Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Tobacco Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with representatives of all parties. I believe that you would find unanimous consent to defer the recorded division requested on the motion for second reading of Bill C-42 until Tuesday, December 1, 1998, at the end of the period provided for the consideration of Government Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred.

The House resumed from November 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, started at second reading, the Reform Party tabled an amendment calling for the withdrawal of that bill in its present form. That amendment was rejected by the majority in this House.

But make no mistake about the meaning of that rejection. Indeed, during the debate on the amendment, a number of members of this House clearly condemned, among other things, the serious flaws of this bill and the phoney consultation process that took place.

The fact that we rejected the amendment does not mean that we are prepared to support the bill since, on the face of it, it is just as unacceptable.

Let us see what this bill is all about.

The purpose of Bill C-48 is to provide a legal framework for the establishment and eventual development of 28 marine conservation areas, including eight in Quebec, representing each of the ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and Canada. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area. However, this park is not included in this bill because it is covered by ad hoc legislation both in Canada and in Quebec.

In the preamble to the act, the Minister of Canadian Heritage states the reasons that led to the establishment of these marine conservation areas.

The government wants, first, to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; second, to establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; third, to ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a world-wide network of representative marine areas; fourth, to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and, fifth, to provide opportunities within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities.

Clearly, in order to enforce this legislation when it has obtained royal assent, the federal government would have to acquire the lands belonging to Quebec or to the other provinces affected by this plan to establish marine conservation areas.

Paragraph (2) of clause 5 of the bill provides that the minister may create a marine conservation area “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”. On the very face of it, this bill does not respect the integrity of Quebec's territory.

How can the Government of Canada think for one moment that the Government of Quebec will hand over ownership of the ocean floor of marine conservation areas that it is thinking of developing within the territory of Quebec?

How can the Government of Canada be unaware, or pretend to be unaware, of paragraph (5) of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which recognizes clearly that the management and sale of public lands is an area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction?

What makes the Government of Canada so ignorant, or so arrogant, that it fails to recognize that Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence River, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right?

How could the Government of Canada be so ignorant as to not know that under Quebec legislation the province cannot cede its land to the federal government? It knows full well that, within this legal framework, all the Government of Quebec can do is issue an order permitting the federal government to use Quebec crown lands, including the marine floor, only when the federal government restricts its action to its own areas of jurisdiction.

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 marine floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Why is the Government of Canada trying again with a bill to invade Quebec jurisdiction? Why is this government, which should be acting for the good of the population, refusing yet again to follow the legislative process that worked so well in the establishment and management of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence park?

Why is this government refusing to again use the bilateral agreement process that worked so well in the case of the St. Lawrence? Why not sign an agreement like the St. Lawrence action plan, phase III, which was signed by all federal and provincial departments concerned, and which provides for an investment of $250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.

Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of resorting to bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?

By refusing to follow the example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act and by making ownership of the territory an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is behaving, as Robert Bourassa used to say, like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.

If ridicule killed, the government would be six feet under by now. Members will want to listen carefully to this. Not satisfied with invading the jurisdiction of a neighbouring government—Quebec—with Bill C-48, the federal government is invading its own jurisdiction and creating overlaps within its own administration. Let us look at how ridiculous that is.

Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the government plans to create marine conservation areas.

Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has already created marine protected areas.

Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves.

It should be noted that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category.

In short, the federal government, which claims to have met all of Quebec's demands, and which states in its Speech from the Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one way or another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.

After looking at how Heritage Canada went about consulting on its draft bill and at the results of that consultation, the Bloc Quebecois concluded that the exercise was a miserable failure and that it was really too bad that, with all the resources at the minister's disposal, she did not see fit to conduct real consultations, which would have made all the flaws in the bill apparent to her. Despite this disastrous failure, Heritage Canada boasts that it has public support for the bill. What a sorry farce.

If ecosystems are to be protected effectively, the Government of Canada must have the co-operation of coastal communities. The Bloc Quebecois urges the government to find workable solutions to the economic woes of coastal communities, if it hopes one day to reach an agreement with them on protecting the environment.

Its partnership initiative with the Government of Quebec should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas. Rather than demonstrating open-mindedness and co-operation, the federal government is still taking an arrogant, aggressive, invasive approach that overlaps other jurisdictions and that is hardly calculated to encourage us to work with them another time.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois is against the bill, mainly for the following reasons.

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 irrespective of Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to the protection of its territory and environment.

Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' protected areas and Environment Canada's protected marine areas.

When things are running smoothly, the Government of Canada tries throwing a wrench in the works, sometimes in the form of baseball bats or pepper spray. This government prefers to stir up trouble, ill feelings and even discontent in the population. It does not understand that Quebeckers have had it with these arrogant policies that cost a fortune. I am confident that the people will let them know that unequivocally on November 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to statements made by some of my distinguished colleagues to the effect that Bill C-48 infringes on provincial jurisdiction, in Quebec and the other provinces, over the seabed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With respect to marine areas surrounding Quebec, there is one area where the seabed clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction and that is the St. Lawrence estuary. A special agreement and matching legislation have been developed for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which encompasses this area. I dare say this was a fine example of co-operation, both within this House and between our respective governments.

In the other marine areas surrounding Quebec, jurisdiction over the seabed is either clearly federal or disputed by the two levels of government, that is the Canadian government and the Province of Quebec.

In Bill C-48, we are proposing the establishment of marine conservation areas where the federal government has jurisdiction over the seabed, based on current possession or a federal-provincial agreement.

Jurisdiction over the seabed in a specific area may be disputed. But that is a different mater entirely. The purpose of this bill is not to resolve such disputes.

We have no intention of acting unilaterally in an area under dispute. This must be clearly understood. Saying otherwise would be misleading the House.

Ideally, any dispute concerning jurisdiction over the seabed should be resolved before a marine conservation area is established. We would have consultations to find a mutually acceptable solution. In some cases, it is possible that the marine region may be represented by another area where jurisdiction over the marine floor is not at issue.

Again, contrary to what was repeatedly claimed in this House by Bloc Quebecois members, we have absolutely no intention of acting unilaterally in a region where the marine floor is at issue. Let us be clear on this.

We are already using the model proposed in the bill. Following the federal-provincial memorandum of understanding signed in March 1997 with the Government of Ontario, we are now jointly looking at the possibility of establishing a marine conservation area in the western part of Lake Superior.

We are also working with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador on a feasibility study for a marine conservation area in the Bonavista and Notre Dame Bay areas. That study was initiated following the signing of a federal-provincial memorandum of understanding, in February 1997. Moreover, the MOU on the Pacific marine heritage legacy signed with British Columbia in 1995 provides that the two levels of government must undertake a joint feasibility study for a marine conservation area in the southern part of the Strait of Georgia.

Following these studies, if the governments come to the conclusion that a marine conservation area can be established, the next step will be the negotiation of an agreement between the Canadian government and the province concerned. Such an agreement would include the terms and conditions under which the marine conservation area would be established, including provisions on the transfer to the Canadian government of all submerged provincial lands, if necessary.

Such federal-provincial agreements are already in place for the creation of marine conservation areas in Fathom Five, Georgian Bay, Ontario and in Gwaii Haanas, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia.

This shows that a good number of provinces are collaborating in a concept of marine conservation areas that is compatible with the provisions in this bill.

The model underlying Bill C-48, that is ownership of the land by the Government of Canada, is clearly necessary when the Government of Canada already owns the land. That is the intent of the bill.

Our experience with the agreements and feasibility studies on marine conservation areas already described shows that the model proposed in this bill is entirely reasonable and pertinent, whether those holding the contrary view like it or not.

On this note, I move:

That the question be now put.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. Are we debating the contents of Bill C-48 or the motion that has been put forward?

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are debating the contents of Bill C-48. The motion is for the previous question, which means that when debate is concluded on this motion, the motion will be put that the question be now put. If it is carried then the question will be immediately put and no further amendments are permitted.

I hope that clarifies it for the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I sought that clarification. I was somewhat confused earlier but I am no longer, essentially.

I appreciate having an opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. I want to say at the outset that the legislation establishes and manages a system of national marine conservation areas known as NMCAs which are representative of the 29 marine areas of Canada. The 29 national marine conservation areas represent a unique biological and a unique set of oceanographic features.

These areas include fresh and salt waters. The Parks Canada systems approach has identified the 29 NMCAs within Canada's Great Lakes, internal waters which are tidal and the territorial sea as an exclusive economic zone limit, which is the 200 mile limit.

The debate through second reading stage has revealed many deficiencies in the legislation as presently proposed. We in the New Democratic Party agree there are problems with the bill. As parliamentarians it is our duty to correct errors as we see them and to act on behalf of Canadians to improve legislation. It is in that spirit that I will make a number of comments. We want to enhance the bill. We are not opposing it. We certainly approve it in principle with a great deal of enthusiasm. It is in that context that I make my comments this morning.

This is a fitting year to begin the protection of Canada's 29 representative marine areas since 1998 is the year of the oceans. As Canadians we know there are problems with our oceans which include such things as the impact of pollution in a variety of forms, the reality of overfishing, disappearing fish stocks and general fishing mismanagement. We have witnessed the devastation of coastal communities on both the east and west coasts. There are problems on the north coast and problems in the inland water system.

I say with some regret that evidence suggests the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has largely mismanaged this resource, which is indeed unfortunate. I am not enough aware of the situation to comment on how this mismanagement occurred, but based on the report of the standing committee on fisheries it is well documented that mismanagement has led to some very serious problems on all our coasts including the waters within Canada.

We also know there are problems with our Great Lakes as well as with other inland waters in terms of pollution and mismanagement. This is reflected in the recent revelations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in its freshwater fisheries report in particular.

Bill C-48 is a step forward in securing coastal and inland waters for future generations and in ensuring they are in a relatively pristine state for future generations. We agree that while there are deficiencies in the legislation—and I will point out some of them in a moment—this step toward marine area conservation is too important to dismiss simply for partisan purposes or rhetoric, as I am afraid to say we have heard in the previous debate.

Bill C-48 should be considered as an important step toward the next century. Our country's present day grievous mistakes and mismanagement are recognized. We can learn from them and, more important as the legislation may reflect, we can act upon them. As parliamentarians we must act on behalf of all citizens of the country to ensure this enabling legislation provides the best options for future generations and for Canadian communities in general.

We will continue to support Bill C-48 in principle. However I will make the following points which we would like to see addressed in the ongoing debate, in particular in committee, in terms of securing our support for the process throughout.

The consultation efforts so far must be explored in depth during the committee hearings. These included 3,000 mail-outs and approximately 300 responses which were received by Parks Canada. Upon perusing these responses one recognizes there are serious concerns on the cost recovery aspects of the legislation. There is a compelling need for a better definition of proposed cost recovery measures.

We recognize that access to national marine conservation areas for local communities and fishers must be maintained. This is a crucial element. We must recognize that consideration of and effective measures for ecotourism opportunities must be included in the final legislation. It is fair to say that ecotourism is one of the leading edges of the tourism sector in Canada. We feel strongly about recognizing the attractiveness of the national marine conservation areas for people interested in ecotourism. We look forward to seeing that appropriate access included in the legislation.

Better descriptions and delineation of core areas of the NMCAs regarding preservation, protection and regulation are important as is the need for a two year reporting period rather than the five years proposed. We are moving into a new area and reviewing this on a two-year basis makes more sense.

We also feel strongly that first nations rights and a better explanation and delineation of “reserves” must include full participation of all first nations people. This could perhaps follow the consultation and management design procedures used with respect to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. We hold it as a good template for future consultations involving these kinds of initiatives.

The issue of a joint provincial-federal management and jurisdiction group will require co-operative measures between parties and governments to ensure provincial land and resource rights are not compromised.

The effect on proposed NMCAs in the Nunavut lands ought to be considered with seriousness. We need to address the question of the use of NMCAs to include a reference to conservation methods and ecological principles. Both are fundamental in terms of our support and I suspect they are reflected in the general thrust of the legislation.

Commercial fishers must be fully involved in the designation and parks management design to ensure there is a working relationship. On both our coasts this is obviously an issue of great sensitivity, but it is something we feel can be easily managed and incorporated into either the legislation or subsequent rights.

The impact of river systems on the NMCAs will require adequate resources for marine sciences and ecosystem modelling. There is also provincial co-operation and the degree that crown lands and subsurface rights may or not impact the success of the program. We want to be sensitive about that particular interface.

As mentioned by my colleagues, the no-take zones must be clearly defined and allow for adaptation in future years. This must be written into enabling legislation which would be acceptable for future needs. Mr. Speaker, I know you yourself feel strongly about the no-take zones issue.

Regional concerns were also mentioned in the various responses. In particular west coast concerns will require different considerations and much flexibility as compared to the east coast concerns. We understand and I know my friend the secretary of state appreciates the differences between the east coast concerns and west coast concerns and the obvious differences between the two coasts when it comes to the central fisheries issues as well the conservation areas issues.

The coastal co-ordination between the different departments involved must be defined. A clear, and I emphasize clear, definition between Environment Canada's responsibilities for wildlife and ecosystems adjacent to the NMCAs, Parks Canada's authority to question and if necessary to veto Department of Fisheries and Oceans decisions in management of these areas resources and a clear delineation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans responsibilities are all requirements we ought to consider before the legislation returns to the House.

This may sound a little negative about the DFO. Based on its past record on sensitivity in its involvement, it has not necessarily always been in a productive and positive way. This explains some of the nuances and points that I am making.

I do not think this has to be prolonged. We support the legislation. We certainly support the principle enthusiastically. We hope that with the consideration of some of the points I raised in my presentation that we can see the rapid and expeditious movement of the legislation through the House as well as through the other place.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, having been involved in recreation in Quebec for a number of years, I have always been interested in any project involving nature conservation.

I also spent seven years as an assistant to former Quebec fisheries minister Garon, and I have clear memories of his battles with his counterparts, including Mr. De Bané, who has since been appointed to the Senate. At that same time, someone who subsequently became Governor General was involved in epic struggles while discussing ownership and jurisdiction issues in relation to the ocean floor, river bed and waterways.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier did not seem to understand the opposition expressed by the member for Rimouski—Mitis with regard to Bill C-48. I will just say to him that we have good reason to get cold feet, and it is not even a play on words when we are talking about the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic because the water there has always been and will continue to be cold. The federal government has forced us to become more and more distrustful in these areas.

Just consider the fact that three different departments are involved in marine areas. In this bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage talks about marine conservation areas. We also have marine protected areas that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and marine reserves that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.

Marine areas, marine protected areas and marine reserves, which come under three different federal departments. They all have lofty goals, but it all depends on the attitude and the intent. The member for Ottawa—Vanier said a few moments ago that the Liberals brought forward this legislation to give the federal government some authority over marine areas, but they do not intend to intervene as they did in Mirabel and Forillon Park, for example. We know where that lead to in some cases in Quebec and elsewhere, particularly in the maritimes.

When the federal government interferes in a particular area, it does so forcefully as if it were the superior government in Canada, whereas in the initial spirit of Confederation, the federal government was supposed to harmonize its policies with those of the provinces. At that time, it was not seen as a superior government that gave orders to other governments, but rather as a government that wanted to work with them.

I spoke earlier with the member for Chicoutimi about how we recently witnessed a good example of partnership. Two levels of government worked together toward the same goal, namely the conservation and protection of marine wildlife and of the shores, since one has to go by land to get to a marine area. That partnership led to the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park in 1997.

The mistrust on this side is based on the federal government's past behaviour. Give them a foot, they will take a yard. That is part of the problem.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier said earlier “We will usually focus on land owned by the federal government or squarely under federal jurisdiction”. It would be hard to prevent it from doing so. However, jurisdiction over several areas is being disputed, mostly by the federal government, but also by provinces that wish to protect their territory from invasion. Section 92 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that the bottom of the river and other waterways are a provincial area of jurisdiction.

All the governments in Quebec, whether they were led by federalists or sovereignists, took the same position and said “We will not let our jurisdiction be infringed upon unchallenged”. Although, in this case, the goal is laudable, and we do support conservation, too often the federal government has taken this kind of opportunity to infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially those of Quebec.

What good is a statement of good intentions from a member who is not yet a minister, who represents a minister at some committee, and tells the House that they have no intention of doing that. Really. It is so easy for the government to make such statements and then try to pull a fast one on us. In Quebec we are very sceptical about this.

I believe the government should start its consultations all over again. I was not a member of the committee. The member for Rimouski—Mitis is more familiar with this issue since she is the Bloc critic in this area. She told us about the kind of consultations that took place. When only 5% of those invited to the consultation show up, when only 60 out of the 300 pages in the report are handed out, one has to wonder. From what we could see, there were very few witnesses from Quebec. There are very few submissions in French.

The bill is premature, improvised or badly put together. It leaves too much room for interpretation and legal challenge.

Nothing in this bill tells us the federal government is going to abide by the good intentions mentioned by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. This is simply not enough for us, in the House. Words are quick and vain, we will need to get that in writing. Laws remain and we know they are followed by regulations that clarify them. This is often how we can be had.

At second reading stage, I too would like to say that we oppose the bill. We believe it is one more federal threat against Quebec. It is aimed at encroaching on Quebec's territory. As Quebeckers, we cannot allow it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to this bill, especially since, as the Bloc Quebecois transport critic, this subject is of particular concern to me.

We all know—members of Parliament and viewers alike—that shipping and environmental protection are closely linked if not intertwined. Immense container ships are now being built in Korea that can carry some 5,000 or 5,500 containers, I believe.

There are two major container ports in Canada. The port of Montreal and the port of Halifax. Halifax is number two. It is not too happy about this, but the strategic position of the port of Montreal has made it, over the years, the hub of container transport.

Members will understand what I am getting at regarding this bill. From the time the Bloc Quebecois arrived here in 1993 with 54 members—there were nine founding members—we have supported mandatory pilotage in Canada.

I am, of course, talking about pilotage on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, but also across Canada, because there are mandatory pilotage zones in the Pacific region and in other regions of the maritimes.

Why? Not because we wanted to be outrageous or for the pleasure of it, but we were wondering whether Canada could afford a second Exxon Valdez, given what had happened in Alaska.

With today's constraints in shipping, vessels are ever bigger and their cargo is ever more dangerous. If these foreign and Canadian vessels cannot be guided in by experienced pilots, the risks to the environment are considerable. The shipping lobby in Canada is very powerful, financially speaking, because the major shipping companies contribute to the campaign funds of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties.

[An hon. member]

So do the banks.

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

Yes. My colleague just said that the banks do so, too. Ten minutes is not enough for me to get into that.

[An hon. member]

The list is too long.

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

That is absolutely right.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

You should move along; you only have 10 minutes.

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

The government whip just reminded me that I have only 10 minutes and that I should move along. Of course.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois want to reiterate that, although we are against the bill—we have our reasons, and our colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, expressed our party's position clearly—we want no misunderstanding, no misleading statements—we know that our neighbours opposite make such claims regularly—to the effect that the Bloc Quebecois is against protection of the environment. Absolutely not.

The Bloc Quebecois reaffirms its position. It is a clear one. We are in favour of measures to protect the environment.

Why then are we against this bill? We feel that the bill is not based on dialogue, as was the case with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. My colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, pointed out quite rightly that there had been dialogue in that case.

Allow me to digress briefly to say a few words about this dialogue. I am pleased to see that, in spite of the Canadian heritage minister's intransigent attitude and proverbial arrogance, it is the government led by Lucien Bouchard and the Parti Québécois that signed the documents establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Thank you.

[An hon. member]

And it will be re-elected.

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

Yes, it will be re-elected on November 30.

This shows how, with a Quebec government that can hold its own against and is taken seriously by the rest of Canada, mutually satisfactory agreements can be reached. That is not confrontation.

Let me remind you of what Jean Charest was saying in the early days of his campaign, when he was making very harsh remarks about the Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice; those were the words of a man who does not want to come to an agreement.

The PQ government is willing to sit down and negotiate those agreements that benefit the people of Quebec.

Instead of relying on dialogue, as it did with the marine park, the federal government is trying to establish marine conservation areas in spite of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.

Again, let me come back to this. As much as it pains me, this is the style of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and member for Hamilton East; it is her pattern, her approach.

This is a person who should be acting like a lady, but uses abusive language instead and hurls insults left and right in this place. That is unfortunate. How can we have a dialogue and reach any agreement with a person who does not want to? It takes two to tango, as we say. It is hard to tango when your partner will not even step onto the dance floor.

The minister is promoting confrontation instead of dialogue, as evidenced by Bill C-48. This is the pattern; nothing has changed, this is how it always is with this heritage minister. Therefore, we have no choice but to oppose this bill.

The second reason the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill is because Heritage Canada is proposing to establish a new structure, marine conservation areas, which will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine protection zones. Simply put, the federal government is using three departments to infringe upon areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

I would like to hear from members of other parties who represent Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois has 45 members here, but there are another 30 or so from other parties who also represent Quebec. I would like to hear what the four remaining Conservative members from Quebec think of this bill, which infringes upon Quebec's jurisdictions.

In conclusion, Heritage Canada is clearly acting arrogantly by claiming ownership of the sea floor where it would like to establish marine conservation areas. We suggested that Quebec and Ottawa reach bilateral agreements to allow, among other things, Quebec to keep its jurisdictions. Why will the federal government not sit at the table and talk? It is possible to reach an agreement. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a model.

The federal government prefers to trample on Quebec's jurisdictions. The Bloc Quebecois will never support a bill that does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions. This is the reason why Quebeckers elected 54 Bloc Quebecois members in 1993.

A few days before the June 2, 1997 election, the current Quebec Liberal Party leader and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party had promised, with a hand on his heart, to get 40 Conservative members elected in Quebec. He will have a hard time getting 40 Liberal MNAs elected on November 30. It is for these reasons that I am convinced Quebeckers will re-elect a PQ government on November 30.