly enough, if this bill does come into full force it will be after another election.

It is fascinating for me to have viewed the tobacco debate from my perspective, which I must say is clouded. I am very biased in this area because of my first patient as a medical student. The patient was a veteran, a fellow who had emphysema from smoking. As I got to know him well and spent quite a bit of time with him, he ended his life virtually before my eyes. The last thing he said to me was “Doctor, please don't let the kids smoke.”

I admit to having a very strenuous bias in this area. I look for bills that will do exactly what that first patient asked me to do, which was to prevent kids from smoking. I look for bills that will help my kids, my own children, not to smoke.

I am afraid that I find Bill C-42 a weakening of the Tobacco Act. There is no other way to say it.

I also found it fascinating that the Minister of Health, who was here to debate Bill C-71, has not been present for the debate on Bill C-42. It is interesting that he presented something just prior to the last election that I do not believe he himself believes in.

The Tobacco Act was really a pretty good act. It allowed advertising in adult publications and bars where kids could not go and it prevented advertising and sponsorship directed at children.

I took the opportunity to ask the head of one of the pro-smoking groups a question about advertising for a mountain bike championship in Quebec which was held during the summer. The ads were still running today in Alberta. I saw them in my home province of Alberta this week. I asked him if he felt that advertisement did not relate to kids.

My own teenagers are keen mountain bike enthusiasts. I do not know anybody older than the age at which we can legally smoke who is that keen on mountain biking. This is a youthful activity, an activity that is directed at kids. Of course if the advertising was just to get people to go to an event in Quebec, the advertising would be stopped immediately after the event was over, but the ads are still running months later.

His response was very illustrative. He said that it is very difficult to design a program that does not have a broad overlap with youth. In terms of sponsorship and advertising, that is the only thing he said that I agree with. It is very difficult. The overspill is immense.

Where does Bill C-42 place us in terms of international tobacco interdiction? I asked a presenter from Quebec where this bill places us in relationship to Quebec.

Quebec's tobacco legislation is stronger than Canada's. The legislation in Quebec is very strong, which is not the case for the Canadian legislation. Bill C-42 is weaker than the law in Quebec.

Formula 1 racing was the issue that pushed this bill into position. Germany, France, Belgium and Britain took a very specific stand against sponsorship in Formula 1.

I have had officials say to me that Canada could not do that because we do not have as much strength and that Formula 1 will disappear from Canada. It is fascinating to note that Air Canada is now the title sponsor for Canadian Formula 1, so we have a non-tobacco sponsor.

It is also fascinating to note that Australia, a country very similar to Canada in terms of a unique Formula 1 environment, has given tobacco a specific exemption from sponsorship laws and that has to be done each year. Australia is moving toward the complete ban of tobacco sponsorship in Formula 1. Canada is weaker than Australia.

The specific amendment that has been placed on the table today I support and I would expect that most of my colleagues will support it. But might I finish this short discourse today by saying that Bill C-42 does not toughen the Tobacco Act. It weakens the Tobacco Act. I trust the health groups in Canada and their judgment on this bill far more than I trust the government.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in the debate made necessary by the amendment introduced by our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

I am even more pleased because my riding—the people of which I take this opportunity to greet—is the home not only of well organized anti-tobacco groups raising awareness in the schools about the dangers of smoking, but also of the organizers of major sporting events, like the Valleyfield Regatta, which the Bloc Quebecois has always wanted to see protected to some extent, at least for a transition period to be included in any anti-tobacco legislation.

The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party reads as follows:

That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 1 with the following:

“peared on the facility on June 3, 1998”.

The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the grace period during which permanent facilities already using a name referring to a tobacco company may retain it until the total ban scheduled for the year 2003.

It will be recalled, moreover, that the current Tobacco Act allows a tobacco product-related brand element or the name of a manufacturer to be used on such facilities.

Bill C-42 goes much further than the present legislation in a number of aspects. For example, clause 2 prohibits the use of a tobacco product-related brand element or the name of a tobacco manufacturer on promotional material, whether the promotion is of an individual, an entity, an event, an activity or a permanent facility.

This clause will take full effect, under the current bill, in October 2003. In the meantime, Bill C-42 provides that permanent facilities already using a name containing a reference to tobacco companies can keep it, on condition that the name be in use when Bill C-42 is passed. This is where the amendment under consideration comes in.

In order to benefit from the grace period, permanent facilities should already be using the reference to tobacco companies, not when Bill C-42 takes effect, as provided, but in fact when it was tabled for first reading—on June 3.

The amendment would therefore reduce the grandfathering period for permanent facilities by a little less than six months.

Overall, Bill C-42 delays the implementation of certain sections of the Tobacco Act, Bill C-71, concerning tobacco sponsorships. So the amendments introduce a two-year moratorium on the restrictions governing sponsorships by tobacco companies until October 2000.

From the third to the fifth year, the restrictions will apply as initially provided in Bill C-71, that is to say, the name of the company may appear on only 10% or less of the advertising poster. A total sponsorship ban will come into effect on October 1, 2003.

This initiative was in response to a request from the Bloc Quebecois and promoters of sports and cultural events, asking that these organizers be given some time to find new sources of financing.

The measures affecting sponsorship were going to have very serious consequences on sports and cultural events. This is why the Bloc Quebecois called on the Minister of Health and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to provide for financial compensation and to act like politicians responsible for their actions.

However, the minister at the time, David Dingwall, failed to assume his responsibilities and refused categorically to follow up on all such requests from the Bloc and from witnesses.

Bill C-42 is thus a little more realistic—as was strongly suggested—in its approach to sponsorships, while being significantly more rigid on other issues, including the use of a manufacturer's name on permanent facilities.

However, the fight against smoking is a long term battle and the Quebec government—as the Reform Party member pointed out—also got involved by adopting legislation that is among the most progressive in the world.

One wonders whether the amendment before us, which shortens the timeframe by a few months, can make a difference. The Bloc Quebecois doubts it will. Bill C-42 must be taken as a whole. The fight against smoking is one that must be waged by all of society. A habit that has been around for many generations will not be easily changed.

However, thanks to Bill C-42 and to the Quebec legislation on tobacco, authorities will now have better weapons against the serious public health problem that smoking represents.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. She has done a lot of work on this bill for which I thank her on behalf of a lot of Canadians.

Bill C-42 does nothing to toughen the Tobacco Act. I agree completely with my colleague from Macleod who just spoke. It does nothing. It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary is here today to speak on behalf of the minister who is out of the country. If I were the minister with the House debating a bill like this I would be out of the country today too.

We must remember this government was elected five years ago to do something and it has done absolutely nothing. I remind the Canadian people that in 1994 the government reduced taxes on tobacco. It was the first and basically the only thing it did. The government caved in to smugglers instead of addressing the real concern of Canadians, in particular young Canadians who are becoming addicted to cigarette smoking. Instead of addressing and fighting the smuggling problem with the weapons and resources of the Government of Canada, the government caved in to the big tobacco companies. As a result of that we have 40,000 Canadians a year, documented, dying because of smoking. The government simply adds to the problem. This bill does nothing at all to change that.

The government now has an opportunity to do something but it has done nothing. It is just a continuation of what it has done since it was first elected, absolutely nothing, just caving in to the interests of the big tobacco companies.

When the parliamentary secretary spoke about 20 minutes ago she did not even consider the amendment to which we are speaking now. Without this amendment tobacco companies would be able to put up new sponsorships signs on buildings while the bill is still before parliament and have those signs up for another five years. That is bizarre. What the parliamentary secretary did to add insult to injury when she was before the committee, when we were going through this clause by clause, was simply read a statement prepared by the Minister of Health to put forth an amendment without explaining fully the rational of that amendment. That is devious at best. We will not go into what I would call it if I were in a real foul mood. It was not the right thing to do.

What we have is the parliamentary secretary being conned by her own minister and his departmental people to put through that amendment which would basically allow the companies to advertise for another five years if they chose to put up signs between now and when royal assent is given. This is absolutely bizarre.

I mentioned 40,000 Canadians dying every year in Canada because of smoking. That is documented and every major health think tank and association in Canada agrees with those figures, as does every member of parliament, including members of the government. They do not argue that figure.

That would be equivalent to 100 Canadians every day dying in an airplane crash. If an airplane crashed every day in Canada and killed 100 people on board, we would at the end of the year have the same number of deaths, slightly less, as with smoking. That is putting it in perspective. What would we do in the House of Commons? What would the Canadian people think of the Minister of Transport if we had a plane crashing every day in Canada, killing 100 people? We would have his resignation on the floor of the House of Commons within a week. But no, this government allows this to happen day in and day out, doing absolutely nothing about it. That is wrong. Excuse the pun, it is dead wrong.

We just had Remembrance Day. On an annual basis we lose more Canadians to cigarette smoking than we did in World War II. Combine all the Canadian deaths in World War II between 1939 and 1945. They do not add up to the number of Canadians who die on a yearly basis because of smoking.

Under any other set of circumstances this would be an outrage, but why is it not? The cigarette manufacturers use millions of dollars to convince us that smoking is okay. What they are advertizing is lifestyle. They are not advertising reality. They are advertising lifestyle and spending millions of dollars to do it.

Coming before parliament from the other place is Bill S-13. It was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kenny. It will be introduced in the House by a Liberal backbencher. The bill will be killed by the government. It is absolutely bizarre because the bill would attack the problem the way it has to be attacked, with real dollars to educate young Canadians about the dangers of smoking.

It would dedicate $125 million a year to educate young Canadians about the dangers of smoking.

We will never have a tobacco bill that is worth anything unless we attack smoking from the price point, that there is a direct relationship between the price of the product and the consumption of a product. That is true of any product. We need a bill that strongly hits advertising and education at the same time.

Unless those ingredients are present in a bill, nothing will to change. We will continue to lose 40,000-plus Canadians a year to smoking.

Smoking kills. The only way we can win this war is to wage war on the cigarette manufacturers. What would be wrong with placing 50 cents a carton, less than 5 cents a pack, at the manufacturing level? Let us call that a levy. Let us be realistic. That is what we have to do.

We need real dollars to attack these people. Some of the biggest cigarette manufacturing companies in the world actually own chains of drug stores. Examine who owns Shoppers Drug Mart. Find out who owns it. I challenge every Canadian to do some research and find out who owns some of these drug chains. They are owned by the shareholders who happen to be the same shareholders who own the shares of major cigarette or tobacco companies.

Here we have the biggest of the biggest in terms of corporate Canada, international corporate strength, day in and day out allowing young Canadians to take up the habit.

What we have to do is fight this with every resource we have. We have a bill that will soon be introduced here by a backbench member of the government, to be shot down by the government because it addresses the problem. It does something about it.

What we have is the Government of Canada being held captive by the big boys, the big corporate giants who figure it is in their best interests to sell a product to Canadians that actually kills Canadians.

This amendment speaks for itself. It puts teeth in a very weak bill and I think it is incumbent on the government to support this amendment.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill. When I spoke earlier to this bill, I iterated that it was a terrible bill. The government had no start-up date at that time. This motion gives some teeth to the bill.

I commend the member from Winnipeg North Centre. She has done a lot of work on this bill and the members opposite, after what they have heard about this bill and after what they know about the tobacco industry and the statistics related to tobacco from a health point of view, should rally the troops there, backbenchers and all, and support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

The question of addiction does not apply only to the users of tobacco. This government and previous governments have been addicted. How are they addicted? They want their hands on the huge amount of money they can take in from the product and they want to spend very little in educating our youth, a small percentage. Governments all over have become addicted. They are addicted to gambling. They are addicted to alcohol.

In my recent return home it was sad to note that the rehab centre in my constituency has been closed down. For what reason? Money. The region could not afford it.

Looking very closely at what the hon. member has done in putting forth this amendment, we know what the amendment is all about. The tobacco industry must advertise. Why does anyone advertise? Does General Motors advertise to support the advertising industry? Nonsense. It advertises to sell more cars. Why do tobacco companies advertise? To sell more of their products. To whom are they advertising now? What is their target area? Their target area is youth.

It is absolute nonsense that we would have to phase in the advertising over a period of five years when we do not know the start-up date. At that time we would be well into the next millennium and hundreds of thousands more teenagers would be addicted. Yet we find the government reluctant to give up the addiction it has to taxes. Of course another addiction which I mentioned earlier was the huge grants the government gets during election time from the tobacco companies.

I ask the question as it relates to this amendment, would members honestly not rise in this House to support the amendment by the member for Winnipeg North Centre? This is a good amendment. Thousands of young people would be saved from the advertising and hopefully from becoming addicted. Is it not worth it? That has to be worth more to Canadians from all parties than the money the government gets. It has to be worth more to the lives of our teenagers who become addicted. It is a question of putting something first. To have the legislation open ended as it originally was planned is simply not good enough. Out west where we do a lot of curling, at one time they went to the Brier. The big curling event was called the Brier. Who was the Brier? The MacDonald Tobacco Company. People were going to the Brier. Some still use that term. Then curling associations across Canada said “No, this is a healthy lifestyle. We are not going to have the tobacco industry involved”. Is curling going downhill? No. It is on its way up. Interest is going up. Did it take five years to phase in? Absolutely not.

If the government is really concerned about this country's youth, if it is really concerned about the number of people who die each year because of this addiction, government members will support this amendment, as I am sure every opposition member will. Government members should go back to their people and say that this is a good amendment. The opposition knows what it wants. The government should let its members have a free vote on this. If it is a free vote, the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will carry.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The vote will be deferred until the end of Government Orders today.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

This bill is to provide a legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but it will not be governed by this legislation since it already has its own legislation.

Bill C-48 follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the 1996 convention of the World Conservation Union, held in Montreal. The United Nations have designated 1998 the International Year of the Ocean, and the most significant initiatives to mark this event include the World Exposition in Lisbon, Portugal, and UNESCO's adoption of the ocean charter, in St. John's, Newfoundland, in September 1997.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the environmental protection measures contained in this bill. More particularly, however, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that it supported the government legislation creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is also pursuing initiatives to protect the environment and sea floors in particular.

I am sure that, as they assess the parties and candidates competing in the ongoing election campaign in Quebec, the people of Quebec can appreciate what the Quebec government has achieved in terms of environmental protection since 1994. Its re-election on November 30 will allow the PQ government to carry on with its environmental protection efforts.

The Quebec government is also open to working together with the federal government, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan. However, the Bloc Quebecois has to object to the bill for a number of reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as it did with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government is trying to establish marine conservation areas regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.

The second reason our party will oppose this bill is the fact that Heritage Canada is proposing to establish a new structure, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine protection zones.

In short, the dominating federalism we have come to know in recent years, has divided into three parts in order to trample on Quebec jurisdictions.

We think that the example set by the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park should have been followed in this instance. We all remember that, in 1997, the federal and Quebec governments passed mirror legislation creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. These laws led to the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area.

The main component of this legislation is the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park established jointly by both the federal government and Quebec, without any transfer of land. The two governments will continue to exercise their respective jurisdictions. The park is entirely a marine setting. It covers 1,138 square kilometres, and its boundaries may be changed by mutual consent and following public consultation by both levels of government.

In order to encourage public participation, the federal and provincial laws confirm the creation of a co-ordinating committee, whose makeup will be decided by the federal and provincial ministers. The mandate of this committee is to recommend to the ministers responsible measures that will permit the achievement of the aims of the master plan. The plan will be reviewed jointly by the two governments at least once every seven years.

We think this federal Liberal government should have used this initial co-operative achievement as a model for the creation of other marine conservation areas.

Another reason we oppose Bill C-48 is that it does not respect the integrity of Quebec territory, in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois. One of the conditions vital to the establishment of a marine conservation area is the federal government's acquiring ownership of the land where the marine conservation area will be established.

Clause 5(2) of the bill stipulates that a marine conservation area may be established:

—only if the Governor in Council 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.

Moreover, the Quebec legislation on lands in the public domain applies to all lands in the public domain in Quebec, including river and lake beds, as well as those portions of the beds of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

Why, then, is Heritage Canada acting so arrogantly today? Just looking at the minister responsible for that department, her ongoing arrogance is obvious. We see how she behaves in Question Period. We hear her regularly insulting the democratically elected members of this House. So how could we expect Heritage Canada to behave any differently than the person in charge of it, the member for Hamilton East?

Why is Heritage Canada acting so arrogantly today, claiming ownership of the marine floor where it would like to establish marine conservation areas, instead of allowing bilateral agreements, between Quebec and Ottawa in particular, so that Quebec may maintain its areas of jurisdiction?

In our opinion, the environment is a shared jurisdiction. By refusing to take the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as its example, by imposing land ownership as an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is, as Robert Bourassa said, acting as a centralizing government with a desire to control everything, regardless of acknowledged areas of jurisdiction.

As far as I know, and the House will no doubt agree with me, former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa was far from being a leading sovereignist. He was an avowed federalist, who did not hesitate to say that the Canadian federal system was a centralizing system.

Under the various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection areas and natural marine reserves. According to Fisheries and Oceans, any given area could be zoned in various ways and be subject to different regulations.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees that this is bureaucratic overkill, which will not serve the public interest. The existence of an interdepartmental committee of these various departments is no reassurance. It has been our experience that, when several departments are involved in a project, they generally do not work well together and it ends up costing taxpayers—the people whose income tax is collected, who are tired of paying and find they pay too much for the services they are getting from this government—a lot of money.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the government would have been better advised to have a single department oversee the protection of ecosystems, with the departments concerned signing a framework agreement to delegate their respective responsibilities.

I would have had much more to say, but I can see that my time is running out and I should conclude.

For all the reasons I have stated and as a result of the work done by our colleague and critic for Canadian heritage, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who will speak after me will reiterate the fact that, in our opinion, the Liberal government should withdraw this bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today on behalf of our critic in this area and express the position of the NDP caucus on Bill C-48.

We are glad to say that we can support Bill C-48 in principle. We look forward to further debate on this matter because there are reservations we have that we would like to share with the House today.

In terms of background we recognize the bill provides legislation to establish and manage a system of national marine conservation areas representative of 29 marine areas in Canada.

The 29 NMCAs represent unique biological and oceanographic features and include both fresh and salt water areas. A Parks Canada system approach has identified the 29 national marine conservation areas within Canada's Great Lakes and the territorial sea and exclusive economic zones, the EEZ 200 mile limit zones.

NMCAs are not parks as such in the usual definition. They are conservation and stewardship areas. These NMCAs are fundamentally different from what we would term terrestrial parks. Terrestrial parks are usually associated with a semi-closed ecosystem and are essentially fixed in space and time and are subject to change over relatively long periods of time. We would argue this type of ecosystem would require a completely different style of management as compared to the national marine conservation areas.

Marine protected areas are associated with an open ecosystem and are large and dynamic. The very nature of their oceanographic base is dynamic, moving, fluid and where rates of change to the ecosystem can occur over a relatively short time span.

Pollution impacts have to be have special consideration when we are dealing with so sensitive an ecosystem that is vulnerable to these quick changes. Over-exploitation of our resources is another huge concern, in layman's terms overfishing. These are examples of why national marine conservation areas need special attention above and beyond that which we give our other parks system.

Another key difference between terrestrial parks and marine areas is the science and knowledge gap between the two.

We know relatively little about our oceans and the ecosystems of our marine areas. This came to light for me when I built a house for a marine biologist and we were talking about what he did for a living. He said he worked full time, year round, studying the aging of groundfish. I thought this was remarkable because he was studying when the best time to harvest groundfish would be and when did they reach their maximum size and when did they reproduce.

What really shocked me when talking to this mathematician was we did not know that type of thing. We were in the mid-1970s and we were just starting to study the ageing of groundfish which is a key primary industry.

A difference between the current parks system or terrestrial parks system and the national marine conservation areas is that we know very little about this ecosystem. It takes a great deal of sensitivity if we are to learn from these areas and their natural habitat without interference and development getting in the way of that knowledge.

The process to establish these national marine conservation areas began in 1986 with ministerial approval to establish national marine parks.

This decision lead to a 1987 agreement with Ontario to establish Fathom Five in Georgian Bay and further to a 1988 agreement with British Columbia for a marine park in South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation reserve, and 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. Bill C-7 entertained this creation which received NDP support and royal assent in 1987. The act came into force on June 8, 1998.

In 1995 Canada and British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding for a shared Pacific marine heritage legacy. In early 1997 a federal-provincial memorandum of understanding was signed initiating feasibility studies for marine conservation areas in the Buena Vista—Notre Dame Bay areas of Newfoundland and the Thunder Cape of the Slate Islands area of western Lake Superior.

Similar to the successful Saguenay—St. Lawrence project public consultations in local communities in both regions are progressing and public advisory committees are being established.

On completion of the feasibility and the consultation studies leading to established agreements, a total of four marine conservation areas and reserves would be established and six of the twenty-nine marine regions would be represented.

At the international level efforts to develop national and global representative systems of marine protected areas have been underway since the fourth world wilderness congress of 1987.

In 1992 the international union for the conservation of nature, the UCN, tabled detailed guidelines on marine protected areas at the fourth world congress of national parks and protected areas. The Prime Minister committed to new marine conservation areas legislation at the IUCN world conservation congress of October 1996.

We have mixed feelings about the details regarding the legislation and this is why our support at this time is limited or rather guarded. We are pleased that Bill C-48 will provide the powers, authorities and procedures required to establish and administer a system of marine conservation areas and that protection and conservation are fundamental specific stipulations on management and used to ensure ecosystems remain intact. There is clear reference to the ecosystem and precautionary approach which has been a key NDP concern in previous bills and acts.

There are many aspects to Bill C-48 that we find beneficial, many of which are written in such a way that they are very hard to share. We do have some reservations and concerns, however, with Bill C-48.

One of these concerns is that the department of fisheries will have the exclusive jurisdiction on fisheries management concerns. We feel that with the creation of these national marine conservation areas we need a special consideration of the resources that ply these waters and we wish it were other than DFO that had input into how these ecosystems are studied and managed.

The minimum protection standards have been expanded to include prohibition of fin fish aquaculture, bottom trawling, ballast water dumping, intentional introduction of alien species, outfalls, waste discharge, recreational artificial reefs and dredging provisions. We would have liked to see all these things limited with more specific limitations on them in Bill C-48. If we have a national marine conservation area, all these things will have an impact on the ecosystem and will limit our ability to benefit from the intelligence we can glean from studying these areas.

The allocation of sufficient resources for scientific study is not dealt with firmly in Bill C-48. We wish it were much more binding and that it contemplated stable funding for the study of the ecosystems we will be looking after within these conservation areas. I made reference to a scientist I knew who worked at the Nanaimo biological research station off the west coast of British Columbia.

Very little of the important research that needs to be done in order that we may really know our ecosystem and our fisheries is being done in the retail commercial market of fisheries under DFO. We feel that having these national marine conservation areas would be a huge benefit in terms of having protected areas free of industrial development and hopefully as free as possible from industrial waste. It is an ideal opportunity to truly study issues like the ageing of groundfish and the impact of species, et cetera, in the wonderful ecosystem we would have as our laboratory.

There has been extremely slow progress in establishing the NMCAs. We encourage government to move swiftly in this for the 29 identified areas.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, the future of the fishery depends on the protection of the marine environment. When our rivers and coastal waters cease being a safe place for fish, we will no longer have healthy and abundant wild stocks.

Bill C-48 would do for the marine environment what parks have done for the buffalo: save a few. Perhaps it was never realistic to expect buffalo to continue to roam the western prairie in vast numbers to survive in the face of settlement, agriculture, mass hunting and the railway.

Today our fish stocks are facing the same pressures the buffalo faced a century ago. Cod stocks on the east coast collapsed nearly a decade ago due to the mismanagement of the fishery by the department of fisheries, corporate greed and the development of new fishing methods that allowed our fishermen to catch literally the last fish. When northern cod stocks were devastated, my friend, the member for Gander—Grand Falls, demanded that those who failed to protect Newfoundland's most valuable resource be held to account. My friend no longer chairs the fisheries committee. Apparently it is okay to call for the creation of marine parks but it is considered threatening to those charged with protecting those fish stocks and their marine environment if we seek to hold them to account.

Salmon stocks on both coasts faced similar devastation to that suffered by the cod. Salmon stocks on the east coast have already been devastated. The Saint John River in New Brunswick has three hydroelectric dams on its stem and one on a key tributary. Migrating salmon are blocked. On the west coast, the federal and provincial governments have allowed hydroelectric dams, poor agriculture and forest practices and industrial pollution to threaten the once mighty Fraser River and its tributaries as well as rivers and streams on Vancouver Island.

Recently the Ottawa Citizen and the Saint John Telegraph Journal reported on a study by scientists at the University of Ottawa. That study reveals hydroelectric dams are silent killers of our rivers. The study finds that dams stand accused of being the principal stressors on rivers. Such findings are not a surprise to fishermen and environmentalists on the west coast where the department of fisheries and its minister sold out to Alcan and those who would dam the Fraser. Although it claims to be a protector of the fishery, the Government of British Columbia has a long history of being seduced by those who would build dams. There is no doubt the province's current agreement with Alcan on Kemano does not adequately protect fish habitat. Marine parks will not halt the devastation to marine life caused by hydroelectric dams.

The Toronto Star recently carried a report on the possible threat to wild fish stocks from fish farms on the Bay of Fundy:

The salmon slipped into vacuum sealed bags for shipment from this brand new processing plant are manufactured, not caught. They are a genetically manipulated species that is born in a plastic tray, vaccinated, often treated with antibiotics, fed red dye and doused with powerful pesticides before they go to market.

Disease is at the heart of the controversy over fish farming in Canada. Environmentalists say the periodic epidemics that sweep through the farms are clear evidence the industry is not healthy. They worry the antibiotics and pesticides used to treat diseases and parasites in fish farms are getting into the food chain.

The story also quotes University of British Columbia infectious diseases specialist, William Bowie:

The idea of pouring potent anti-infectives into the ocean strikes terror into those who see patients we can't treat because they have caught bugs we can't treat.

Another Toronto Star story summarized the disaster that has befallen wild salmon in Scotland. The story quotes Scottish fishermen who blame the disaster on fish farms that produce multitudes of sea lice, parasites that live on the farmed fish and kill salmon when they swim by.

It is thought that the infestation of sea lice in New Brunswick had its origin in Norway or Scotland.

There is now a fear that these diseases or similar diseases will spread to the west coast. Marine parks will not protect our wild salmon from such threats. Rather than turning our federal and provincial departments of fisheries into centres for aquaculture promotion, their main focus must be to continue the protection of the marine environment for wild fish. That does not mean the end of fish farms. There is lots of room for aquaculture operations which respect the marine environment.

In the end, a marine environment that is not safe for fish is one that is not safe for humans.

A department of fisheries report catalogued the effect that poorly planned urbanization and destructive agricultural and forest practices have had on the salmon-bearing streams in the Lower Fraser.

Of the 779 Lower Fraser Valley streams examined, 117 no longer exist, 375 are considered endangered, 181 are considered threatened and only 106 have retained their wild status.

Bill C-48 will not preserve the streams on the Fraser between Abbotsford and Hope. The study classified 58 of those streams as being threatened.

The future of fish stocks and fish habitat depend not on the Minister of Canadian Heritage, no matter how well intentioned she is. The future of the fishery and fish stocks depend on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans making fish stocks his number one priority, enforcing the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and the avoidance of overriding the advice of scientists in favour of the private profits of friends of the minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

First, I must point out that, as everyone knows, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment, but not at any cost.

For example, members will remember that the Bloc Quebecois supported the government regarding the bill that led to the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in 1997. That legislation, along with the act passed by the Quebec government, resulted in the establishment of the first marine conservation area in Canada, and we are proud of that.

Under the legislation, both governments continue to exercise their respective jurisdiction in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. The park includes only the marine environment. Its boundaries can be changed, provided there is agreement between the two governments and provided they hold joint public hearings on the issue. These are among the main legislative provisions adopted in 1997.

The important thing here is that the establishment of that park was the result of a co-operative effort by the federal and Quebec governments. It is unfortunate that the federal government did not choose to follow the same procedure in the case of Bill C-48.

The government could have followed other examples, such as phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. Let me briefly remind members what happened.

On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Canada and of Quebec announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan, the bill for which would be shared equally by both levels of government. This is another example of a joint project that respects the jurisdictions of each government.

Unfortunately, the approach in Bill C-48 is not even remotely comparable. How then can the federal government be so naive as to think that the Bloc Quebecois would support this bill? With this bill, the federal government, far from relying on dialogue, is seeking to unilaterally impose marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over its own territory and its environment.

But there is more. The federal government, not content with getting involved in Quebec's jurisdictions and sincerely believing that ridicule does not kill anyone, is duplicating itself.

Indeed, the bill will establish marine conservation areas, thus creating a new structure for Heritage Canada and duplicating existing marine protected areas at fisheries and oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. This means that the quarrelling is far from over.

It is clear to everyone that Bill C-48 does not respect the integrity of the Quebec territory. In order to establish a marine area, the federal government must first become the owner of the territory where such an area will be created.

But there is a problem, that is the Constitution of 1867. Indeed, section 92.5 provides that the management and sale of public lands comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Quebec is still a province.

In Quebec, the Quebec legislation on crown lands 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.

This same legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The federal government, however, is not going to be intimidated by Quebec laws, that is common knowledge. Heritage Canada intends to establish its marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Heritage Canada will thus force Quebec to cede its exclusive jurisdiction over its ocean floor. What a fine example of co-operative federalism. The condition essential to the establishment of marine areas in the St. Lawrence is the transfer of ownership rights to the federal government.

Not satisfied with meddling in Quebec's jurisdiction, the federal government is doing its best to overlap a number of its departments. What is the logic in the federal government's decision to create marine conservation areas under the authority of Heritage Canada, marine protection zones under fisheries and oceans and marine wildlife reserves under Environment Canada?

According to fisheries and oceans, one site could be zoned three different ways and thus come under three federal departments, which would each apply its own specific rules, and all of this would come under three different legislative measures.

God knows which waters the fish will choose. As for the officials, I do not think the stomach of Jonas' whale could ever contain them all as they try to reach some sort of understanding.

Once again, and this is not the first time since 1993, I am faced with a dilemma. If federal departments cannot work together, how can we expect the federal government to work with the provinces? Heritage Canada flavoured marine conservation areas—no thanks. Give me a sovereign Quebec, and quickly.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise before the House to address Bill C-48. 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.

This being the International Year of the Oceans, it only seems fitting that we are debating a bill which has as its focus the protection and preservation of an important part of our marine ecosystems for generations to come.

Such legislation is far overdue. For years we have been guilty of taking our oceans, rivers and lakes for granted. We have polluted and pillaged our marine environments to the point where some species, particularly Newfoundland cod, are nearing extinction. We cannot afford to remain complacent if we want to preserve this environment for future generations.

I was born in the region of Acadia known as Mayflower, in the municipality of Clare. Much of my childhood was spent on the shores of St. Mary's Bay in the little village of Mavilette. I so loved the briny smell of the sea that I eventually bought a house right down by the ocean.

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for our ocean, so I must speak of my great sadness to see how our natural resources are being abused.

My constituency of West Nova borders alongside three different bodies of water: the Bay of Fundy, the beautiful St. Mary's Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Surrounded by so much water, it is only natural that many of my constituents derive their living from the water in some fashion or another. The three large bodies of water that surround West Nova have been the lifeblood for many of my constituents.

The Bay of Fundy is home to many different species of marine life. For years Fundy fishing grounds supported a very prosperous inshore scallop fishery. Groundfish used to be found in abundance, helping to create a very lucrative fishing industry. Today many of the species fishers depend upon for their livelihood are disappearing due to overfishing. The lucrative lobster fishery still remains, but this is also being threatened.

It is important that we begin to seriously address the problems facing our fishing industry. History has shown that we cannot afford to ignore today's realities. Conservation must be the pivotal goal of this government if we are going to leave anything behind for future generations.

The Progressive Conservative caucus is supporting Bill C-48 because we feel it is time that we politicians start taking a leading role in helping to preserve our environment so that future generations will enjoy the serene beauty that presently exists throughout most of this country. We can only achieve these goals by taking immediate action through protective measures such as those outlined in this bill.

Deriving one's living from our oceans is a cultural way of life for us. We depend on the preservation of this large habitat not only for our survival, but also for the survival of coming generations.

Recently our coastal regions have been facing another menacing attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have been pillaging the ocean floors almost unabated by Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials. The lucrative lobster fishery could be endangered if strong measures are not immediately taken to put an end to this illegal activity.

Clause 18 of this bill explains the application of the act. As I understand it, the minister may designate marine conservation wardens to enforce the act and regulations and to preserve and maintain the public peace in marine conservation areas.

I believe it is absolutely necessary to hire these people, but I wonder where the minister will find the necessary money for this project. With all the cuts to our museum and national parks programs, where will she find the funds?

I am rather excited by the prospect of having another body of enforcement officers patrolling our coastal waters. Perhaps these new recruits could offer our friends in DFO a hand in patrolling our waters in search of illegal lobster fishers. The Minister of Fisheries does not seem to realize the extreme seriousness of the problem in West Nova. Registered commercial lobster fishers are already very frustrated and angry with the department of fisheries for failing to put an end to the illegal activity that is presently threatening their livelihoods. I am scared that no noticeable reduction in the lobster catches in the next two months will surely lead to violence.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystems. 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 and there are still outstanding issues to be addressed.

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 precise geographic locations to be protected. These sites will have to be chosen through much consultation with members of the general public, provincial governments and those individuals who earn their livelihood from our waters.

I cannot stress the points strong enough that much consultation must be undertaken before any particular area is singled out for protection. Provincial governments, municipal governments, affected federal government departments and all stakeholders must be involved in every step of the site selection process. There must be a balanced approach taken when exploring in an area. The interests of our fishing community must be taken into consideration with that of marine habitat before any agreements on locations are finalized.

Conservation is vitally important to all of us but particularly to those who make their living from the water. We cannot simply target a location without exploring the long term effects it will have on industry. Our fishers must have a direct say in the management of their industry. We have already witnessed the disaster that can occur when they are excluded from the decision making process. It is important that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be involved in the consultation process.

It is also important that 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. There are restrictions on non-renewable resource extractions and careful examination of any proposed site must be explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration.

Nova Scotia is finally to reap some economic benefits from the Sable oil and gas exploration, thus fulfilling a legacy started by the previous Conservative government. This economic boom would not have been possible if the Sable area had been designated as a marine protected area. This is why we must exhaust all opportunities for constructive consultation sessions with all those who have a vested interest in ocean floors.

It is important that the federal government be prepared to allocate the necessary resources to protect newly designated conservation areas. Otherwise we will open the doors to constant abuse as has been witnessed in our fishing industry.

Furthermore I warn the government against any possible altering of boundaries of future marine conservation areas for economic benefits. We cannot afford to have different rules for different marine areas as the department certainly appears to have in the national park systems where it allows the expansion of Lake Louise for economic reasons yet denies economic development in Tuktut Nogait National Park.

In conclusion, the government set a goal for itself of establishing 10 marine parks by the year 2000. It is obvious that it will not achieve this goal, but it is important and therefore we must choose these marine conservation areas carefully. The clock is ticking and we cannot afford to waste any more time in terms of this important undertaking.

Although this piece of legislation is not perfect, we should send it immediately to committee where I hope the views of interested Canadians will be welcomed in our attempts to make any necessary amendments.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-48, the marine conservation area act. Like the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage I believe that Canada has a national and international obligation to protect and conserve marine areas representative of Canada's 29 marine regions.

I recognize that such conservation efforts are necessary to ensure the future existence and enjoyment of these marine areas, and I support the concept behind the bill. I also support the polluter pay principle included in the bill.

However I have several major concerns with the bill. The first is with the structure and wording of the legislation. The second is with the potential impact of the legislation on natural resource development. As natural resource critic I want to address those concerns.

I will begin with my concerns regarding the structure and wording of the bill. Specifically I am concerned about the existence of three Henry VIII clauses which would allow the government to circumvent parliament. In contrast to the government's position, I am a firm believer in the parliamentary process. I am disturbed by the way the bill attempts to avoid the parliamentary process.

In its summary of the bill the Department of Canadian Heritage stated that the proposed legislation required that any proposed amendment to the schedules to establish or enlarge a marine conservation area or reserve should be subject to scrutiny by parliament. However, the summary failed to mention the constraints placed on this scrutiny.

The legislation delegates responsibility for the raising of objections to schedule amendments to the standing committee. The committee has only 20 sitting days after the tabling of the amendment to put forth a motion in objection to the amendment. We all know the results of the Liberal majority in each and every one of the standing committees of parliament and what the government whip does to the decisions of those committees.

If 21 days elapse without any objection the amendments can be made by order in council. If a motion is put forth, the motion is debated for no more than three hours before the House confirms or rejects the committee's objections. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the bill allow the government to side step the usual legislative process.

The fact that similar Henry VIII clauses exist in national parks does not make the circumvention of parliament any more acceptable either in this bill or in any number of other bills the government has introduced in this parliament and in the previous parliament.

This aspect of the legislation is particularly suspect as the schedules referred to in these clauses are now empty. The government has put forth the names of five areas already targeted as future marine conservation areas under the act. Therefore I am as curious as I am sure others are why these five areas are not included in the schedule attached to the bill. I can only conclude that they were purposely omitted to prevent full debate on the legislation which might include a controversial debate on the proposed areas.

This brings me to my second concern regarding the impact of the legislation on current and future natural resources development. Clause 13 states that no person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

While I understand the necessity of this clause for the sake of environmental protection, I am troubled by the extent of the proposed areas. If each area under consideration is successfully designated through order in council as a marine conservation area, the entire coastline of Canada extending some distance inland and a considerable distance into the offshore area, including a number of already proven mineral rich inland areas, will be covered under the act.

The legislation proposes to prevent all future mining and oil and gas drilling projects along the entire coastline of Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable in light of the fact that Canada is already one of the least mining friendly countries in this hemisphere. Under the legislation projects like Hibernia, Terra Nova and Sable Island would not be allowed to exist. The opportunities that these projects are providing to Atlantic Canadians simply would be disallowed. That is absolutely unacceptable and quite irresponsible on the part of the government.

Future mining areas have already been barred on large sections of land because of the settlement of native land claims. By removing the possibility of resource development along the coastline the government is potentially crippling the future of resource industries in Canada.

The legislation is set up in a such way that it is very difficult to remove portions of the conservation area from the act. It takes only an order in council to add a conservation area. The legislation requires an act of parliament for no net loss, swapping or removal of a portion of a marine conservation area.

This requirement will have serious impacts on natural resource industries. If a marine conservation area proves in future to be a valuable and bountiful source of yet undiscovered natural resources, it will be very difficult to have the boundaries of the conservation area redrawn to exclude the area containing the resources.

I might remind the House that there are a number of areas on all coasts of Canada which potentially hold huge natural resource deposits, both fossil fuel and mineral deposits that could some day potentially be mined.

I am concerned by the ease with which each new marine conservation area can be created and the difficulty involved in removing it from that marine conservation area. By setting up the legislation in this way more area than necessary may be included initially and cannot be freed from the legislation without enormous difficulty.

This major obstacle to future development will undoubtedly impact on our energy and resource independence. This leads into the last point I wish to make. The act is clearly intended to fulfil preservationist and not conservationist objectives. While these objectives may be noble, as I stated in my initial comment they are hardly the usual objectives for a national park or historic heritage site. National parks normally allow relatively free public access.

The legislation requires authorization by permit for any activities in the area or reserves. The bill aims to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks.

As the legislation's aims are clearly environmental it would be more appropriate to establish authority under the Minister of the Environment. The legislation could then be evaluated by members of the House as well as members of the public for what it is, environmental legislation.

I reiterate that I support the goals of the legislation. Too often Reform members of parliament are portrayed as enemies of the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a firm believer in conservation and responsible development. I understand the necessity for environmental responsibility.

Canada's biodiversity is one of the many things that makes our nation unique. I support the concept of sustainable development and preservation of Canada's natural environment for this and future generations.

I also advocate participation in the world community of agreements. I commend the government on the inclusion of the polluter pay principle in the legislation although I have some doubts regarding its resolve to enforce this principle.

Unfortunately I cannot support the bill. My colleagues and I want to see parliament restored as the supreme body responsible for the creation and interpretation of Canadian law. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 subvert parliament's law making role and therefore contradict this fundamental belief.

For this and other reasons as previously presented I reject the legislation and encourage other members of the House to do the same, to simply stop for a moment and look at the possibilities for future job and wealth creation in the development of Canada's offshore resources.

In my opinion it has not been the development of our natural resources either offshore or onshore that has endangered, as some of my colleagues talked about, the fish habitat in Canada's oceans. It has simply been poor management and overfishing, not resource development.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that Canada can develop its natural resources offshore, off all Canada's shores, in an environmentally responsible manner and at the same time preserve the biodiversity and the environment that exist there.