Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1998

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

A member of the Reform Party says the system does not work. He would simply build a bridge right through the heart of the Rockies and separate the province of British Columbia. That is the message.

The member wants all the regulatory power to be put in the hands of Premier Clark. That is what we are hearing those members say. They know what is best.

My colleague from Wentworth—Burlington pointed out that he has a mother, a brother and a sister living there. I have many dear friends in Victoria. Most of them are Liberals, he might appreciate, but dear friends nonetheless.

We have a former long time mayor who now represents his community in this place. When someone is elected on a federal agenda they are elected, it seems to me, regardless of their parochialism, regardless of their tunnel vision, regardless of their inability to understand that from sea to sea to sea there are issues of significance to all Canadians. The treatment of the environment in the province of British Columbia I believe in my heart is important to the people of Newfoundland and vice versa. The treatment of the Great Lakes, the treatment of our fisheries, the treatment of pollution, of dealing with water purification, is important to all Canadians.

The proof of that came when recently there was an announcement that water would be sold out of the Great Lakes basin to the United States. The uproar, believe me, was from sea to sea to sea.

Should we turn that decision over to the province of Ontario? Should we abdicate our national responsibility? Members in the Reform Party would probably suggest we should turn it over to the state of Michigan, given their track record and their background and where many of their policies come from.

Do a survey in virtually any part of this country and simply ask should the federal government, the national government, the Parliament of Canada, have input into the protection of the environment in this country or should we simply wash our hands and abdicate that responsibility to the provincial governments.

I heard one member talk about Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I am not sure who but I heard somebody, Bloc or Reform, say that perhaps the municipalities should be given control over this. Would that not be interesting?

I also served 10 years as a municipal councillor. I understand the role and I appreciate the role. My wife currently serves as a councillor. It is a incredibly important service to the community, but with all due respect to my dear wife, my mayor and all municipal politicians, I do not feel I would stand here and abdicate my responsibility for national programs to the municipalities.

How would members like to see Mel Lastman and Hazel McCallion in a two out of three mud fall, fighting over the environment? I do not think I want to see that. I do not think the national parliament wants to give up that kind of authority to the municipal level. The member opposite is shaking her head, but it was one of her own members who suggested it.

If the official opposition wants to criticize the federal government that is fine. That is its job. I understand that; been there and done that. If it wants to dismantle it, it should have the courage. At least the Bloc says it like it is from its perspective. It wants to dismantle the country.

Do Reformers expect that we should wrap up federal responsibilities with a great big bow, things Canadians hold dear to their hearts, and turn them over to provincial politicians? If that is what Reformers want to do, they should say that.

It would not surprise me terribly, considering that they only represent two provinces and considering they do not have a seat east of the Manitoba border, that their interests might lie in the fact that Ralph Klein is the latest champion of the Reform Party and the unite the right. It would not surprise me at all. It would not surprise me considering the fact that the hon. Tony Clement, minister of transportation for the province of Ontario, sings the praises of the Reform Party. I wonder why. He might like to avoid a provincial Reform Party starting up in the province of Ontario. Maybe that is the motive. I do not know.

If there is a Reform Party in the province of Ontario running on the same side of the agenda as Mike Harris, it seems to me a lot of people would be tripping over one another because Mike Harris is already fundamentally a Reform Party member.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

No. He is one of us.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

He is not one of them. He is a Reformer. The Conservatives should be a little nervous. I hear that the venerable Bill Davis recently attended a unite the right cocktail party. I wonder if they were serving arsenic or whatever. I understand there is a move to have the Reform Party leap-frog over the Bloc to join the Tories in the unite the right, but I am delighted to hear members say that it will not happen.

We have some federal legislation. Should we turn it over to the provinces? The Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Migratory Birds Act, all these statutes are relevant to the conservation of marine resources. They are relevant to this place. It is our responsibility and the responsibility of Reformers to stand and defend the nation. They should stand and say that they will vote with the government if it means protecting the national environment on behalf of all Canadians, even though they only represent a few in a few small areas of the country.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal member say in his eloquent speech that when a party is elected on a particular political platform, it must follow up on that platform. He could have talked about the elimination of the GST, pay equity, withdrawal from the free trade agreement, the elimination of the GST on books or the end of patronage appointments, all to be found in the red book, but he simply forgot.

Listening to his speech helped me understand why people have so little confidence in and so little respect for politicians. To summarize his speech, we could say, as we used to say in the schoolyard when we were kids, “my father is stronger than yours”. That was more or less the substance of his speech.

I will now try to ask a different question to the Liberal member. I will ask him what part of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park agreement would be unacceptable in Bill C-48. I remind him that this has nothing to do with the big bad separatists.

Second, clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 reads as follows:

—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.

Clause 5(2) talks about lands owned by the Canadian government but, at the same time, section 92.5 of the Constitution says that Quebec legislation applies to all public lands, including river beds.

First, how can the member explain the inability to come to an understanding on the basis of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park agreement, and second, how can he explain the difference between clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 and section 92,5 of the Canadian Constitution?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting response, the issue of my father is stronger than your father. I am paraphrasing. Perhaps it is close to what was said.

We on this side of the House are saying that our Canada is stronger with Quebec as part of it than the hon. member's country separated. That is very simple. If that is school yard bully tactics then so be it, but I do not think it is. We understand that my Canada, the Canada of people on this side of the House, is stronger with British Columbia as part of it and is stronger with Quebec as part of it.

The member opposite continues to chirp. I guess he did not have enough time to ask his question. Perhaps he has a particular amendment that he wants to make to the bill. Is he saying he does not? He is asking why it cannot be like the agreement in the Saguenay.

Why not bring it to committee? This is second reading. It will go to committee. Why not bring it to committee and take a look at some amendments? The hon. member might be surprised. If there is a way of improving the bill, who knows? We could discuss it. It could be possible.

The hon. member wants to stand in this place and use it as nothing more than a political soapbox for the absolute display of unity between the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois that are both in their own inimitable way determined to destroy the country. The Liberal Party of Canada, the government of the country, will not allow that to happen.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I get from the member's intervention the notion that if we do not support this kind of heavy handed interventionist legislation we are somehow not patriots.

If we are truly looking to keep Canada united and strong, the federal government has to back off. If the federal government does not do that, we will lose Canada.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes a procedure. It is not a short term proposition. Like national parks the areas we are talking about are intended to be created in perpetuity.

It is absolutely a puzzle to me why Reformers would object to perpetuating and perpetually protection of the environment through the bill. They are using it for their own political purpose to grandstand because they only know how to be against an initiative of the government instead of trying to understand it and support it for all Canadians.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am someone who very much likes to travel in North Africa. It is a beautiful part of the world, particularly Egypt. I am very fond of the desert.

One of the most stunning adventures, if one is into the environment and into wildlife and that sort of thing, is to travel to the shore of the Red Sea and snorkel in the Red Sea, which is what I did about six or seven years ago.

The Red Sea is famous for its underwater marine environment. I arrived there and went swimming. There is a reef just offshore. It is quite fantastic because when looking around with my face out of water it is all desert. When I put my face in the water it was a riot of colour. There is life everywhere competing. There were fish, coral, sea fans and everything imaginable within my view. The water was beautiful and perfectly clear.

That was in one little cove that the local guides took us to. I asked to go a little way down the shore where again I went into the water and looked down with my face mask and snorkel on and there was desolation. There was nothing. Everything was totally dead. As I walked along the shore the sand looked perfectly normal, but I stepped on something soft. It was a sand coated globule of oil.

Prior to passing through the Suez Canal the oil tankers trim their tanks by dumping oil into the Red Sea. The devastation of one of the most fantastic ecosystems in the world is unbelievable. It is all because of a weak national government which did not apply standards to the tankers moving through the Suez Canal. Egypt did not apply those standards because it needs the money. It is as simple as that.

Let us return to Canada for a moment and travel with me to Newfoundland, to Cape St. Mary's on the Avalon peninsula. I was there the summer before last. It is an absolutely splendid situation. It is a bird sanctuary. Approaching the edge of the cliffs there is a huge pinnacle a couple of hundred yards offshore. The drop is about 300 feet. Tens of thousands of birds swarm around that pinnacle. That is their breeding ground.

[An hon. member]

Puffins.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

No, not puffins. On other islands along the shore there are puffins and whales, just along the east coast of the Avalon peninsula. There is wild life and biodivisity in incredible quantities.

If someone in Newfoundland decided to shoot all those birds or kill the whales found along that coast, or maybe develop the islands where the puffins breed, would the people in B.C. care? Would they be affected? I suggest that every Canadian would care if this type of environment in Newfoundland were destroyed. I would say every Canadian would care. The world would lose something but Canada would lose something most of all. Even if we do not see it and even it is not in our province it is important to us.

I move to Lake Ontario. Just off Welland there are two ships that lie in about 500 feet of water. They are called the Hamilton and the Scourge . They are American vessels from the War of 1812 which were actually seized from the Canadians and refurbished into American men of war. A storm came up and the ships capsized and sank in about 500 feet of water in Lake Ontario.

About 12 years ago they were located and an expedition was mounted to go down and examine them. These are two War of 1812 warships that are in absolute pristine condition on the floor of Lake Ontario. They are absolutely perfect. They are a wonderful snapshot of a period in all our history that determined the future of Canada when we were under threat and at war with the United States.

The legislation covers the preservation of that type of historical situation at the bottom of Lake Ontario. It is under threat because all those artifacts on the lake floor are a tremendous attraction to scuba divers and relic hunters.

That is a classic case where the heritage ministry has a role in this kind of legislation. We have to protect that kind of thing. It is of interest. It is of value. People do care in British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland about that kind of archeological treasure in Lake Ontario because it is Canadian.

Let us go to Victoria. Let us go to British Columbia and look at Long Beach for example. Long Beach on Vancouver Island is one of the most splendid marine environments we could ever hope to see. For miles there is surf rolling up. We can walk along the shore and find shells of every diversity. The waters off British Columbia are as equally famous as the Red Sea for their biodiversity. Scuba divers come from all over the world to British Columbia to dive in those waters.

The city of Victoria is noted for its very long sewage pipe which dumps raw sewage into the ocean. I would ask members on the opposite side of the House, especially the B.C. members, if they seriously want to tell me that the federal government has no role because we can trust the provinces and the municipalities. We can see for ourselves, and Victoria is the classic example, that in order to save a few dollars or perhaps to save jobs, Victoria is dumping raw sewage into the sea. And it does float back, I have to say, and all they do is make the pipe longer. That is the type of problem that exists when we leave environmental issues solely to the provinces and the municipalities.

The real thrust of my talk is that we have choices in this country. We can believe that what pulls together a country of this size and this diversity is its diversity. It is its difference in its cultures, its environment, its forests and its sheer beauty. Perhaps the fundamental difference between members on this side and members on the opposite side is that I feel very strongly that all of it belongs to me, not just what exists in my municipality which is at the head of Lake Ontario, not just what exists in my province, but the entire country.

I come from a riding near the city that had the Plastimet fire. The Plastimet company came under Ontario and municipal fire codes and environmental laws and what did we have? Hamilton had one of the worst toxic fires in this century, at least in Canada. The provincial controls were there on paper but they were not there in action.

The fundamental difference between members on this side and members on the other side is, be they Bloc Quebecois or Reform members, they do not appreciate—the NDP have indicated that they do not want to be included with the Bloc and the Reform Party and I appreciate that, and I did not notice a reaction from the Conservatives. The fundamental point is simply that the difference politically that exists in this country is exemplified by this legislation. One side wants the legislation for the entire nation and the other side does not want the legislation for provincial parochial reasons.

The Bloc Quebecois members although they do not like the nationalist component in this legislation have certainly indicated that they agree in principle with the general idea of preserving these ecosystems. I know it is impossible for the Reform Party but I would suggest that the Bloc Quebecois remember that this is second reading, agreement in principle. Therefore support it in principle and vote with the government on this occasion.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on something a few members from the Liberal Party said about the New Democratic Party.

It is quite easy to understand why the NDP is in favour of this bill. It is simply because the NPD is a centralizing party, just like the Liberal Party. It is normal for these people to support a centralizing bill.

The previous speaker shared with us his tremendous knowledge. He analyzed what is happening in Africa, at the Suez canal, throughout the world, but I think it is time for him to wake up and realize what is going on in Canada.

I see that the Minister of Justice is here, so the member may want to listen to what I say and then ask her some questions. The situation in Canada is very complex. Let me give the example of a fisherman from the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who wants to go fishing in the St. Lawrence River. Then the member can tell me that this whole thing they are setting up is not complicated.

This fisherman asks the province for a fishing licence. He will go fishing in a boat he has bought in Quebec and for which he has paid the federal and the provincial taxes. To launch his boat, he has to register with the federal government. Then he brings his boat to the shore which is an area of provincial jurisdiction. As soon as it is launched, the boat is in federal waters. However, the bottom of the river is provincial. The fish swimming in the water belongs to the federal, but the crab at the bottom falls under an area of shared jurisdiction.

One thing is certain, as soon as the fish swimming in federal waters is caught and thrown in the boat, it comes under provincial jurisdiction.

But as if that were not good enough, we also have federal fishing quotas. If, on top of this, it is a commercial fishery, there are federal and provincial laws and regulations on food, the environment, safety, equipment, and so forth..

The bill before us is completely flawed. As if things were not complicated enough as it is, Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada will now be involved in the implementation of the bill.

Does the member who studied how things are done around the world and believes they are easy to manage in Canada not think it is not normal for the federal government to always try to complicate matters? It is creating problems where there were none.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean marine park is a case in point. Why not duplicate it? No, it would be too easy. As if things were not complicated enough, as if there were not enough stakeholders in matters such as water and fisheries, now three other departments and all their bureaucrats are involved, and the provincial government has been pushed aside. We know how this works. This makes absolutely no sense.

Will the member opposite open his eyes and ears for once in his life and, when the time comes to pass the bill, will he rise and vote against the government and the bill?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I detect from the hon. member's remarks that he does support the bill in principle. I would suggest to him that it is he who should be rising in support of the bill rather than the opposite. The often valid objections that the Bloc Quebecois brings up should be debated in committee. If they cannot be resolved at that stage, it makes sense then to vote against the bill at third reading. When we agree with something in principle, we should support it in principle.

As for my colleague's general remarks, it seems to me that the easiest way to resolve the problem of too much mixed jurisdiction in issues of the environment, the fisheries and the coastal regions would be for the provinces to back off and allow the federal government to play its proper role in managing these resources on our coastal waters.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to deem it 6.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed that we call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House and to see members opposite.

I am pleased to speak tonight on the Liberal government's complete mishandling of the APEC affair. I hasten to add that the handling is really the question.

Contrary to what has been stated by Liberal members, this is not an issue of partisan politics. Rather, this is an issue that involves serious questions pertaining to the responsibilities of ministers of the crown.

Canadians are deeply troubled by a Prime Minister and a solicitor general who appear to have clear disregard for their respective duties and outright refuse to be accountable for their own actions, not unlike the infamous Airbus affair which we have yet to hear the last of.

Upon assuming office ministers of the crown must swear an oath to Her Majesty the Queen to uphold responsibilities which are inherent in serving the federal cabinet. The Prime Minister and the solicitor general in particular are entrusted with very heavy responsibilities.

Canadians need to know the level of the Prime Minister's involvement in directing RCMP officers to suppress peaceful protesters so as not to offend the sensibilities of an Asian dictator. What offends the sensibilities of Canadians is not only the callous remarks of the Prime Minister and the efforts to dodge the issue that the government is engaged in, but how closely was he involved and is it appropriate that he was involved. These are the fundamental questions that have remained unanswered throughout.

Of equal importance is why did the Prime Minister and his government not simply answer questions about this matter in this House when the matter was first introduced? Instead of engaging in that, they stepped up their efforts by engaging spin doctors to deflect these questions to avoid the hard questions that were posed to them.

Sadly and to his personal shame, the Prime Minister has refused to account for his actions and the actions of his office. His government has chosen the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to investigate these allegations. Despite the commission's lack of a legal and moral mandate to undertake such an inquiry with a broad truth seeking authority or any real final say in the matter, the government has been hiding behind this.

It has recently been declared that the federal court will not be hearing the appeal that was put to it. Instead, the commission itself is going to be tasked with the decision as to whether the commission has already prejudged this matter by the chair's alleged remarks in a casino. The commission is left with the tantamount task of deciding its own fate. This has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

This matter has completely lost the faith of the Canadian people. This entire affair has a stench around it now that Canadians will not tolerate.

The solicitor general openly chastised the opposition members when they asked questions about this. He then went out, got on a plane and spoke about this in a very forthright way saying that Hughie was going to take the fall and that certain officers were going to be the fall guys in all of this.

This matter has been completely compromised by the government and by the actions of both the solicitor general and the Prime Minister. There is a blatant contradiction in what the government has asked the Canadian people to swallow, which is that they should have faith in this commission. However, when the commission asked on two separate occasions that the students be funded, the government refused. How can Canadians have faith in this commission if the government will not listen to the requests of the commission?

The member for Palliser made very damning allegations against the solicitor general and these allegations were repeated.

I suspect that we have not heard the end of this APEC matter. I am very interested to see how the parliamentary secretary will respond to these allegations.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do this in French, but I will repeat an English phrase that was used earlier.

My colleague across the way used the expression “from the sublime to the ridiculous”. Oddly, that is just what I was thinking when watching the behaviour of the party over there in connection with this matter.

Let us have a clear understanding of what the problem is: there are incidents. A commission was created a long time ago for handling this type of problem. The case is referred to it.

First, the allegation is made that the commission does not have the power to do what has to be done. That is false, but such is the allegation, and the commission's credibility is undermined as a result. It is alleged that the Prime Minister got involved. It is alleged that the commission is a lame-duck commission. The allegations keep coming. Allegations about what happened on a plane. I do not believe my colleague was on the plane and therefore he did not hear first hand what was, and was not, said.

The underlying principle is that someone said this or that. This becomes an absolute truth. This is absolutely ridiculous. Enough to make a person weep.

Now, going further with this, who is it that is behind these allegations? Members of opposition parties. Why are they making these allegations? To defend purely political and partisan causes. And what does this have to do with reality? Nothing whatsoever.

They are not at all interested in the truth. What they are interested in is the media circus in the House around a matter that could have been settled very readily, and will be settled very readily, by an organization created for that very purpose, a commission called the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)