House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was american.

Topics

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 9 the following new clause:

“13.1 (1) No person shall engage in finfish aquaculture within a marine conservation area.

(2) No person shall engage in fishing that involves the use of bottom trawling or dragging gear within a marine conservation area.

(3) No person shall construct or cause to be constructed oil or gas pipelines or power lines within a marine conservation area.

(4) No person shall use acoustic deterrence devices within a marine conservation area.”

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my understanding that the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair does not wish to proceed with Motion No. 8. Could the member please confirm that?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

I confirm that, Mr. Speaker.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Accordingly, Motion No. 8 will not be proceeded with.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was going to start off my comments in a somewhat different way, but I will begin by speaking about the ideological underpinnings of these amendments, and quite frankly of the bill more generally, as a result of some of the earlier comments by my Alliance Party colleague from British Columbia.

The suggestion was that amendments and position of my party on this bill were ideologically driven and not practical. There may be some validity to the ideologically driven part of it. The practicality issue I would reject. We have to set this in a planetary context. This is not the only government that has looked at these types of processes and legislation to protect our natural environment in its waters and seas.

We have had such leftist governments, such as the United States government that has been involved with these types of endeavours for 20 plus years. The Australian government built a system based on a legislative framework to protect its natural environment in its oceans around its coastlines, as has New Zealand and a number of other countries across the world. These endeavours were not driven by an economic analysis per se. They were driven by the need to protect and conserve these natural areas.

My friend from the Alliance suggests that this somehow is not a practical endeavour. The reality is that this legislation is much weaker than the legislation found in other countries and the motions before us attempt to strengthen the legislation. Nowhere is that more true than in the motions that I have with regard to clauses 12 and 13 of this legislation.

There is no question that this reflects a different approach by my party than that of the government and certainly that of the Alliance Party. It is our belief that if we are serious about protecting the ecosystems in the oceans, around our shores and within our boundaries, such as in the Great Lakes, we need this type of protection. We have to be serious about what will be permitted and what will be prohibited in these natural areas.

We already heard from the members on the other side of the House that this was only a framework piece of legislation. That very attitude unfortunately speaks to me about how serious the government is with respect to protecting these areas, both the ones that are tentatively designated now and those that will come in the future. If they were serious, they would support the amendments to clauses 12 and 13.

If the members on the other side were considering the possibility, and I will use one example, of allowing bottom trawling or the use of dragging gear in the oceans, then they would not be really serious about protecting the natural environment and preserving it for future generations. As I said earlier, I want to expand a bit on this issue.

Very recently we had some substantial research conducted on the coral that exists in the waters off of the Atlantic coast. It was interesting to hear some of the witnesses at the committee in the spring who talked about this and to look at the research that was done during the summer, including the pictures and videos that were taken by the research team.

The interesting part is that until very recently there was a strong belief in the research community that there was either little or no coral in the cold waters off our Atlantic coast. That was very recent. Research now shows that to be completely wrong and that the coral goes back 2,000 or 3,000 years. It is very small coral; it is not like the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. Some of it is only one metre to one and a half metres in height but it has taken that long for it to accumulate. It provides one fragment of the ecosystem in that area.

Huge trawlers have been going through using dragnets and literally ripping the coral off the bottom of the ocean floor. I talked about the research team that made the video this summer. It brought back pictures which showed sections of coral and then a big gaping hole. The only explanation that could be given was the trawlers and the dragging gear they use. That is one example. I will deal with another one.

Although the legislation as drafted prohibits the exploration and development of carbon fossil fuel types of industrial endeavours, it does not prohibit the construction of a pipeline through one of these zones or designated areas.

We have an image of the type of construction that would go on if we were to lay a pipeline in these areas and the damage that would be done to the ecosystem. That could be permitted under the legislation. It certainly is not prohibited.

If the government is serious about the legislation, the amendments I propose for clauses 12 and 13 are absolutely mandatory. If there is to be any integrity or credibility to the legislation, those amendments should be passed.

Going back to the ideology, one of our former prime ministers wrote an article in the Globe and Mail this week. He is a member of the board of the World Wildlife Fund of Canada. This goes back to the balancing act the government is arguing it has achieved, which is to balance off economic interests versus environmental interests. I always find it offensive when we have to talk in those terms. That is the type of analysis the government is bringing to bear. It said it found the right balance.

In his article, Mr. Turner pointed out:

Our governments are currently leasing huge areas off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia for oil and gas development, which is also being carried on in the Arctic, including the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea. Scientists tell us Arctic marine ecosystems and marine mammals, such as the polar bear, are further threatened by climate change.

It is the cumulative effect again. He further said:

B.C. is contemplating lifting the moratorium on oil and gas activity off the west coast.

That would be right in the ocean if the government lifts the moratorium. He made another point, and it is important to speak to our fishers on both coasts and in the north, that we have so badly decimated, perhaps destroyed permanently, our cod and wild salmon stocks. One cannot help but think that if the theme in the article and the background we are arguing for the legislation had been put in place 20, 30 or 50 years ago, we would not be faced with the loss of both those fisheries.

He went on to make another point, and this is the underpinning which I believe we should have. He said that we have these first tentative steps that are important, and I recognize those. The last speaker from the government side made these points about some of the areas. Mr. Turner pointed out:

Although these first tentative steps are important, they do not reflect the scale or vision of what is really needed. Our national goal should be to establish a system of marine and freshwater protected areas, representing all 78 natural marine and freshwater regions of Canada, by 2010.

In conclusion, the legislation as drafted will not accomplish that goal.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent the Canadian Alliance and my riding of Skeena in what is a very important debate. The bill will have a far-reaching impact on the entire coast of British Columbia, but in particular the northern coast which is in my riding.

I will begin with a short summary of the events surrounding Bill C-10 as I see them. We are speaking to my amendment to delete clause 13, an amendment which I believe will make the bill far more palatable to British Columbians and Atlantic Canadians as well.

The creation of this kind of legislation began with a policy initiative from Parks Canada in the 1980s which was to create a representative sampling of all marine regions in Canada and place them in the parks system to preserve their biodiversity in perpetuity for all the world to see and experience. A noble undertaking most would think; I believe it is a noble endeavour.

The problem is the same as with any noble endeavour this or any other government undertakes. If the communication with stakeholders prior, and I repeat for emphasis, prior to the creation and implementation of a bill such as Bill C-10 were done properly, the bill would have been drafted in a manner acceptable to the province with the largest coastline, British Columbia. However this was not the case and we now have a piece of legislation that quite frankly the Liberal government promised the environmental movement it would pass in this parliament, regardless of whether or not it was poorly drafted.

The poor drafting I am referring to deals with many clauses of the bill, from the preamble, to the creation of a marine conservation area or MCA, to the consultation regulations and more. However we are here to discuss clause 13, the very clause which gives most British Columbians great concern.

So there is no misunderstanding, allow me to read clause 13 to the House of Commons so all members and viewers in our ridings understand just how draconian the clause really is and why it should be deleted from the bill. Clause 13 on page 9 reads:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

My motion is very simple. It states:

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

What the clause means is that wherever the federal government decides to create a marine conservation area, for example off the coast of B.C., in that MCA as they are called, no one will ever be able to use the natural resources within or below that seabed.

Many in this parliament who represent ridings outside B.C. may not know that our coastline holds vast treasures, notwithstanding a deposit of hydrocarbons the size of which would dwarf the reserves in Hibernia off the coast of Newfoundland. It is the future of these very reserves which is at stake with this legislation. Should Bill C-10 pass with clause 13 intact, the future of B.C.'s offshore oil and gas industry is definitely threatened.

Some may wonder why it is that oil companies cannot use their sophisticated drilling equipment and drill under the MCA from a point outside the park. Why not? Directional drilling is used around the world with great results and a positive safety record. It is said that an oil rig can drill down and across a horizontal line thousands of metres. Figures as high as 10 kilometres are available. It would seem that to preserve the integrity of the MCA and provide a future income for B.C., this would or could have been done. However department officials tell us that as the bill is currently drafted this is impossible.

This brings me to explain how we tried to arrive at a compromise with the government on this clause. We understand its concern for having oil rigs within MCAs so we tried to amend the clause to read that directional drilling from a point outside an MCA to a point within an MCA be permitted. We even went so far as to place the onus of safety to the environment on the backs of the oil companies to prove their methods would pose no harm to the environment. They would even have to prove this to the minister of heritage herself and only she could give final approval for directional drilling if she deemed it to be safe. The government flatly refused.

I believe that the parliamentary secretary in committee said, and I am paraphrasing, that this is an area we cannot ever agree on or they are diametrically opposed to our view on this clause. Either way it was a flat out no. The government would not consider it.

The heritage committee heard from numerous witnesses who were experts in the field of offshore oil and gas development who pleaded with the committee to allow such an amendment. Those requests fell on deaf ears. The Canadian Alliance heard them and tried to fix the problem. However the government ignored the reality of the situation and as usual, did what was best for it in Ottawa and not what would have been in the best interests of those most affected by the decisions made by this bubble of a world called the Government of Canada in Ottawa.

We tried to explain to the committee that the clause as written would have a devastating effect on British Columbia in more ways than one.

Currently, the bill allows the federal government to place marine conservation areas on coastal waters it deems is the property of Her Majesty in right of Canada. Allow me to explain that the general rule is that coastal waters up to 10 nautical miles off the coast and between any land masses or islands are the exclusive right of the province and that anything beyond that 10 nautical mile line is the property of the federal government, up to our 200 nautical mile limit. This seems clear enough. However, a jurisdictional problem comes into play with British Columbia.

There is a space of water called the inside passage, an area where the U.S. has free passage to get to the state of Alaska. This area has always been grey. Also, the federal government measures B.C.'s coastal area to 10 nautical miles from the mainland. It does not start measuring from the far western side of Vancouver Island or the far western side of the Queen Charlotte Islands as does the province. That leaves a large space of water called the Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the Juan de Fuca Strait as disputed areas.

I believe jurisdiction has been solved for Juan de Fuca but it is still being disputed when it comes to the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.

Here is where the devil lies in the details: The heritage department plans to place at least five marine conservation areas in coastal B.C. since it says there are five representative regions of oceanic relevance in B.C. coastal waters. One of those areas is the Hecate Strait, another is the Queen Charlotte Sound. These areas are both within my riding of Skeena and are my specific concern. If these areas are slated for at least one MCA each and the jurisdiction of their waters is currently under dispute by the provincial government, how does this affect the creation of MCAs and the rules laid out in Bill C-10? This has been my question all along.

Members may be wondering when I am going to relate all of this back to clause 13. I plan to do so shortly.

The federal government does not consider these areas as under disputed jurisdiction; it believes them to be the government's, period.

Getting back to clause 13, if the federal government can unilaterally place an MCA in an area it believes is within its right to do so and that same area holds an untold amount of reserves of oil and gas, then clause 13 prevents in perpetuity that area from ever being harvested. Now members can see my concern with clause 13. This could potentially have a devastating effect on the already poor economy of coastal British Columbia.

Just look at what Hibernia has done for the economy of Newfoundland and those small coastal communities. Things are booming.

After years of NDP mismanagement of the province of B.C., we need those oil and gas reserves to put our province back on the map. If Bill C-10 goes through the House without clause 13 deleted, B.C. can kiss its future economic potential goodbye. It can send its thanks to the Liberal federal government and its ignorance of a people needing to be self-reliant.

I mentioned at the beginning that neither I nor my party is against marine conservation areas and I want to stress that. However, we want balance in the legislation as opposed to a one-sided view to the needs of the environment.

The second outcome of clause 13 may very well be that the provincial government may never allow or cede its rights to lands the federal government knows is a provincial jurisdiction to allow an MCA to be created if it cannot ever harvest the sub-seabed resources.

If the clause is left intact and should Bill C-10 be passed, it could cause B.C. to not have the MCA it wants because it cannot afford to give up those natural resources below the seabed of that MCA.

Where would that leave the environmentalists? They would have a defective piece of legislation which the federal Liberal government has said it will pass regardless and there would likely be MCAs on federal land only. Should those MCAs be on disputed lands, the federal government would be looking at constitutional challenges from the province, likely won by the province. Since clause 13 outlaws the development of those hydrocarbons in the MCA, the province would be forced to shut down that MCA in order to develop the oil and gas.

All this could be avoided if the government would just amend the bill by deleting clause 13.

I stress that this could have been much easier if the government, through the parliamentary secretary, had allowed our amendment for directional drilling.

I truly believe the federal government really does not understand the needs of British Columbians. Perhaps that is why it only has two elected representatives in B.C.

I urge all members to stop the trend of thinking by bureaucrats who do not have to live with the effects of their decisions and to support my amendment to delete clause 13 of the bill.

I remind all members representing coastal ridings that although I have not focused on Atlantic Canada, I am told there is also jurisdictional dispute over waters on their coast. They too could be held hostage by this clause some day. I urge the House to support the deletion of clause 13.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to protect the environment, but is it necessary to do it by a duplication of jurisdictions and services?

We believe that the creation of marine conservation areas meets the objectives of numerous international forums, such as the World Conservation Strategy of 1980. However, such objectives, though they maybe commendable, should not lead to an overlap of our respective jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act, 1867 gives Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over the management and sale of public lands. Why redo what has already been done?

If the federal government intends to use environmental protection legislation to take over provincial lands, this is unacceptable. Instead, we must encourage co-operation between Quebec and the federal government. It is time that this government stopped using a steamroller and centralizing approach.

Quebec's legislation on public lands covers all lands, including the beds of rivers and lakes. Quebec has legislative jurisdiction over this area and it has already passed legislation. Why then have federal legislation that would deny the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and provinces? Is Quebec not as competent to meet conservation objectives?

Let us not forget that the management of the bed of the St. Lawrence River is a Quebec jurisdiction by sovereign right. The protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. In this respect, the Quebec government is establishing a framework for the protection of marine areas. It is also possible to protect habitats and fauna through co-operation.

The Bloc Quebecois showed demonstrated its co-operation by supporting the bill establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in 1997. Despite this successful co-operation, the federal government is stubbornly opposing a process that is working well. Why is the federal government once again refusing to respect Quebec and listen to reason?

I am concerned about the future of intergovernmental relations. How can we trust a legislative process that does not respect the public interest, and a government that does not respect its own departments? Let us not forget that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a marine area protection program, and I want to insist on the fact that this program is already in place.

This bill is another example of pernicious interference on the part of a centralizing federal government in Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions, and another example of the methods used by the federal government, which ignores other partnership experiences that were very successful. Why not follow a process that has worked very well and that would work very well once again? Will the federal government respect Quebec some day?

The outcome of such a bill is obvious: confusion, but above all a lack of respect. It could result in a duplication of tasks and jurisdictions, within a government that does not even see it. How can the federal government justify this useless duplication?

How will we find our way through all these terms to protect the environment? With this bill, the government wants to create marine conservation areas through heritage canada, when there are already marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife areas under Environment Canada. Again, how will we find our way through all this? Even the government seems completely lost and conveniently forgets that programs to protect habitats and fauna are already in place.

If we stop and think about it, there is no way to know who will take precedence in the event of conflict. Which of these departments will have the last word. Who is going to decide this? To decide is to disparage one department compared to another.

This overlap is a double-edged sword for the federal government. The government insists that the environment is a priority, but it is using this bill as an opportunity to promote national identity, thereby denying the true objectives of the bill. After all, Heritage Canada is not known for its environmental expertise.

A dangerous appropriation of resources emerges from all of this confusion, and it will quickly become insurmountable. Even officials from the various departments are lost. It is impossible to understand. We are not the only ones who will not understand it. It is easy to imagine how this overlap will create confusion among the major environmental stakeholders.

Who will really manage these protection areas? In the case of a conflict, which department will settle the matter? And which department will truly be able to penalize offenders. Just who will be able to make any sense of this quagmire of overlapping departmental policies? These are some of the many questions which remain unanswered.

If the risk of confusion within the same government is so great, one can only imagine the resulting confusion when you add in other levels of government and all of the stakeholders. It the departments within one government cannot get their act together, how are they going to interact with Quebec and the provincial governments?

It is plain to see why Quebec would refuse to co-operate on this project. First, there is a flagrant disrespect for areas of responsibility belonging to Quebec exclusively. Second, the federal government is incapable of providing the specific reasons as to why this is a Heritage Canada bill, when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a program in place.

First off, we oppose the bill, because the aim of the federal government with it is to appropriate lands under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces by legislating the creation of marine areas.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill because it ignores the distribution of exclusive jurisdictions set out in subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act, 1867.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill because it will not fail to produce endless administrative problems. It can truly be said at this point that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The stakes are too high to be taken lightly. The effects are serious and will, in some cases, be irreversible. Therefore respect for the division of exclusive jurisdictions is essential to preclude all ambiguity. Co-operation must be encouraged to avoid unnecessary and harmful duplication.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill, because Heritage Canada is trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own. It is unacceptable that Heritage Canada should attempt to have legislation passed to acquire land.

In short, the federal government, through Heritage Canada, is attempting to meddle in areas of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction under cover of the environment.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-10 because of the duplication of responsibilities among the various levels of government and departments within the same government.

I am disappointed by the roundabout way the federal government is trying to appropriate areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that does not respect Quebecers and fails to consider actions and programs already in place. Finally, the federal government has chosen to flatten its own departments by firing up its centralizing steamroller, ignoring partnerships that have proven themselves.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief points to make at this stage of the debate.

First, I would like to begin by touching on the motions brought forward by my friend from Windsor--St. Clair. Again I commend him for bringing forward these ideas. I am not sure we can support all of them because they are very restrictive. It pains me to say this, but I think the government has had some balance in some other clauses which actually addresses these issues and part of Motion No. 7 is actually covered in clause 13 of the bill.

Second, what we saw earlier in this place at report stage on the first group of motions was quite unique. What happened, for those who are not aware of it, is that we had a very important amendment brought forward by our colleague from Skeena, which he withdrew with the consent of the House because the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister and the government, incorporated the intent of that amendment into a government amendment. I believe that is a good faith step on the government's part to demonstrate that it is willing to take into consideration some of the ideas and concerns that have been brought forward by opposition members and incorporate them in the bill.

I want to highlight that because it does not happen very often. In fact, I do not know if I have ever seen that happen in this place. The parliamentary secretary moved the motion and it was seconded by the member for Skeena, a member of the official opposition.

That is a small step, I think, but is one that we need to celebrate in regard to the fact that we can move forward together in this place on even a small issue such as that.

The third point I will make is that I hope the goodwill in making that small change to this bill demonstrates to us the intent of the government toward the rest of the bill. It demonstrates that the concerns brought forward by my colleagues on the opposition side have been considered and that it is not the intent of the government to proceed with the creation of a marine conservation area unless there is extensive consultation with the jurisdictional areas in which that zone would be created, and a zone would not be created in an area where there may be high potential for gas and oil exploration. The fact that the parliamentary secretary has brought forward the motion would seem to indicate that is the intent of the government.

I will close by simply saying that it is our strong hope that the degree of trust we are putting in the government to make this change and some of the other changes that have been made in terms of consultation, which I will address in much more detail tomorrow at the next stage of the reading of this bill, is held to, that the changes we have attempted to put into the bill will change the letter of the law so that the spirit of the law may be adhered to, that is, that there will be wide consultation with all concerned parties before an area is created. We think it is a good idea to create marine conservation areas, but we think it must be done in balance with consideration of the local communities where these marine conservation areas will be established.

I will end my remarks by saying that it was positive that we made that change together here in the House. We should support the amendment later on in this place.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I again thank all members for participating today in the debate at report stage. I would like to address the amendments proposed by the member for Windsor--St. Clair.

I understand the member's concern about ecological integrity. As I said earlier, ecological integrity is a key principle that governs our parks legislation. Parks Canada would continue to administer the marine conservation areas. The purpose of the bill is very different from that of the parks act. We are trying to strike a balance between sustainable use and protection.

We want to engage the coastal communities, as the member for Skeena brought forward many times. We listened to those coastal communities during the hearings. We must look at the bill as a different type of legislation than the parks act. It is legislation which looks at the ecosystems. It is not only about the management of ecosystems but also about people living in their communities, appreciating the environment and working together to manage the ecosystems.

Another part of the bill is about educating Canadians from coast to coast to coast about our wonderful marine heritage. Therefore it is quite different from the parks act.

The principles of ecological integrity are absolutely key to the national parks. We must also remember that national marine conservation areas are not parks on water. They are quite different and their needs are quite different.

The potential for zoning is provided so that we can work with communities to determine which are so-called no take zones and which are the ones that people can enjoy. I understand where the hon. member is coming from and appreciate his comments and concerns. However we have to be very clear that this is different legislation from the parks act.

As I said previously, when we were looking at the first set of amendments there was fear of creating too many prohibitions. Many environmental groups felt that we did not go far enough in this area, but the problem with too many prohibitions was that there was fear from coastal communities that they would not be able to take advantage of parts of the marine system that they needed for their livelihood.

We want to ensure that we are able to get consensus to have these representative areas along with the sampling within the 29 regions that have been established by our scientists.

I will speak to the amendment proposed by the member for Skeena which would delete clause 13. We cannot agree to the amendment. The Canadian Alliance is asking us to remove a key conservation provision of the bill. That is not something the government is willing to do or will accept as an amendment.

The intent of the motion was to allow exploration and exploitation of non-renewable resources. It is very important that this is not just a Liberal idea. In fact activities involving non-renewable resources are banned in marine protected areas worldwide. It is an international understanding that those activities are prohibited.

Clause 13 is also a response to the overwhelming concerns of environmental scientists and the general public regarding oil spills that sometimes result from offshore production and damage.What we are trying to do is not only look at the ecological integrity but manage it. We feel it is absolutely vital that we retain clause 13. If we remove clause 13 we will be truly removing one of the vital conservation areas of the bill.

All parties agreed to the amendment regarding mineral and energy assessment. Therefore there are mineral assessments before a marine conservation area is designated. We will put that into the act with all party consent.

It is not the intention of the government to impose a marine conservation area on communities that do not want it. There was an example where a feasibility study was undertaken on the east coast. The community felt that it did not want it and we did not proceed with it. I want to make it absolutely clear that it will never be the intention to unilaterally impose a marine conservation area on a community or province.

We are working in partnership with the provinces. If the bed lies within provincial jurisdiction my colleagues should look at subsection 5(2)(b) of the act to ensure that we truly respect and do not overrule the province's jurisdiction. We look forward to working in partnership with communities and provinces to ensure that we find these representative samplings.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.