Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8, former Bill C-48, introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has now reached the report stage.
Before going any further, I think it would be appropriate to explain briefly to the public what Bill C-8 is all about.
Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, seeks to define the legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, so as to protect and preserve natural marine areas that are representative of the oceans and of the Great Lakes, to promote public knowledge, appreciation and enjoyment of this marine heritage, and to pass it on to future generations.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area. It was officially established on June 12 and it has its own legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois totally supports the spirit of conservation of this bill. Both Quebec and Canada have marine areas that need to be protected.
Having said that, in November 1998 I spoke to this same bill, then known as Bill C-48. In light of all the criticism, both by the opposition parties and at the heritage committee hearings, where almost every coastal group spoke out against Bill C-48, we could have expected some major changes in Bill C-8.
Despite all the criticism, no changes were made to Bill C-48. Again, the government opposite has decided to act alone.
Let us take a closer look at this bill, in order to uncover the trickery, centralizing tendencies and total confusion that it will help this government unleash.
First, there are the usual problems of jurisdiction. One would think this government had never heard of the constitution.
Bill C-8 will give the federal government authority to establish marine conservation areas with no regard for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
But one of the prerequisites to the federal government's setting up a marine conservation area is that it own the proposed site. Clause 5(2) of Bill C-8 reads as follows:
—the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area, other than such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.
It is hard to be clearer.
Paradoxically, it is expressly written in the Constitution, 1867, that the management and sale of public lands come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Section 92, subsections (5), (13) and (16) of the British North America Act, 1867, provides, and I quote:
In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after 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.
In addition, section 92A of the BNA Act provides, and I quote:
(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.
As we can see, the Constitution clearly recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It falls under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is all there is to it.
So, how do you explain this clear and voluntary violation of the Constitution by the federal government?
It is even harder to understand given that the Government of Quebec and the federal government have already signed a co-operation agreement in this respect. Under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which they both signed, both levels of government agreed to co-operate in order to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and in the St. Lawrence River.
Why is the federal government all of a sudden trying to unilaterally create marine conservation areas in Quebec? Why is the federal government refusing to use the same model of co-operation as the one designed by both levels of government for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? This is another example of co-operation between the federal government and Quebec to create a marine park.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was created in 1997, pursuant to mirror legislation allowing both the federal and the provincial governments to carry out their duties, without any transfer of land. So, why not use these two examples, which work very well? The federal government is taking wicked pleasure from meddling in the jurisdictions of the provinces. This is intolerable and unacceptable.
What the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to do is destructive. What she wants is to appropriate Quebec territory by circumventing Quebec's jurisdictions over the environment. She wants carte blanche to create marine conservation areas on marine floors, knowing full well that she is blatantly contravening the Canadian constitution.
In addition to contravening the constitution, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the entire government are busy creating a real bureaucratic nightmare in which overlap among the various federal departments will create a real mess of red tape. Let us take a long look at this real mess.
The federal government wants to create marine conservation areas through Canadian Heritage. However, the marine protection zones are managed by Fisheries and Oceans, and the marine and wildlife reserves are managed by Environment Canada. I think this government definitely needs a quick update on organizational structures.
Let me quote the remarks of Patrick McGuinness, the vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, which he made when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I quote:
If there's a need for legislation to establish marine conservation areas, it is our view that such legislation should be incorporated into the recently passed Oceans Act under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
It is simply inefficient, cumbersome public administration to bring forward this MCA initiative in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department.
Mr. McGuinness even proposed the bill be simply withdrawn. Naturally, however, in the view of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the government, Mr. McGuinness knows absolutely nothing about marine areas. In fact, as far as the Liberals are concerned, Mr. McGuinness is a real dolt. We know that most witnesses who appeared before the committee were opposed to Bill C-8. Why then does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not simply withdraw it?
For all of these reasons, it is my responsibility as a parliamentarian to vote against this bill. Bill C-8 is a real violation of provincial jurisdictions.
As well as violating provincial authority, the majority of the Quebec and Canadian public has also spoken out against this bill. As a democrat, and the member of parliament for the Quebec riding of Laurentides, I cannot support this bill. Moreover, Bill C-8 will create a real bureaucratic nightmare of duplications and overlaps between three departments, namely Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Environment Canada.
I reject this bill outright, and I want the minister to go back and do her homework over again, because this bill is totally unacceptable.