Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-48.
This bill is entitled “An Act respecting marine conservation areas”, and its purpose is to provide a legal framework for the creation 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 is not governed this legislation since it has its own legislation.
Bill C-48 follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada to the World Conservation Union Conference held in Montreal in 1996. At that time, as in 1994, the union passed resolutions asking all coastal nations to act quickly to put in place conservation measures for marine areas.
The year 1998 was designated the International Year of the Ocean by the United Nations. Among the most important initiatives to mark this event we should mention the World Exposition in Lisbon, Portugal and the signing of the Ocean Charter, prepared by UNESCO, in September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.
The creation of marine conservation areas fulfills the objectives of many international forums and documents like the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the 1991 report entitled “Caring for the Earth”, prepared by the IUCN, which is the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, which is financed in part by the Government of Quebec.
Of course the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment. More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that it supported the legislation creating the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is also pursuing initiatives to protect the environment and sea floors in particular.
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 before us for a number of reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.
Second, Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new structure, that is the marine conservation areas, which will simply duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine wildlife reserves. In a nutshell, believe it or not, the federal government has found a way to divide itself into three components to better invade Quebec's jurisdictions.
At this stage, I would like to elaborate on our objections to this bill. First, let us look at the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, which is a model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This legislation led to the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area, and one of the main features of this legislation is the fact that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any land changing hands. Both governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The legislation also states that the park is made up entirely of marine areas. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.
In addition, in order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by Quebec and by Canada confirm the creation of a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly by both governments, at least once every seven years.
As well, any exploration, utilization or development of resources for mining or energy related purposes, including the building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park boundaries.
Finally, by means of regulations, the governments of Quebec and of Canada will be able to determine measures for protecting the park's ecosystems and resources and for protecting the public. More specifically, they will be able to define how each category of area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.
The Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas.
Another model it could have followed is Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Canada and of Quebec announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan, representing a total bill of $230 million to be shared equally by both levels of government.
One of the objectives of this action plan is to increase the area of protected habitats by 100% from 12,000 hectares to 120,000 hectares. Phase III follows on the first two phases, in which both governments invested over $300 million.
Let us now examine Bill C-48, which unfortunately fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established. This land, let it not be forgotten, belongs to Quebec.
Subsection 5(2) of the bill stipulates that the minister may not create a marine conservation area unless “satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada”—this of course being the Queen of England—excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada”. A highly complicated way of putting it.
It must be noted that section 92.5 of the Constitution Act, 1867 recognizes that the administration and sale of lands in the public domain are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the 1867 Constitution says that Quebec is the exclusive owner of its territory. There is a kind of contradiction here. As I asked earlier, is what we are dealing with here expropriation in disguise?
Moreover, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies—and I invite the public to listen carefully, as well as this House—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.
I am not making this up. It is there, clearly written. Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. I repeat, Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it can do within this legislation is to authorize, by order, the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction
However, the protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.
According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, marine conservation areas are planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Also, co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St. Lawrence River under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which was signed by all federal and provincial departments concerned and which provides for an investment of $250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.
Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of permitting bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?
I would like to say a word about environmental matters in the context of shared jurisdictions. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the governments of Canada and Quebec share responsibility for the environment.
Under paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91, the federal government has control over the following areas:
-
—the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say:
-
Navigation and Shipping.
-
Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
-
Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
-
Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in the following sections of the British North America Act of 1867:
-
In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
-
the Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;
-
Property and Civil Rights in the Province;
-
Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.
Section 92A(1) is also interesting.
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.
Therefore, Quebec's Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife specifies the role to be played by the Quebec Minister of the Environment and Wildlife. Section 2 reads as follows:
- The Minister of the Environment and Fauna ensures the conservation and development of wildlife and wildlife habitats.
Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has authority to appoint conservation officers.
By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model and by making title to the territory an essential condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas, the federal government is behaving, as Robert Bourassa used to say, like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.
Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it intends to create marine protected areas. Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves. This means that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category.
The Department of Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine conservation areas in the preamble to the bill. It is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine areas; provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and provide opportunities within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities.
As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it is proposing the establishment of marine protected areas. However, in a discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January 1997, the purpose of marine conservation areas is described as follows:
These zones are established to ensure the conservation of commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources and their habitats, endangered or threatened species and their habitats, unique habitats, productive ecosystems and biodiversity, any other marine resource.
In both cases, we are told that local people will have a significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected areas. The Bloc Quebecois wonders how many information or organization meetings local people will be invited to, serving bureaucracy instead of democracy.
As for Environment Canada, it is proposing to establish marine conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine reserves, expanding the concept of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 nautical mile limit. These areas are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but require a different set of regulations.
Under these various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection areas and natural marine reserves. The same territory could, according to Fisheries and Oceans, be zoned in various ways and subject to various regulations. Welcome, folks, to the complex world of Government of Canada bureaucracy.
The minutes prepared by the Fisheries and Oceans officials following the consultation meetings on marine protection areas held by the department in Quebec, in June 1998, state, and I quote:
There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas—The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the views of those who participated in these meetings and feels that this is bureaucratic overkill that will not serve the public's interest, in the end. The existence of an interdepartmental committee of these various departments is no reassurance.
We know from experience that having a number of departments involved in the same project makes it difficult for them to work together and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money. The government would have been better advised to have a single department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating their respective responsibilities.
As we can see there is confusion but there is more. The bill provides that each federal department will retain jurisdiction over its own marine conservation areas. However, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate it may, in co-operation with the department concerned, adopt regulations regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the existing provisions.
In this case, the change agreed to between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the department concerned takes precedence over other regulations under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the Aeronautics Act.
Briefly, I would like to add this. Consultations were held. Of all the answers given by participants and obtained by the department, only one was in French. As we do not have access to the names and addresses of respondents because this information is confidential in accordance with the Act respecting the protection of personal information, we can only conclude that Quebec did not have the opportunity to take part in consultations.
I say this, the Bloc Quebecois, on behalf of the population of Quebec, will stoutly defend the right to territorial integrity.
