Debates of Nov. 24th, 1999

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

When I received the letter today I thought about it quite well. It is basically what you have said in the House.

However, according to our criteria, at least at this time, it does not meet the criteria for an emergency debate today. This does not mean that it could not be considered at some other time.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There are 60 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-8.

Motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to 48, 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4 to 6, 8 to 11, 14, 15, 21 to 25, 30 to 36, 38, 39, 51, 52, 54, 57, and 58.

Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 16 to 20, 49 and 50.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 12, 13, 26 to 29, 37, 40 to 48, 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60 to the House.

Since there are many motions, is there unanimous consent to consider all of them as read?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting the Title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting the Preamble.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Schedule 2.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 is entitled, as hon. members will remember, “an act respecting marine conservation areas”. It was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage 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 by this legislation since it has its own legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment. More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government of its support for the government when it proposed passing legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor.

The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation with the federal government, as evidenced by the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.

However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill for two 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 the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and of the environment.

The second reason is the fact that Heritage Canada is proposing to establish a new structure, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine protection zones.

As you know, committee hearings were held on this bill, and many witnesses were heard. After hearing these witnesses and looking at the amendments put forward by the government and the other opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois wants to tell the House that its position has not changed with regard to this bill. We are still opposed

Indeed, there is duplication of responsibilities between Fisheries and Oceans and Heritage Canada. Also, it is unclear whether marine conservation areas could be established based on the same principle that guided the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

We support the spirit of the bill, which is to preserve sample marine areas for future generations, and we believe this should be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I remind members that, in his testimony, the director general of Parks Canada, Mr. Tom Lee, in response to a question asked by a government member last February, stated that, in Canada, oceans are the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

To date, every coastal community group that has come before the committee spoke out against this bill. These people, whether they were fishermen or natives, all said in their own way that this bill duplicates the work of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Recently, the advisory committee responsible for conducting the feasibility study on the establishment of a marine conservation area in Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay, in Newfoundland, ended its work because, and I quote from the news release issued by Heritage Canada in March, “a large number of residents, particularly fishermen, are concerned about the impact of the establishment of a marine conservation area on their way of life”.

Perhaps what would be necessary in order to achieve the objectives of creating marine conservation areas would be to broaden the concept of marine protected areas as currently defined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

It seems to us today, as it did when all this began, that this avenue would be far preferable to bringing in new legislation, a new structure, new regulations, which to all intents and purposes have been rejected by all population groups affected who came to speak at the committee hearings.

I know that a Reform Party colleague is proposing an amendment to restore to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the responsibility for these marine conservation areas. Alas, his amendment to make the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responsible for marine conservation areas would not be enough, on its own, to avoid the duplication between marine protected areas and marine conservation areas.

What would have to be amended to include the concept underlying marine conservation areas would be the Oceans Act. The Reform member's amendment does not integrate the two responsibilities. It keeps them distinct from one another, and merely gives them both to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Members must understand that we do not find this sufficient.

Finally, there is no provision, in either the bill or the amendments moved by the government, to guarantee the territorial integrity of Quebec will be respected, once the bill has been passed.

As we know, the federal and Quebec governments do not see eye to eye on the ownership of certain sea floors, particularly in the estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence Gulf. It is therefore quite obvious that this bill will end up in a collision of jurisdictions between the interests of the federal government and the clearly legitimate ones of the government of Quebec.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-8, because it does not give explicit recognition to the territorial integrity of Quebec and because it constitutes duplication of what is already being done with the marine protected areas by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Bloc Quebecois in opposing Bill C-8 is clearly giving expression to what the people of Quebec indicated as their best interests and to what the many witnesses appearing before the heritage committee indicated as their best interests.

I would like to add a personal note. All too often, as it has done in the past and still does now, the federal government, with the best intentions in the world, decides it has exclusive knowledge and authority to put forward bills that have merit, but that do not meet the expectations and needs of the people concerned. Worse, the government tends often to duplicate efforts, structures and responsibilities.

We are once again facing a similar situation. It is unfortunate that the government, once again with good intentions, has failed to realize that the opposition to this bill is not on the merit of things but rather on the way they are treated. It is often said that approach is all.

The federal government could, in the light of what went on in committee, reorganize the bill to reorient it toward the proper authority, especially, to combine two concepts, by extending the prerogatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. At the same time, the government should make specific provision in this bill for the respect of Quebec's territorial integrity and its authority in a certain number of jurisdictions including that of the floor of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I hope that the government will understand my remarks and take them into account.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

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.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

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,—

1. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;

2. Property and Civil Rights in the Province;

3. 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.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the report stage of Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

The group one motions for the Bloc Quebecois are to delete in full the reference clauses in Bill C-8. We agree with the Bloc that the bill cannot be supported in its current form, but for differing reasons.

The New Democratic Party spokesman for parks, the member for Churchill River, Saskatchewan, is in his constituency today and asked that I present the following remarks.

The NDP supports in principle the marine conservation area concept. There is a definite need to preserve representative marine areas similar to the terrestrial national parks program.

Unfortunately, it became obvious throughout the committee hearings on Bill C-8 that the proposed bill requires further work. We regret that the NDP cannot support Bill C-8 in its present form. We believe that we cannot support weak legislation just for the sake of enacting legislation.

The following points were raised in committee and through New Democratic Party meetings and correspondence with stakeholders. Questions were raised repeatedly in relation to the proposed interdepartmental structure of the national marine conservation areas and the roles of Environment Canada, Heritage Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These concerns include a lack of clarity between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans marine protected areas, MPAs, and the proposed marine conservation areas.

Concerns on the siting and size parameters necessary to protect and conserve marine biological diversity in national marine conservation areas remain unanswered.

There is also a deficiency in prohibitions. The NDP continues to support prohibitions to ensure the long time preservation of marine areas, efforts that were denied through the committee process. These deficiencies include no prohibitions on bottom trawling or dragging or fin fish aquaculture in national marine conservation areas. By refusing to prohibit such destructive activities, the national marine conservation areas cannot be sufficiently protected. We beg the question, what is being conserved?

I will address the issue of the maintenance of ecological integrity. The Liberals refused to include this NDP amendment as a primary consideration for management plans, although the NDP was successful with the same amendment in Bill C-29, the Parks Canada Agency. This refusal in Bill C-8 demonstrates an inconsistency between Heritage and Parks Canada legislation.

The NDP is also concerned about the departure from the Bill C-7 Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park model. Bill C-8 will establish near exclusivity for federal powers in proposed national marine conservation areas, a concern raised by our opposition colleagues and thus an imposition on provincial and community participation in national marine conservation areas.

Bill C-7 was based on better co-operation between all government levels, especially in matters related to subsurface seabed rights, and therefore enjoyed all-party support.

On the issue of off-site impacts, the government continues to ignore ecosystem impacts from areas adjacent to the national marine conservation areas, such as pollution sources from land or waters.

This repeated NDP concern for marine areas has been proven correct on numerous occasions, the most recent being the series of fish killed in Prince Edward Island this summer from agricultural runoff.

The NDP has also been proven correct about off-site impacts with the recent discovery that a key source for the continuing contamination of the St. Lawrence beluga population is found adjacent to the Saguenay Park, a beluga food source. We have seen the spectacle there of eels feeding on contaminated sediment in identified toxic hot spots, which the Liberal government continues to delay cleaning up.

My Churchill River colleague will be pleased to explain further our position on Bill C-8 and its deficiencies at greater length during third reading.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak to Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, as we proceed through the report stage of this piece of legislation.

Before I begin my comments on the first group of amendments, let me say that my hon. colleague, the member for West Nova and our Progressive Conservative heritage critic, unfortunately is not able to be here today. He is travelling with the fisheries committee and is obviously dealing with things that are close and dear to his heart. He will be able to speak at future times to this legislation and give his own personal views with respect to Bill C-8.

As my colleagues in the House are well aware, the Progressive Conservative Party has always been concerned with protecting our fragile ecosystem for our future generations. One needs only to look back at our first Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, to understand the deep-rooted affection and appreciation we had and we continue to have for our environment.

Sir John A. Macdonald created Canada's first national park when in 1885 his Conservative government designated 26 square miles around the hot mineral springs near what is now known as the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasurer.

By creating Canada's first national park, Sir John A. Macdonald began a legacy that successive governments have continued to build upon.

As I mentioned, the Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986, the PC government approved the National Marine Park policy. In 1987, the country's first national marine conservation area, known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay, was established.

In 1988, the government signed a federal-provincial agreement with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

On April 6, 1990, the Progressive Conservative government signed an historic and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay Estuary and the St. Lawrence River.

In December 1996, we gave our support to Bill C-78, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park that culminated with the proclamation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park on June 8 of that year.

Let me note that this marine park was created without the need for any marine conservation legislation like the one that is being debated today.

Our party has continued to support measures that would effectively protect our unique and wonderful ecosystem. We stood firm with this government as we passed legislation that sought the establishment of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. We also showed our support for the establishment of the new Canada Parks Agency.

It is precisely because of our historical commitment toward protecting and preserving our environment that we find it so difficult to oppose Bill C-8. Yet, we must oppose this bill because we believe that it is fundamentally flawed.

The legislation has the potential for creating far greater problems than it purports to eliminate. I am convinced that Bill C-8, as amended, is simply going to add another confusing level of bureaucracy to an already nightmarish regulatory process for our fishers and others who make use of marine waters to earn their livelihoods.

Our party supported sending Bill C-48 to committee for review. We did this not only because we are committed to the creation of more national parks, but also because we wanted to give Canadians another opportunity to voice their opposition to this piece of legislation.

Time and time again we heard about the lack of consultation that took place prior to the drafting of the bill. Members of the Canadian heritage committee, along with many witnesses who made presentations to the committee, helped identify a number of glaring weaknesses within the legislation.

Trying to solve its flawed piece of legislation, the government introduced over 40 amendments to the bill prior to being reprinted for report stage.

Despite these many changes, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has seen fit to introduce even further amendments that we will be discussing later. It is no wonder that my colleague for Portneuf, representing the Bloc Quebecois, has introduced amendments that would see the deletion of every aspect of the bill.

Despite our many philosophical differences we have with the Bloc, we nevertheless do agree that Bill C-8 is a flawed piece of legislation that deserves to be defeated in the House.

Rather than introduce amendments that would completely alter the nature of the bill, as our friends from the Reform Party have done, the Bloc has decided to simply introduce amendments that would totally eradicate the legislation.

During our committee hearings, the member for Rimouski—Mitis asked for an explanation as to why we needed this particular piece of legislation. After all, the federal government and its provincial counterparts created the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park without the need of legislation. It is obvious by its amendments that a satisfactory answer was not forthcoming.

While doing research on another piece of legislation, I came across British Columbia's ministry of environment, lands and parks website. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they already claimed to have more than 80 marine parks protecting wildlife and their scenic coastline.

I seem to recollect that a marine park was created in Nova Scotia. If I am not mistaken, Canada's military sank the decommissioned HMCS Saguenay off Lunenburg County, providing sanctuary for a large variety of very interesting sea life. This area has subsequently become a major tourist attraction for undersea adventurers. This further proves that creating marine parks is possible without this piece of legislation.

I do not think many people can be found who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of creating marine parks. However, these parks must be identified following extensive consultation with local stakeholders.

One of our major concerns with the bill is centred on the lack of consultation which took place within our local communities. Yes, the minister can declare that they sent out 3,000 information packages to various organizations. However, they have come to the conclusion that the lack of response they received from the stakeholders was a sign of acceptance. They have based this belief on a false premise.

Many fishers to whom we have talked had no idea that such a bill had been introduced, much less any knowledge of its contents. Is that what is meant by the government's extensive consultations? It is not good enough. The legislation could seriously impact the livelihoods of fishers. Therefore we feel they deserve greater input into any new marine policy.

There is already anxiety within fishing communities. Fishers are being asked to show blind faith in the government. The government wants them to believe that it will look after their interests when history clearly shows that this has not been the case. Obviously what is happening in the fisheries industry right now proves and points to the mismanagement of the government and certainly a lack of confidence on the part of not only the stakeholders, the fishers, but also the communities which depend upon the fisheries as their livelihood.

Fishers have no idea how their fishery will be impacted by the supreme court decision in the Donald Marshall, Jr., case. The government is now asking them to believe that the legislation will not seriously impact their livelihoods. I think the government is asking a little too much.

The government already has some tools available to it to protect the fragile ecosystem. Under the Oceans Act the minister can designate areas for closure if he feels the resource is being threatened. Evidence of this occurred in Nova Scotia when the minister unilaterally made the decision to close the Sable Gully just east of Sable Island.

We are concerned that Bill C-8 will add another confusing level of bureaucracy to the regulatory process. Fishers have to contend with DFO regulations, environmental laws, coast guard approvals, Transport Canada guidelines, and now Canada Heritage.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that Bill C-8 is an infringement upon provincial responsibilities. Although we do not agree with this position, we do agree that substantial provincial government input is necessary for helping to identify future marine conservation areas.

We have a lot more to say about Bill C-8. However at this time we will hold most of those comments until we debate the Group No. 2 amendments.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a challenge to debate the Group No. 1 amendments simply because they appear to be a measure by the Bloc Quebecois to delete every clause of the bill.

In view of that I will address the bill more generally, simply because I have not had the opportunity to do so. I will address some of the specific amendments in other upcoming groups. In view of what the Group No. 1 amendments represent and that the government does not appear to be engaging in the debate at all today, I will address some of my general concerns about the bill.

Canada has both a national and international obligation to ensure the viability of our east, west and Arctic coasts. All members of the House would probably agree that it is crucially important for us to protect our marine areas. Many clauses in the bill merit consideration and support. We would certainly consider supporting many of them if we could agree on amending some of the other ones.

I agree with the Minister of Canadian Heritage that we must protect our 29 marine regions. There are many ways in which these areas could be neglected or, in a worst case scenario, even destroyed. Conservation efforts are necessary to ensure the future existence and prosperity of our marine areas and with this in mind I support the concept behind the bill.

I also believe strongly in the principle of polluter pay. It has great merit and it makes sense to anybody that those who pollute should pay to fix the damage they cause. Unfortunately sometimes that damage is unfixable and it is difficult to impose just compensation on those who would cause that kind of destruction.

Unfortunately I have many serious concerns that make it impossible for me or my party to support the bill in its current form. The bill appears to fulfil preservationist environmental objectives instead of the usual objectives of national parks, historic or heritage sites. For this reason the bill belongs squarely in the portfolio of the Minister of the Environment. Lacking that, the portfolio of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would better fit the bill than that of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The efforts of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to expand her domain make my uncomfortable. Not only would the bill allow the heritage minister's domain over decisions regarding marine conservation areas. She could do so with increased discretionary powers.

Bill C-8 proposes that the establishment of marine conservation areas would be ruled by three Henry VIII clauses. The minister could designate new areas under the act without having to steer an amending act through parliament. The usual legislative process would be sidestepped completely.

Canadians are all too aware how the government likes to sidestep proper legislative process. However, in matters as important as marine conservation, I would hope that the government would forgo its usual policies of sleight of hand legislation and instead adopt due process.

To the government due process means that the legislation goes immediately to a government ruled committee. If that committee has any objections, which is highly unlikely due to the Liberal majority, the entire House of Commons must confirm the objections. Should the committee not raise any objections within 21 days the amendment is passed by order in council.

I do not see a great deal of general MP involvement in the process. If a Liberal dominated committee does not come up with any objections, the amendment goes forward as is. Where is the debate? Where is the careful consideration? Where is the public consultation? The Liberals are truly masters of illusion, that is the illusion of the democratic process.

It is only fair and right that Canadians affected by these changes be given the opportunity to take part in the process. At the very least, Canadians should be involved so that the changes to their communities and businesses can have minimal negative effects.

Aboriginal communities across the country have expressed their opposition to the bill as have many resource based industries. The overwhelming negative public response we have seen has been completely ignored by the government.

The intent of Bill C-8 is to protect marine environments. No one would disagree that such an effort is very important. However it is unreasonable and impracticable to forge ahead without taking into consideration the effects such efforts will have on communities that rely on the oceans for food and economic sustainability.

We have all heard what drastic effects the cod fishing moratorium had on countless communities in Newfoundland. Many communities were literally wiped out because people simply had no way of maintaining their lives without the cod fishery. Generations have grown up with cod fishing as their primary source of food and income. However that heritage was banned and communities all over Newfoundland suffered terribly.

Now the heritage minister is looking to destroy Newfoundland's remaining fishing heritage by banning all fishing activities in protected areas. No fishing would be allowed unless a special discretionary minister's permit has been given to the individual. I can only imagine how difficult it will be for the ordinary citizen to get one of those permits. Certainly we have experience with the abuses of ministerial permits in other areas and other sectors in which the government is involved.

After the cod moratorium many fishermen managed to transfer their skills to other fisheries and are trying to eke out a living. However the bill will quickly put an end to those efforts.

The committee heard from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance on one proposed marine conservation area. I understand that since the time of the hearing, because the bill has dragged on for so long, that the creation of the particular proposed marine conservation area has been dropped. However at that time it certainly was not.

The area extends from Cape Bonavista to North Head in Notre Dame Bay. It contains approximately 25,000 to 30,000 square miles of coastline. Within the area there is a large inshore fishery with approximately 2,000 fishing licence holders, 35 aquaculture licence holders, and many fine cod farming sites. The total value of fishing and aquaculture industries in the area is almost $600 million.

Obviously this area is crucially important to those who rely on fishing and agriculture opportunities. Yet this zoning has a potential which still remains today to permanently shut down much of the fishery in Newfoundland, displacing thousands of Newfoundlanders who desperately need the industry.

When the cod moratorium was brought into place many Newfoundlanders saw hope in the growing interest in exploration and production possibilities in the Grand Banks. Since then many people have had their hopes realized because projects like Hibernia, Terra Nova and Sable Island have brought jobs, training and foreign investment to Newfoundlanders and all Canadians.

If Bill C-8 goes ahead, a rich potential for future development within the Grand Banks will never be realized. To declare the Grand Banks a marine conservation area ignores the fact that drilling projects such as Hibernia and Terra Nova have very strict environmental protectionist guidelines to make sure the surrounding marine ecosystems are not damaged. It is a perfect example of what we call sustainable development in Canada. It is a far more desirable goal than the protectionism we are talking about.

In my opinion it has not been the development of our natural resources offshore that has endangered the marine habitat in Canada's oceans. It has simply been poor management and overfishing, not resource development.

If the Grand Banks are closed to industry the government will make sure, although the marine area continues to flourish, that the economy and well-being of Newfoundlanders will suffer terrible damages.

Another consideration must be what effect Bill C-8 will have on Canada's mining industry. There are indications that vast amounts of mineral deposits might be found under the floor of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Canada. According to committee testimony these deposits could be worth several billions of dollars.

Should the Canadian government investigate these sources there will be vast revenues from the deposits. Exploration will ensure that Canada stays on the cutting edge of mining and marine technology. Yet Bill C-8 will put an end to all future mining exploration in our oceans.

If the bill goes forward, Canada will lag behind the rest of the world in mining production and related technologies. The mining industry in Canada will suffer serious damages and thousands of skilled, trained workers will be displaced. The closure of the Devco mine has already shown us how devastating the failure of an industry can be.

I will close on this part of my presentation and readdress some of my further concerns when we get to some of the other upcoming groups. I will continue this debate as we go along.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction is starting to be routine in this country, under the present government.

With the blessing—as required by social union—of nine out of ten provinces, Ottawa now has legislated sticking its nose into places where it has no business being: our classrooms, our hospital rooms, our universities and so on.

Up until now, there was one area in which the power-hungry government had not interfered: the bottom of our waterways. No doubt that was an oversight. Now it has been remedied.

The bill before us corrects this surprising oversight.

In its principle and purposes, Bill C-8 meets laudable objectives, that is the conservation of animal and plant life in marine areas. We would have liked to be able to support it but, unfortunately, it seems that this government is incapable of coming up with bills that do not include clauses that I liken to worms in a nice apple, which encroach on provincial jurisdictions. It makes it impossible for any member who wants to uphold the Constitution to vote in favour.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-8 because it does not explicitly recognize the territorial integrity of Quebec, and also because it will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

At the Canadian heritage committee hearings, almost all coastal groups who appeared before the committee spoke out against this bill, arguing that the Canadian heritage initiative would duplicate what is already being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, create confusion, and so on.

Here is what my colleague for Longueuil said:

There is nothing in the bill or in the government's amendments that guarantees that, once the bill is passed, the territorial integrity of Quebec will be respected. In fact, we know that the federal and the Quebec governments do not agree about the ownership of some portions of the ocean floor, especially in the estuary of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Now, the bill provides that the government can establish marine conservation areas—and I quote the bill as amended—if the government 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”.

There already was a good example the government knew about. They only had to rely on it to get our support. I am talking, of course, about the bill passed in 1997 to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. That legislation respects the jurisdiction of both levels of government. In co-operating to create that park, the federal government did not demand ownership over the lands that Quebec considers its own under the British North America Act of 1867. But things are different for the areas subject to Bill C-8. Ottawa wants to assume ownership over these lands, regardless of the Quebec legislation on crown lands.

And there is more. As a result of infringing upon areas of provincial jurisdiction, of walking all over the provinces, Ottawa is caught stepping on its own toes. We now have three federal departments who are suddenly and simultaneously interested in protecting the ocean floor. Heritage Canada wants marine conservation areas. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans want to set up marine conservation areas. And, not wanting to feel left out, Environment Canada now wants to create marine wildlife preserves. Under Bill C-8, each department will have jurisdiction over its own areas or zones. This promises to create a lot of grey areas, legal blur and jurisdictional conflicts.

Here is what project co-ordinator John Melindy told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:

Now, through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is empowered to declare marine protected areas to conserve species under threat. In view of this fact, we are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of legislation....Our position statement is that overall we feel Bill C-8 should be withdrawn. We cannot see any particular reason for making this bill into law. It is felt that this bill would undermine the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and transfer powers for marine conservation and habitat protection to Parks Canada, which has no management or scientific expertise in the marine field.

Mismanagement, confusion with regard to respective roles, waste of resources, contempt for the Constitution which guarantees provincial jurisdictions, Bill C-8 is a perfect example of all those things.

The only good thing about this bill, as in the case of so many other bills before it, is that it will hopefully help Quebecers understand that this system is corrupt and that sovereignty alone will enable them to get out of that mess.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we rise today to speak to Bill C-8, the marine conservation act. In view of the fact that this body of amendments really calls for the clause by clause elimination of the bill, we can only speak rather generically to the bill itself.

Perhaps we should call this bill the marine environmental act or, maybe even better, the heritage minister's power grab act. That may seem a little strong, but I want to explain this over the next few minutes to see if there are not some members who might agree with me.

As I look at the bill I shake my head in amazement. The purpose of the bill is to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks. On the surface that objective sounds like motherhood and apple pie. In fact there are some parts of the bill that I would agree with and support.

The official opposition, for instance, is in favour of a polluter pay principle. It makes sense to me that, just like a user pay situation, those who pollute should also pay the price.

The official opposition is also supportive of the concepts of participating in the world community of agreements and maintaining the biodiversity. Throughout this we need to be good stewards of what we have been given.

Unfortunately, that is just about as much support as I can give for the original drafting of this bill. I will expand upon my level of support for the amendments shortly.

I have far more concerns over the remaining portions of the bill. To begin with, I question whether this is a parks bill or an environmental protectionist bill. I believe that parks are to be available for the public good. The way I read the bill, the minister will have sweeping powers to virtually eliminate public, private and commercial activity in vast areas of Canada's marine lands. I do not know if this would be acceptable to many Canadians.

Through clauses 5, 6 and 7 the minister would be able to designate new areas under the act without bringing the act forward again to parliament. This investiture of power to one official in one office is not in keeping with my personal view of an accountable, democratic government. The circumvention of parliament may exist in other acts; however, that does not make it right.

I am very concerned that the heritage minister may simply exclude any exploration or development from any and all sites that she deems to be held within the marine conservation areas. I find this demagogue-like approach to power within the bill very scary but typical of the Liberal government.

This approach to power is one that cannot be taken lightly. As an example, I would like to bring a matter before the House that is a direct case in point of the heritage minister and Parks Canada superseding all reasonable approaches to power and the issue of common law. Within my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan lies a portion of the Pacific Rim National Park. Pacific Rim is home to the West Coast Trail, and a more beautiful and rugged part of Canada we will hardly find. Yet, it is here that a family's nightmare began.

One of my constituents, Mr. John Van Egmond, has met with me on several occasions. The Van Egmonds had a dream of living in a wilderness setting and being able to help people through a practical, hands on approach.

Less than two years ago the Van Egmonds thought that they had found the perfect solution to their dream. Two parcels of fee simple land became available for sale. One land parcel was adjacent to and the other within the boundaries of Pacific Rim National Park. They subsequently purchased both parcels of land.

They confirmed with the local regional district that they would be permitted to build a bed and breakfast on this property. Unfortunately, after Parks Canada later became involved, they learned that a bed and breakfast would not be permitted.

Ever resourceful, the Van Egmonds began to put together a wilderness adventure school that could teach people about the outdoors, specifically in the West Coast Trail environment. Furthermore, their school would be used as a rescue base and emergency shelter for the many hikers that annually use the trail. Over the past several years, due to the popularity of the trail, a reservation system has been used.

Although isolated, thousands of people from around the world use that trail every year. Nevertheless, many people are not fully prepared for the hardships of the trail and are injured along the way.

To accomplish their revised goals, the Van Egmonds had the written assurance of Parks Canada that the rights of private property owners would be respected. However, that is when the problems really began with Parks Canada.

Over the course of the next few months Parks Canada officials cut off access to their land. Remember, this is private land that had been privately purchased. Parks Canada would not permit them to cross crown land that was designated as a park reserve.

The Van Egmonds believe that Parks Canada officials contacted all the local helicopter companies and told them not to contract with the Van Egmonds to drop building materials or supplies on to their property. It disallowed a septic permit for the Van Egmonds on their own property, even though the local regional district had given its approval. This is where it gets interesting. This was in light of the fact that 8,000 hikers annually use the trail and use the pristine shoreline and surrounding area as their own private septic field.

In order to try to comply with Parks Canada officials, Mr. Van Egmond had been using a wheelbarrow to move his supplies from a river to his property along the beach. Parks Canada then issued a letter that the Van Egmonds would not be allowed ingress or egress across park land at all, which meant that they would be trespassing every time they stepped off their own property. This is in free Canada.

Furthermore, Parks Canada officials had told the local Ditidaht Band that the Van Egmonds were illegally fishing salmon stocks out of the local Nitinat Narrows and accepting fees to show hikers a series of revered petroglyphs adjacent to their property. This was brought to a head when several members of the band verbally and physically confronted the Van Egmonds.

When cooler heads prevailed and voices of reason compared different sides of the story, the Ditidaht Band realized that Parks Canada officials had not told them the truth about the Van Egmonds. The Van Egmonds had not been fishing illegally and were not taking people to view the sacred petroglyphs. At this point the Van Egmonds and the Ditidaht Band began to work together.

Out of respect for the Ditidaht Band, the Van Egmonds have left their property and have been attempting to resolve the issue with the heritage minister.

The situation is so serious that the Ditidaht Band has since written the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage stating that they will not continue in their land claim negotiations until Heritage Canada resolves the issue with the Van Egmonds. Sadly, neither minister has taken the time to date to respond to the Van Egmonds.

These allegations in a free democracy are difficult to believe. Yet, I have talked and met with people independent from the Van Egmonds who have confirmed these reports. The Van Egmonds want nothing more than to resolve this issue, and yet once again the government is not listening, as it does not listen to many people, particularly in B.C. Is it any wonder that I cannot support this bill and the centralization of power that it would give to the minister?

I take this opportunity to speak out loudly on this issue. This bill is inappropriate. It has far-reaching power that I believe supersedes parliament itself. This is not acceptable. We cannot have any more cases like the Van Egmonds. It cannot be supported. Without the approval of many amendments, I will certainly not be able to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought the government opposite would have done some thinking between the tabling of its first bill, Bill C-48, and its second one, Bill C-8.

I thought the government would have done some thinking, listened carefully and reread the statements and speeches made in this House, and taken the bill back to the drawing board to make it more acceptable.

Not so. I was not planning to take part in the debate this afternoon, but this is too much. I must speak up. I notice that the government tabled exactly the same bill as before, a bill that was rejected by many and rather seriously challenged by the opposition. The hon. members must realize that we can no more accept it now than we did before.

I looked at this legislation from a lawyer's point of view, since I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for justice, and since all issues in a bill that relate to justice are of interest to me. I looked to see if the government opposite, which is supposed to act responsibly, does at least respect jurisdictions and the Constitution for which it fights so hard, as we saw during oral question period. We live in the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister would say. But does that country at least respect its constitution?

We must look at clause 5 of the bill to realize that the Liberal government does not respect the Constitution for which it is fighting. Worse yet, it even creates overlap within its own departments, and I will conclude on that.

In the part of the bill that deals with the Constitution and the enlarging of marine areas, clause 5 states, and I quote:

An amendment to Schedule 1

This schedule deals with titles and marine conservation areas.

under this section or subsection 6(2) may be made only if a ) 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—

It must therefore be established whether the submerged lands they wish to include in the conservation area belong to the federal government. According to this section, which I would put in the context of Quebec, when I think of the St. Lawrence River, the immediate answer is that they do not, that the federal government is not the owner of the bed of the St. Lawrence River.

We know this is what the bill says. There are three sites in the St. Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that the federal government wants to turn into marine conservation areas. It is ignoring subsection 5(2) and wants to go further still.

Why do I say that the riverbed does not belong to the federal government? Quite simply because I am referring to the Constitution Act, 1867. As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I must look at the British North America Act, 1867, the Constitution, because it is the overriding law right now, because the Canadian Constitution is the number one law that everyone must respect, including the federal government.

Section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the management and sale of public lands come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I know it is complicated, but what is quite clear is that the floor of the St. Lawrence River belongs to the province of Quebec, to Quebecers, and not to Ottawa.

How will they implement their nice little legislation if not through a show of force? We know how easy it is for the government across the way to flex its muscles in these areas, and we will probably witness another show of force when the time comes to implement this legislation. Legally however, based on the existing legislation, we can only conclude that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the floor of the St. Lawrence River.

I know it is complicated, as I said earlier. The government opposite finds it complicated, so you can imagine how ordinary citizens feel about it. They find it extremely complicated.

I said so in a previous speech, and I want to say it again because some of my constituents from Berthier—Montcalm just cannot believe it and they ask me “Michel, is it really so complicated?”

When you look at the St. Lawrence River and at the fish in these waters, you do so from the perspective of Quebec fishers. They realize that the banks of the river indubitably fall under provincial jurisdiction. They belong to Quebec. Now, if they want to fish, they need to register their boats with the federal government. The St. Lawrence river bed falls under provincial jurisdiction, but the water itself, the seaway, falls under federal jurisdiction.

It is very complicated for the average person. Add to that federal protected areas and wildlife reserves located in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Maybe the government opposite should at least start respecting legislation that concerns it directly. It should at least accept these jurisdictions and accept exclusively provincial jurisdictions.

I have not yet talked about fish. A fish, as such, is under provincial jurisdiction, but there are federal quotas. Recreational fishing requires a provincial licence, but commercial fishing also requires a federal licence.

It is quite complicated. Yet it could be a lot simpler if the government opposite were more co-operative, if it were not always intent on doing only as it pleases. It seems the only person here who has a monopoly on the truth is the Prime Minister. Everybody else is crazy and is wrong.

Again, we have examples in the area of wildlife protection. In Quebec, we have a good example in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is a good example to follow simply because both levels of government co-operated to make something that works and that is in harmony with the Constitution of Canada.

Both levels of government agreed to create a marine wildlife reserve with a co-ordinating committee made up of various people selected by both the provincial and federal ministers responsible. Each contributed half of the required funding. It is working out well, because there was consultation.

As for the bill before us, all stakeholders came to tell us in committee that the federal government had not consulted those involved sufficiently. They did not consult the Government of Quebec sufficiently, for one thing, and its property is involved.

We are beginning to get used to this. I have spoken about the bottom of the St. Lawrence. Everyone here in this House agrees environment is a shared jurisdiction. Clearly, under the Canadian constitution, the environment concerns both federal and provincial levels. If something is covered by environmental legislation, both levels of government have to be consulted.

I have also referred to the federal government's desire to overlap and bypass Quebec's jurisdictions. At the federal level, that there is departmental overlap.

This bill overlaps Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada jurisdictions. People from both of these departments came before the committee and told us “This makes no sense. There is too much overlap. People will not understand at all. It is too complicated. The government needs to go back to the drawing board”.

Today I realize that the bill under consideration is exactly the same. Let the Liberals go back to the drawing board before they propose something. At least the people responsible for application of this legislation within their own departments will have nothing to say against it.

Before closing, I would like to make some very important quotes.

Do I have leave of the House to quote three or four very important witnesses, who had things to say that the government would do well to listen to, or to listen to again? Once is not enough for this government.

I would just like about another five minutes on top of my ten.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has asked for his time to be extended five minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to this bill, although the last time it had a different number attached to it.

The official opposition believes in sustainable development and management of the environment to both preserve biodiversity and conserve the environment for the enjoyment of Canadians at present and in the future.

The heritage minister by this bill simply expands her domain and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, her old portfolio. The minister in this bill sidesteps the proper role of parliament with the insertion of Henry VIII clauses, as we have already heard described today. The bill requires provincial governments to obey it. The bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways. Enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private property without permission. That is a summation of some of my concerns.

This is a politicized environmental bill and not a useful one to assist the environment. That is the problem with the bill. It will burden us with another layer of government bureaucracy. This will prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas exploration companies, local anglers and recreational boaters from being able to make a living or enjoy themselves.

The bill will not prevent natural disasters. It will not prevent poachers. It will not prevent the environment from being ruined. Bill C-8 will do none of this.

I attended committee. Reform brought some witnesses to committee. The chief of the Campbell River band was at committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there. West coast fishermen were there. Rather than accept at face value concerns by west coast stakeholders, what did we hear? A lecture from the chairman of the committee. Quite frankly, I was amazed at the treatment meted out to people who had travelled so far.

If this bill proceeds, we will have three federal departments that can protect marine areas: Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill will put Heritage Canada into that picture as well. This is very sloppy indeed and is not the way to proceed. Any time more than one party manages something, we get diffused management, diffused objectives and things tend to fall apart.

I am going to talk about the west coast because I know it best. About half of the British Columbia coastline is in my riding. Obviously it is a busy place. There is aquaculture going on, fishing activity, commercial and recreational, undersea harvesting of different kinds, some of it actively being pursued and others are proposed. There are transportation activities of every kind, tug and barge, marine commercial transportation, ferries, cruise ships, we have the works. We also have a history of oil and gas exploration. I am going to spend some time talking about that.

The oil and gas reserves on the west coast exceed many times, for example, the oil reserves in Hibernia and other areas in Canada, which are currently being exploited quite successfully. At the end of 1998, the Hibernia operation had already provided 107,000 man years of work, a very significant number and one that British Columbians are taking note of.

We should not be pre-empted from an opportunity to fully develop our industry by legislation that blindly creates parks without taking all of these things into account. It is very clear, from the way this bill has been developed, that those things have not been taken into account.

British Columbia is unique. We fought as a province to establish provincial jurisdiction over the Gulf of Georgia, which is salt water and seabed and marine resources that are owned by the province. This legislation would be tantamount to the Nanoose Bay expropriation if it were done without the agreement of the province. That is what the legislation attempts to do.

I have major concerns with the politicization of the protection of marine areas. This bill doe not accomplish anything for the environment. It is only here as a public relations exercise by a department and a minister of the government.

When the legislative package came out, I sent it out to 22 groups that I knew had an interest in this type of legislation and that should have been consulted by government. These groups found they could not comment in any meaningful way on this legislation because they did not know where the marine conservation areas were being proposed. The legislation is not at that stage. By the time it gets to that stage, there will be no parliamentary purview other than some ability to comment on what they can do by order in council without further reference to parliament. That is wrong. We are opposed to it. We know that west coast interests will be overruled because we have already seen the attitude display in this process.

The recreational sector, which will be heavily impacted by anything that comes out of this, has no effective lobby. It is composed primarily of individual anglers. Once enabling legislation is drafted to create these areas and then they are not created, the bureaucracy is uncomfortable because the minister has a mandate.

What we have is a self-perpetuating machine churning out regulations in new areas that have no business existing in the first place. We end up with marine conservation areas with a very weak rationale which flies in the face of common sense and local sentiment. There has to be a better way.

We recommended that the municipal level of governance be put into this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a decision making role in whether these specific areas will come into being or not. There have been no changes or movement whatsoever in that regard.

A major concern we have with the bill is its potential to affect offshore oil and gas exploration and industry. We have had a moratorium since 1989 on the west coast. This is supported by a federal moratorium which will be in place until B.C. decides to allow this exploration. In September 1999, in the B.C. northern development commissioner's report, he said:

The report clearly shows that northerners support the development of a process that would reconsider the current oil and gas moratorium.

It appears that British Columbians are very interested in developing these resources. If the federal government proceeds with Bill C-8, British Columbians may be hampered in developing this industry due to the additional restrictions that may be imposed by Bill C-8.

I will conclude by saying that this is a bad piece of legislation and we should kill it.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-8. This bill concerns the creation of a network of national marine conservation areas, the marine equivalent of national parks.

This network would be representative of 29 marine regions in Canada, covering the waters of the Great Lakes, inland waters including swamps, the territorial sea and the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

With this bill, the government will set the boundaries of the marine conservation areas in all the regions in Canada, in consultation, we hope, with the people of the area.

Bill C-8 gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit activities in commercial zones in order to protect marine resources.

It also gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Ministers of Transport and Canadian Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit transportation in marine conservation areas.

It is important to note that 1998 was set aside as the year of the oceans by the UN. The most important activities held to draw attention to this event include the world's fair in Lisbon, Portugal, and the adoption of the ocean charter by UNESCO in September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.

The government claims it is important to preserve the natural marine ecosystems and their balance to maintain biologic diversity. It says there is a need to establish a representative network of marine conservation areas, whose scope and features will ensure the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems.

The Bloc Quebecois supports environmental protection measures. It gave its support when the government introduced legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

In addition, I must say that, in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, water is precious. The Argenteuil Parti Quebecois and the PQ subcommittee on the environment for the Laurentian region submitted briefs to the BAPE.

People wanted to show their support for the protection of the environment, particularly ecosystems in the groundwater, marine conservation areas, forests and other areas.

In 1986, the federal government launched the marine conservation area program. In 1988, the National Parks Act was amended to take into account the establishment of temporary protected marine areas. Since then, the following areas were created: Fathom Five National Marine Park in the Georgian Bay, the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation reserve in British Columbia, and the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

The park is over 1,100 square kilometres and has a unique tourist component, the importance of which we are just beginning to grasp.

This marine park was 14 years in the making. Its management is shared by the provincial and federal governments.

The project began in 1985. It took quite a long time to create the park because of the public consultations, environmental studies and negotiations that were required. That precedent should have served as a model for the federal government in establishing other marine conservation areas.

It should be pointed out that 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 five years in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.

Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill before us today for two reasons. First, it is not clear whether Quebec's territorial integrity will be respected. Second, we are opposed to this bill because 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.

Quebec's jurisdiction is recognized under the British North America Act of 1867. There is overlap within the federal government. With the bill, the government wants to establish marine conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of Environment Canada.

The same site could have more than one designation. It could be designated as a marine conservation area by Heritage Canada and as a marine protection area by fisheries and oceans.

In both cases, it is obvious that the local population would have a major role to play in the establishment of marine protection areas. The Bloc is concerned about problems related to the bureaucracy.

The same area, according to fisheries and oceans, could fall under different categories and be subject to different regulations.

We know that when more than one department is involved in a project, even if all the departments involved belong to the same government, there are difficulties and additional costs to the taxpayers.

The government would have been better to make sure that ecosystems are managed by one department only. The departments involved should sign a framework agreement to delegate all of their responsibilities over ecosystems to the same department while respecting constitutional jurisdictions.

I also want to mention the fact that the preliminary consultations were a failure. Furthermore, during hearings by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, almost all groups from coastal areas heard condemned the bill on the grounds that the system proposed by Heritage Canada would duplicate part of the work done by Fisheries and Oceans and create confusion.

On February 11, 1999, Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that it was simply inefficient, cumbersome public administration. In his view, bringing forward this marine conservation area initiative in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department was unacceptable. His conclusion was that the bill should be withdrawn.

Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, which represents almost 80% of all professional fishermen in Quebec, also told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that there were numerous problems.

In his testimony, he mentioned that such an area was difficult to access from a scientific point of view, meaning that people were working more with probabilities and presumptions than with real scientific knowledge of what existed.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because, instead of focussing on collaboration, as in the case of the Sagenuay-St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to introduce marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

The Bloc Quebecois concludes that the consultation conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Quebec with respect to the introduction of marine conservation areas was also a failure.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Government of Quebec is also engaged in initiatives to protect the environment and submerged lands and water in particular. Bill C-8 does not respect the integrity of Quebec's territory.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment, but opposed to Bill C-8 for all the reasons I have mentioned.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to speak to Bill C-8, the marine conservation act, particularly in light of the motions put forward by the Bloc, which would delete all clauses of the bill. It is interesting because of what I perceive to be contained within the bill. Quite frankly, we will be supporting the Bloc's amendment to stall or stop this bill.

When we look at most government legislation that comes forward, we see an enlargement of ministers' jurisdiction. The enlargement of ministers' jurisdiction can be done in a tremendous number of ways. We see it even within my own constituency, within the four mountain parks, two of which are in my constituency and two of which are in the Wild Rose constituency. We see an action that is presently taking place where the minister has chosen, through the Canada Gazette , effective November 6, to take over 90% of the hectares under park jurisdiction and basically remove them from the parks, which are for the enjoyment of the citizens of Canada and visitors.

This goes to the whole issue of Bill C-8, the marine conservation act. If we take a look at the sensible reasons for the government wanting to bring this bill forward and put them up against the actions it is presently taking with respect to the parks under Parks Canada jurisdiction, we get an idea of where this bill could take us.

I was interested in many of the comments made by members of the Bloc Quebecois. I reject outright their assertion that this takes jurisdiction away from their province. However, I reflect upon the comments of the previous speaker who talked about the fact that basically this is not a bill that is reflective of the needs or the requirements of the park, it is a preservationist bill.

There is always a dynamic tension in Parks Canada, in particular with anything having to do with the environment, between people being able to enjoy certain activities within the confines of the park and the preservation issue because we are attempting to preserve the park for future generations. Indeed, this is a dynamic balance that is ongoing.

However, we see what happens when special interest groups catch the ear of the current minister. She ends up reacting to special interest groups that, in my judgment, are detrimental to where Parks Canada is going and certainly detrimental to the enjoyment of the parks.

I can recall one interesting squabble I had with the minister when I was heritage critic over the issue of the airstrip in Banff National Park. The airstrip was being used by a local flying club, but it was there almost exclusively and primarily for the use of people in an emergency situation. We had an ongoing verbal battle over this issue.

I was trying to drive home the fact that the airstrip was located within those very high mountains at the confluence of three valleys where there can be a lot of turbulence and a lot of changes in the weather. A small aircraft can fly from one valley, say from the direction of Calgary, over the airstrip and proceed up toward the Continental Divide. It can run into a wall of weather, turn around in the valley and attempt to come back, only to find that both the valley out toward Lake Minnewanka and the valley out toward Calgary are all blocked in. What does the pilot do?

I recall that the minister seemed to be not prepared to take the issue of safety for small planes seriously and was very concerned about the fact that perhaps I was attempting to keep the airstrip open so that the local flying club could have the pad, which of course I was not.

It is interesting that after she had gazetted that the airstrip was going to be closed, a parks crew flew in the area and exactly what I just said happened. Those people flew over the strip. They were on some kind of a survey for elk or something. They ran into a wall of weather toward the B.C. border. They turned around, only to find that they could not go anywhere. They had to use the strip for an emergency landing. Guess what? The strip remains open as a result of that near miss.

It is that kind of interference that is of deep concern to me when I look at Bill C-8, the marine conservation act, and realize that there is the very real potential, on the basis of the history of the current minister, that decisions could be made from Hamilton or from Ottawa that would not really take into account the needs of the affected area.

I mentioned the business of gazetting. As of November 6 of this year, it is my understanding that under an order in council, in the Canada Gazette , the minister has said that over 90% of the land within the four mountain parks will be set aside as a preserve. Anybody wishing to go into that area will require a permit to do so. Anybody with an ounce of common sense recognizes that Banff in particular, probably of all the parks in the world, is under the greatest environmental stress as a result of its popularity. We can clearly understand the difficulty that is created when there are horses travelling on back trails, as well as motor bikes tearing up the trails. The hooves of horses tear up the trails as well.

All of those issues are part of the mix. The minister simply exerts the power she has under the current parks legislation, which will be reflected and enhanced in Bill C-8. For her to simply go ahead and take such action is mind boggling. The continued enjoyment and intelligent use of that parkland by human beings that will be stopped as a result of that decision.

There have been consultations in the current situation and I am sure there will be consultations in future situations if this bill comes into effect. I have accused Parks Canada of not understanding what the word consultation means. The word consultation, in my judgment, particularly by this minister, is to say that it is a fait accompli, it is an information session and not actual consultation per se.

The intent of Bill C-8 is good and laudable. I understand that. Nonetheless, on the basis of the history that I and my constituents have experienced with the current Parks Canada legislation, particularly with respect to the four mountain parks, this bill is not workable and is dangerous from the perspective of the continued intelligent use and enjoyment of our parks by the people of Canada.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is 5.25 p.m. I know the member for Louis-Hébert would be ready to begin her speech on this issue, but you would interrupt her after four minutes. As we all know, she is entitled ten minutes.

It is your privilege and that of the House to call it 5.30 p.m. Therefore, I am asking you if it would not be preferable to proceed in this fashion.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member is suggesting that the House see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. and proceed with Private Members' Business. Is there agreement to proceed in such a way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

National Parks Act

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved that Bill C-236, an act to amend the National Parks Act (Stoltmann National Park), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I express my gratitude for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-236, which would amend the National Parks Act to create the Stoltmann National Park. It would require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to commence negotiations with the Government of British Columbia to ensure the establishment of a new national park in British Columbia comprising the Stoltmann wilderness area.

The purpose of the bill is to designate a 500,000 hectare area, which includes the Elaho Valley, as the Stoltmann National Park. The name comes from a famous conservationist, Randy Stoltmann, who first proposed in April 1994 that the area be preserved, shortly before his untimely death.

The area is located a three hour drive north of Vancouver, not far from the world's famous four season resort village of Whistler. It is a wilderness area located on the mainland of British Columbia in the coastal mountain range. This is an important observation.

The question will arise as to why the area should be protected as a national park. These are the reasons.

First, the Stoltmann wilderness area has a unique ecosystem found nowhere else in Canada. I visited the area twice. The Stoltmann wilderness area includes ancient rain forest trees. Its pristine valleys of old growth forest have stands of Douglas firs which date back some 1,000 and even 1,300 years. The diverse habitat of the valley provides a home for black bears, grizzly bears, a moose population and other very interesting species.

The area offers habitat to a grizzly bear population identified by the British Columbia wildlife branch as being threatened. It is anticipated to become a grizzly bear recovery management area under that very province's grizzly bear conservation strategy. It is designed to help reverse the loss of grizzly bears in British Columbia.

Recently Clendenning Provincial Park was created by the province. I congratulate the government for having done so. But this is not a sufficient reason to justify logging in the remaining grizzly bear habitat of the Elaho Valley.

Members may be aware that the province of British Columbia has recognized the ecological value of the area by establishing three provincial parks. The current parks cover less than 10% of the entire Stoltmann wilderness area. Grizzly bears have very large pristine habitat requirements and according to expert conservation biologists, these parks are not sufficient to sustain them.

Other animals have been sighted by experts, biologists and the like in the area, such as wolves, racoons, moose, deer, as well as numerous birds and small mammal species. The proposed national park would protect one of Canada's rarest types of old growth forest as well as the habitat of many wildlife species, including grizzly bear populations that are at risk.

The second reason is that the protection of the ecosystem in the Stoltmann area is gradually becoming a matter of national concern. Hundreds of letters and cards have come in asking for the protection of this unique ecosystem. They have been sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Canadian Heritage who is responsible for national parks, the Minister of the Environment, the British Columbia premier, myself and many others.

Moreover, there are numerous reports in the media on the pitiful state of our national parks system in general. The panel headed by Mr. Jacques Gérin, who is a respected international consultant, is about to produce a report. The federal government 10 years ago pledged to complete the national parks system by the year 2000 and reiterated its commitment in the Speech from the Throne. It must be noted that to date, only four out of the 15 promised parks have been created.

Two years ago Parks Canada reported that only one park is not threatened by human activity. The other 38 are threatened by logging, mining, hydroelectric development and tourism development. This is an issue of great significance across the country.

One may ask why the Stoltmann area is not currently represented within the national parks system. The current national parks system uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning for national parks. The Stoltmann wilderness area is being clear cut and roads are being pushed into pristine areas, despite the fact that the forest service in the U.S. has imposed moratoria on road building on public lands in grizzly bear recovery areas.

In the Stoltmann area per se, we find beautiful ancient growths of trees which are currently logged by International Forest Products, Interfor, a Vancouver based company with logging rights in the area. This exploitation of one of the last old growth forests in Canada will only generate short term benefits as the resource will soon be exhausted. Establishing this park makes sense because it would prevent the loss of a beautiful ecosystem. In addition, as I will expand on in a moment, it would also offer a golden economic opportunity for the long term.

The long term benefits of establishing such a national park are very interesting and deserve to be explored. Currently some estimate that logging in this area supports anywhere between 30 and 70 local logging jobs. By contrast, a study conducted a few years ago revealed that Banff National Park generates $614 million per year for the local economy. In Whistler the tourism industry has recognized the potential long term benefits of a national park in the area and it has commissioned a study to evaluate the economic benefits of the proposed Stoltmann national park.

At present, with little infrastructure and no legal protection, this area already is visited frequently. Therefore the establishment of the Stoltmann national park would generate tourism. It would generate economic activity. It would generate employment in the area where by contrast, logging jobs would be in decline and would eventually be phased out when the resource had been exhausted.

I submit that a diversified economic base is critical to the future of communities in the region surrounding the Elaho Valley. A national park would secure long term benefits for the regional economy. As well it would preserve this area for the benefit of present and future generations of visitors.

Citizens, it must be said, are quite active in urging us to take action to protect the Stoltmann wilderness area in the valley. As I have explained, letters have been written in support of a national park. Most of these letters are private accounts describing the beauty encountered by people visiting the area and even letters of outrage at the fate of this region. The public as well as many groups have currently no public venue for these concerns to be addressed. As a result, there is a growing degree of frustration and tension in the area.

In 1996 the province of British Columbia held a planning process in the lower mainland area of B.C. Unfortunately, important voices were not heard in the consultation process. Concerned citizens, environmental and native groups have expressed discontent with the lack of public access to the hearings that took place.

Moreover there was a serious gap in the consultation. The planning process, for instance, did not include environmental impact assessments of the proposed land use, its impact on wilderness and on grizzly bear habitat. It did not include economic studies of various land use options. In fact, in order to find the solution, the premier of British Columbia is directing people to write to the federal Minister of the Environment on this issue, believe it or not.

The discussion on the future of this valley must inevitably and most urgently also include the question of native rights. In the Stoltmann wilderness area there are four native groups whose territory includes parts of Stoltmann. The largest portion belongs to the Squamish native group who are currently in treaty negotiations. Squamish natives have expressed their concern that current logging is destroying their land. They have been closely working with conservation groups in order to prevent this from happening.

It must be said that a national park would include recognition of native land rights. The process would begin with negotiations with native groups on the best approach to protect this land for the benefit of everyone.

An option could be a co-managed national park reserve such as the one that was set up and established quite successfully in South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

As I have explained, the merits for this proposal are numerous, but most important is the sense of urgency associated with it. At the current rate of exploitation by the logging company it will soon be too late. This unique wilderness area will not be worth protecting any longer as private interests will run away with the profits and will leave behind clear cuts and impoverished land.

The federal government has an opportunity to provide through the process of establishing a national park the much needed open democratic process that people have been asking for by negotiating with all parties involved: concerned citizens, environmental and conservationist groups, the logging company, native groups, the tourism industry, all of them. The federal government has the opportunity to co-manage with the first nations all that this publicly owned piece of wilderness has to offer. The protection of this unique wilderness area is for the long term benefit of everyone.

To conclude, this area is located in the Pacific coast mountains region of British Columbia. It is an area that is not yet represented in the network established by the Parks Canada system. This is why the Stoltmann national park commands attention by those of us who are keen in ensuring that we have an adequate national parks system as a heritage for future generations of Canadians.

I know there are dissenting views on this matter. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues and to take good note of what they have to say. I am partially familiar with what the dissenting views are about. Very simply, the Stoltmann national park stands for whether we are guided in our decision making process by the short term or the long term. I hope that the long term will prevail.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a B.C. perspective to this misguided initiative by the member for Davenport. I will also speak on behalf of individuals and organizations from my constituency of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, people who live in the area where the member of parliament from Toronto wants to put a national park.

I find it interesting that the member for Davenport is trying to foist this upon the citizens of my riding. I surely cannot see a British Columbia member of parliament telling the residents of Davenport or anywhere else in Ontario how to manage their land base. I am also intrigued by this initiative, given that the former secretary of state for parks and the current minister of heritage have rejected the idea of a national park for Stoltmann. It seems a member who knows so much about British Columbia is out of step with the cabinet ministers within his own party.

Allow me to read into the record for the member for Davenport who is from Toronto what the secretary of state for parks said in a letter to the mayor of Squamish, British Columbia dated March 19, 1999 concerning Stoltmann. It states:

Parks Canada is responsible for the establishment and operation of national parks and uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning the national parks system. At present, 24 are represented by at least one national park or national park reserve. In addition, lands have been reserved for a future national park in four other regions.

The Randy Stoltmann wilderness area is situated in the Pacific coast mountains regions (natural region 1). Gwaii Haanas and Pacific national park reserves currently represent this region in Canada's system of national parks. Given that this region is well represented in the existing network, Parks Canada is focusing its resources on creating new national parks in those natural resource regions that are not yet represented.

Allow me to edify the member from Toronto further on where his government stands. The following is a quote from a letter I received from the Minister of Canadian Heritage dated August 25, 1999:

The federal government is not proposing a national park for Stoltmann. Parks Canada is responsible for the establishment and operation of national parks and uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning the national parks system. The Randy Stoltmann wilderness area is situated in the Pacific coast mountains region (natural region 1) Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim national park reserves currently represent this region in Canada's system of national parks. Given that this region is well represented in the existing network, Parks Canada is focusing its resources on creating new national parks in those regions that are not yet represented.

I ask the member for Davenport if he sees any similarities in the two letters I just quoted from. Does he grasp the logic and rationale for these decisions not to create a park in Stoltmann?

I would also like to add another reason I feel there is no need for another national park in British Columbia. The Government of British Columbia has agreed to a protected area strategy for the lower mainland which resulted in 13% of the land being set aside for park, and a number of those parks are within the immediate vicinity of Stoltmann.

In May 1996 over 136,000 hectares of additional land was protected as parks on the lower mainland alone. That was on top of the 444,000 that had already been set aside for parkland. In fact, 14% of the area from the Fraser Valley to the coast is in protected areas. In the Squamish area parks comprise 22% of the land base. I challenge most other Canadians in major metropolitan areas to meet that quota of 22% of the land base for parks.

Business paid a price at that time and lost thousands of hectares of timber through that process. The British Columbia government assured everyone that the process of additional parkland was complete.

I might add, since the member who is initiating further parkland is not from British Columbia, that this 136,000 hectare allotment of parkland included the 30,357 hectare Clendenning Park and the 19,996 hectare Upper Lillooet Park.

Forest businesses in the area have categorically stated that any thought of a 500,000 hectare park like Stoltmann would mean the end of their business and consequently people on the unemployment line. Perhaps that is what the member for Davenport wants.

Those British Columbians who developed the land use plan for the Squamish area agree that the plan is balanced and sets aside ample land for parks and protected areas. Why does the member for Davenport wish to upset this balance and insinuate himself into the picture? He is not from British Columbia and I know he did not visit this park until after he introduced the bill.

Before he or anyone from Ontario says that British Columbians are not sensitive to parks and protected lands, I will let him know that downtown Vancouver is home to the only wilderness forest in the world. Its 1,000 hectares was opened in 1888 by Lord Stanley and has an 11 kilometre seawall circling it. It has an aquarium, ponds, lagoons, towering trees, and all kinds of flora and fauna. It is called Stanley Park. Does Toronto have a park that is equivalent? I think the member should spend some time looking at his own area.

I wonder how the member for Davenport would feel if preservationist splinter groups assisted by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee were spreading mistruths about the operations of companies and businesses in his riding. These groups have initiated illegal blockades and have vandalized equipment owned by the companies attempting to carry out legitimate logging in the Elaho Valley. These groups have misinformed the public and international customers about forestry and logging in British Columbia and about the Squamish area land use plan. That is the real serious issue, the misinformation to people around the world which is hurting jobs in my community.

Does the member for Davenport condone this behaviour? These same preservationists have not consulted with first nations. The Lil'wat band whose traditional lands fall partially in the Elaho Valley vigorously oppose the creation of a park and object to the protester actions on their traditional lands.

How does the member for Davenport feel about that? I am sure he would agree with me. He does not like these types of confrontations. Why does the member for Davenport encourage further mistruths from these protesters about Interfor wanting to cut 1,300 year old trees when he and the protesters know that this is just not the case.

Let me say a few things about Interfor, the unfortunate company involved in this eco hostage taking. Interfor leads the industry in the use of environmentally sensitive harvesting methods. Interfor owns and operates the largest helicopter logging operation in British Columbia. Helicopter logging is the leading edge of environmentally friendly operations. Interfor gave up some 30,000 hectares of tree forest licence 38 for creation of Clendenning Park in the upper Elaho.

Interfor practises variable retention, which means that its harvesting practices are designed to leave various amounts of standing trees. It is known as a firm that is constantly evaluating its sustainable forestry. Its practices recognize that a variety of systems are appropriate for different forest conditions. In short, Interfor is a good corporate citizen and is being maligned by ecoterrorism tactics.

These tactics put their workers in jeopardy. There is no place for destroying the private property of anyone as these ecoterrorists have done to Interfor. There are over 400 forest sector employees, good hard working union members and their families living in the Squamish area. These people need these jobs. The mayor of the district of Squamish, the council and the community support Interfor, as does the village of Pemberton. They want to see these jobs protected and land use planning involving the entire community. Those who would incite to destroy a comprehensive and balanced approach that has been ratified are not welcome.

I cannot support a bill that has little balance and knowledge of the area. It initiates instability in the Squamish area and as such incites unrest and disharmony. The member for Davenport should stay out of the affairs of British Columbians. I reject his initiative, and so do my constituents, outright.