Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-8, which is really the old Bill C-48, the Marine Conservation Act.
We in the Reform Party oppose the amendments put forth by the Bloc Quebecois in terms of deleting numerous parts of the bill. In fact this bill has the right idea. There is no doubt about it, but the government takes the wrong approach. Reform should support this bill only if its amendments would be approved. I would certainly think at this time that this bill, if unamended, is better to be defeated.
In an age when everyone in the world is becoming more aware of the environment, it makes sense to have good legislation in place to preserve and to take care of our environment. I said good legislation. To create good legislation requires a lot of work on the part of legislators. It means gathering good data. It means consulting all the stakeholders. It means having many meetings throughout the country. It means keeping people informed. Above all, it means being honest and upfront with everyone.
Good legislation does not isolate parts of the country. Good legislation creates good debate and usually brings people together to resolve conflicts. Good legislation does not leave groups out on the edge hanging on for dear life.
Unfortunately Bill C-8 is not a good example of good legislation. It leaves too many stakeholders hanging. Bill C-8 leaves too many stakeholders at risk and Bill C-8 does not have any balance. It is too favourable to environmentalists.
In fact, on the whole issue of consultation, the government brags about the way it consults people. Unfortunately, sending out a letter at the initial stage of the discussion documents is not the whole process. It may be a good beginning, but there is no follow through on the government's consultation process.
The one principal question that was not answered was whether this legislation was really necessary, considering that Canada already has at least 36 federal acts and 20 provincial and territorial acts, together with numerous international conventions and accords that relate to the protection and use of the marine environment and marine resources.
As recent as the Oceans Act of 1996, under the provisions of part 2, section 35(2) the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is mandated to:
—lead and co-ordinate the development and implementation of a national system of marine protected areas on behalf of the Government of Canada.
This allows the minister to make regulations, first, designating marine protected areas and, second, prescribing measures that may include but not be limited to the zoning of marine protected areas, the prohibition of classes of activities within marine protected areas and any other matters consistent with the purpose of the designation.
Further to that a clear process is laid out for the minister to develop and implement a national strategy for the management of estuarine coastal and marine ecosystems in water that belongs to Canada.
I go back to the time when this bill was called the Marine Parks Protection Act. Actually that is more accurate because this piece of legislation is about protection. It is beyond conservation. In other words the legislation is that basically once an area is designated that is it; hands off forever. No one can deal with it. It becomes a protected area for the rest of the time we are on the face of the earth. Of course there is always a chance the government can make regulations and change them as well.
The Reform Party supports good legislation in environmental protection. It believes in sustainable development. It believes in balanced legislation.
The bill affects five other ministries and yet not once did we hear from any of the other ministries when it was at committee stage. The bill directly impacts the ministries of the environment, natural resources, Indian and northern affairs, oceans and fisheries, and transport.
It is unfortunate that we do not have a lot of time to say much about the bill. I guess I will have to wait until third reading stage. There are many concerns that the Canadian people need to hear about.
As I indicated, there are at least 36 pieces of federal acts that already look after conservation areas. This point is taken from the discussion paper of August 1998 called Our Marine Protection Areas: A Strategy for Canada's Pacific Coast . In it there is an appendix which lists all federal and provincial statutory powers for protecting marine areas.
If the government realizes there are so many acts and regulations already in place, why would we need another one? I believe we do not really need another one because of the ones already in place.
The bill impacts the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. The mandate of Environment Canada is to protect coastal marine habitats regarding marine migratory bird sanctuaries that are heavily used by birds for breeding, feeding, migration and overwintering.
The bill goes beyond just protecting what is on the water and underneath the water but also what is above the water. It is unfortunate that we do not have time to discuss the impact that has on the aviation traffic in the country. Imagine having a no fly zone in designated protection areas along the west coast where mountains come right up to the water's edge. I think that would be a little dangerous for aircraft travel.
May I close by saying that this is not properly a parks bill. As I indicated originally it was a parks bill under the marine parks protection act but people perceive parks in a very different fashion than they do protected conservation areas. The bill is really an environmental bill. The official opposition believes in sustainable development and the management of the environment to both preserve biodiversity and conserve the environment of Canadians present and future.
With this bill the heritage minister expands her domain and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of Environment, her old portfolio. The minister wants to sidestep the proper role of parliament with the insertion of the Henry VIII clauses that allow cabinet to amend the act more or less at will.
The act requires provincial governments to obey it, and enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private property without permission. To conclude, the bill gives superintendents of parks way too much power and too much authority to make decisions for which they are not really accountable.