Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.
In looking at this bill in detail members will find that this bill is full of ambiguities. Much of the bill is not clearly stated. Where the responsibility crosses over to the provinces is not spelled out. There are many things on which this bill needs some genuine bookkeeping and homework done.
This bill changes the previous concept in Canada as to what is a park. Traditionally a park was an area relatively free for public travel. A park was established in some cases for heritage purposes. This adds to the meaning of the word park. It becomes a marine park and it is being added to the concept of a national park.
My colleague has mentioned some of the areas where all of the power vested here is given to the minister in charge. In other words we can have something take place within and under the act. Changes can be made without having to steer them through parliament. More and more often bills come before us which give the minister the power to make huge changes to an act without having to come back to parliament which has to discuss the act in the first place but then gives the authority to make substantial changes. We do not believe in that. We believe that if there is a substantial change being made to any act, this is the body that should make the changes, the elected people, and not the committee.
This is a classic example of the government sidestepping the usual legislative process. When that is done, the government gets into a dictatorial way of operating the nation's business.
Government wants the expansion of a new marine conservation area or a reserve to belong to a standing committee. It would not come back to the House; it would belong to a standing committee. The majority of the members on a standing committee are from the government side. As a result, we can almost rest assured that the standing committee is going to pass what the minister directs or asks for. That is a dangerous precedent in the bill.
It also very rapidly shrinks the amount of land that can be used for exploration, as my colleague has mentioned. As a matter of fact it could possibly contain the entire coastline of a country that has more coastline than most. This could all take place at the minister's discretion.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill would require not just the federal crown to obey it, but it would also insist with respect to the provincial waters and resources off the provincial shores that the provinces would not have a say in what becomes a new marine park or the waters thereof. We see all kinds of difficulties in this when the provinces are not consulted.
There is another item in the bill which is terribly dangerous. It violates all the Canadian principles I have ever read. Those appointed to enforce the act would be designated as peace officers as defined by the Criminal Code. These enforcement officers would be authorized to enter and pass through any private property in discharge of their duties. As I read that, it is without a warrant. They have that right.
Also anyone who contravenes the law could be fined $100,000, or if found guilty of an indictable offence, be fined up to half a million dollars.
There seems to be something missing in the bill. While we want the act to have teeth and importance, the due process of law is not mentioned in the bill.
As my colleague said, we agree to the polluter pay principle. There is no question about that. We would strongly support the bill in that regard. However, the bill violates the principle of the democratic process so much. We cannot support acts which lay the real power of the act in the minister's hands.
Further, the rightful place and supreme body for creating and interpreting the laws of Canada is this House. It does not belong to a minister by order in council, nor does it belong to a parliamentary standing committee. I do not understand why members opposite, with almost every bill that comes up, continually want to violate these principles.
This really is not a park bill but is an environmental bill. We believe in sustainability, development and management for the environment to preserve both biodiversity and conserve the environment for the present and the future. This bill expands the domain of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment. As such, we have real difficulty with the bill.
We have difficulty with this bill because it gives powers to committees, gives powers to orders in council, gives powers to the minister which rightly belong to the legislative body here.
The bill requires, as I said, the provincial governments to fall in line. It also requires that natives under their land claims also fall in line without any consultation, if the government so wishes.
Note that the enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private property without permission.
All of those things are within a bill which the government is asking us to pass. It violates the rule of law. It violates the longstanding principles of justice. It violates the authority of the House as the legislature.
For those reasons we cannot support the bill even though it has many admirable parts to it. Canadians need most of the bill but we do not need to go down the road to dictatorship in implementation of the bill in its present form.
