Debates of Sept. 28th, 2000

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

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

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 3 with the following:

““Minister” means the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.”

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 3 with the following:

“under the Parks Canada Agency Act”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-8, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 11 on page 4 with the following:

“(3) Marine conservation areas and reserves shall be managed and used in a manner that meets the needs of present and future generations.”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-8, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 4 with the following:

“Canada, an amendment to Schedule 1 may be made adding the name and a description of the area or altering the”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 14

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

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-8, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 6 with the following:

“cal knowledge, including traditional aboriginal ecologi-”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-8, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 7 with the following:

“claims agreements, aviation associations and provincial aviation councils, and with any other per-”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-8, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 8 with the following:

“considers appropriate in a manner consistent with article 1.3.2 of the National Marine Conservation Areas Policy.”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-8, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following:

“advisory committee of stakeholders to advise the Minister on”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 9 with the following:

“regulations, after consulting with the public as provided for in article 3.2.3 of the National Marine Conservation Areas Policy, consistent with international law,”

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 10 with the following:

“recommendation of the Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Natural Resources and shall be consistent with article 3.3.5 of the National Marine Conservation Areas Policy.”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:

“and the Minister of Transport, following consultations with affected aviation associations and provincial aviation councils.”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-8, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 26 to 32 on page 11.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-8, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 12 with the following:

“appointed under the Parks Canada Agency Act whose duties include the enforce-”

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-8, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 17 with the following:

“measures to mitigate such degrada-”

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-8, in Clause 30.1, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 18 the following:

“30.1 Any area named and described in Schedule 1 ceases to be a marine conservation area five years after the amendment is made to that Schedule adding the description of the area unless, before the expiration of the five years, another amendment to that Schedule is made altering the description of the area or continuing its existence as a marine conservation area.”

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved:

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-8, in Clause 34, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 29 to 36 on page 18 and lines 1 to 3 on page 19 with the following:

“34. (1) Paragraph (a) of the definition “other protected heritage areas” in subsection 2(1) of the Parks Canada Agency Act is replaced by the”

(b) by replacing line 8 on page 19 with the following:

“(2) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended”

(c) by replacing line 14 on page 19 with the following:

“35. Subsection 5(1) of the Act is replaced”

(d) by replacing line 25 on page 19 with the following:

“36. (1) Subsection 6(1) of the Act is replaced”

(e) by replacing line 33 on page 19 with the following:

“(2) Subsection 6(3) of the Act is replaced”

(f) by replacing line 41 on page 19 with the following:

“37. Section 7 of the Act is replaced by the”

(g) by replacing line 8 on page 20 with the following:

“38. (1) Paragraphs 21(3)(b) to (d) of the Act”

(h) by replacing line 31 on page 20 with the following:

“(2) Subsection 21(4) of the Act is re-”

(i) by replacing line 40 on page 20 with the following:

“39. Section 31 of the Act is replaced by the

(j) by replacing line 10 on page 21 with the following:

“40. Subsection 32(1) of the Act is replaced”

(k) by replacing line 29 on page 21 with the following:

“41. Part 1 of the schedule to the Act is”

(l) by deleting lines 34 to 46 on page 21 and lines 1 to 13 on page 22.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-8, in Clause 35, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 14 to 22 on page 22 with the following:

“42. On the later of the coming into force of section 122 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the coming into force of this Act,”

(b) by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 22 with the following:

“tion de ce terme à l'article 122 de la Loi canadienne sur la protection de l'environnement (1999), la mention dans cette définition de”

(c) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 22 with the following:

“matter listed in Schedule 5 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.”

(d) by replacing line 1 on page 23 with the following:

“tion Act, 1999, as if references in that sec-”

(e) by replacing line 12 on page 23 with the following:

“Protection Act, 1999 applies, as authorized by”

(f) by replacing line 18 on page 23 with the following:

“Protection Act, 1999 for disposal in the waters”

(g) by replacing line 29 on page 23 with the following:

“Protection Act, 1999 does not apply; and”

(h) by replacing line 37 on page 23 with the following:

“dian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to”

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must inform the House that motions Nos. 32 and 34, standing in the name of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, could not be proposed since the member was not present in the House.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak in this debate at the request of my devoted colleague from Jonquière, our critic on this subject. She does remarkable work on behalf of the environment within our party and always comes up with arguments in the defence of Quebec's interests when the federal government is likely to overstep the bounds of our jurisdiction.

I would first like to put the debate in context. The Bloc will vote against this bill. We would not object to having stricter or more up to date environmental measures voted on in the House, but we have clearly defined in two paragraphs our position which should it seems to me, rally all members or at least those from Quebec, of all parties claiming to speak for the interests of Quebec.

“The Bloc Quebecois supports”, said the Bloc through its devoted critic, the member for Jonquière, “environmental protection measures”. More specifically, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that we supported it when it introduced legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Government of Quebec has its own initiatives to protect the environment and specifically the seabed. The Government of Quebec is also open to working in this regard with the federal government, as phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan indicates.

However, and this is where the problem lies, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill for the following reasons: instead of focusing on co-operation, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government can fill marine conservation areas without regard to Quebec's jurisdiction over its own territory and the environment and, because Canadian Heritage is proposing to establish a new structure, the marine conservation areas will duplicate DFO's marine protection zones and Environment Canada's marine protected areas.

This position is clear and simple and all members representing Quebec should readily support it. The Bloc Quebecois arrived at this position after extensive consultations with the Quebec government, with opposition parties at the national assembly, with Quebec's environmental groups and with all the interested people in our province. Our party came to the conclusion, along with these stakeholders, that this was the best position to adopt in Quebec's best interest.

If the federal government wants to get involved, it should harmonize its measures with what already exists. If Quebec already has effective legislation in this area, why should the federal government interfere? It is as simple as that. Everyone should agree to avoid duplication and to respect provincial jurisdictions, which means to respect the constitution.

All members from Quebec are here to represent the interests of Quebec, regardless of which party they belong to. In the case of this bill, the interests of Quebec would be better served if the amendments suggested by the hon. member for Jonquière were included in it.

This is not a debate on sovereignty, on a philosophical issue or on an issue involving millions of dollars. It is not a debate that would put members at odds with their constituents because of election speeches made during the last campaign about their party's platform. It is a matter of practicality. It is a matter of pride and of willingness to serve Quebec's interests. Members from Quebec sitting across the way are also here to protect Quebec's interests but are not doing so by supporting this legislation.

It is very simple, basic and something which unites all Quebecers. Will the Liberal members from Quebec refuse to come on board when everyone in Quebec is favourable to the amendments we are proposing, the vision we have presented in our speeches and through press releases and letters written by our critic, the member for Jonquière? Everyone in Quebec agrees on this except the federal Liberal members. But what are they doing here? Do they represent the interests of Quebec?

The member for Shefford was here as a Progressive Conservative member. She criticized the Liberal Party, voted against Bill C-20, against everything. Suddenly she decides to cross the floor of the House. She announces “I am going to move across to the Liberal Party and see that provincial jurisdictions are respected. I am going to see that the Constitution is respected and, with it, Quebec's rights”. Having gone over to the other side, she has fallen silent. I see her there. Why does she say nothing?

She now prefers to serve the Liberal Party and its leader, who has always worked to crush Quebec. She prefers that to defending Quebec's interests. What is the member doing?

I appeal to the people of Granby who are listening at home. Their representative has stopped speaking. The person they elected as a Progressive Conservative back then, thinking that she would defend their interests, defended those interests for a while and then suddenly went over to the other side.

I would like to send greetings to the mayor, the municipal council and all the community, social and economic organizations we had the opportunity to meet. The Bloc Quebecois caucus meeting was held in the magnificent city of Granby and we had an opportunity to visit the entire riding. We saw what proud people they are.

I would like the people of Granby to know that the Bloc Quebecois members will now be proud to defend them and proud to speak for them here in the House of Commons. The people of Granby will never hear the voice of their representative again. They will never hear a word out of her, no more speeches.

When a person moves over to the Liberal Party, he or she joins a voiceless party, what I called the “muffler party” the other day.

Their representative will no longer speak for them, so I would like the people of Granby to know that they can count on the Bloc Quebecois and on us. If they have questions, letters, phone calls or need someone to defend their rights, let them call a valiant Bloc Quebecois MP. We will be there to defend the people of Granby.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

You will not have that opportunity.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

I have just heard some words from a Quebec Liberal MP. That is the surprise of the day. He said “You will not have that opportunity”.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

From a Franco-Manitoban. Don't you know the difference?