As my colleague just said, fishers know how to cook fish.
As if that was not enough, Bill C-10 would create duplication within the federal government through Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada, which is why I said earlier that it was duplicating its own responsibilities.
There is good reason to be confused. The federal government wants to create marine conservation areas through Canadian Heritage, marine protected areas through Fisheries and Oceans Canada and, on top of that, marine wildlife areas through Environment Canada.
As shown in the example I gave a few moments ago, a particular site could have several designations. Why would Canadian Heritage want to create marine conservation areas?
We must go back to the preamble to the bill, where these reasons are listed:
—[protect] natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems ... for the maintenance of biological diversity;
establish a system of marine conservation areas that are representative—
ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine protected areas,
provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate and enjoy Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage,
provide opportunities... for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities;
At Fisheries and Oceans Canada these are called marine protection zones. It use, a different terminology. In January 1997, a discussion paper entitled “An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act” specified the objectives of these zones: to protect fishery resources, commercial and others, including marine mammals and their habitats, unique habitats, marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity and any other marine resource.
The government likes to say that local communities will play a major role in the establishment of marine protection areas. Could the government tell us to how many information and organization meetings local people were invited to attend to satisfy its bureaucracy?
Let us keep going. As for Environment Canada, it proposes the establishment of what will likely be called marine nature areas. Drafters have a lot of imagination. In fact, these areas are an extension of the concept of national wildlife areas beyond the territorial sea to the 200 mile limit.
This is clear as mud. Complicated, is it not? Even Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials came to the conclusion that the different terms used generate a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas: marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas and wildlife marine reserves. Why do the departments concerned not harmonize their efforts and co-operate in establishing these protected marine areas?
Would it not be preferable to have one, not three but one, department responsible for managing the protection of ecosystems, and would it not be preferable for the departments concerned to sign a framework agreement and delegate their respective responsibilities to that department? This government really likes to keep things simple.
Other sources of confusion? As if this was not enough. The bill provides that each federal department will keep its jurisdictions over marine conservation areas. The result is worse than in my story about the fisher. When Heritage Canada deems appropriate to do so, it can make regulations on a marine conservation area that differ from existing provisions, subject to the agreement of the minister concerned.
This change takes precedence over any other regulations made under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, or the Aeronautics Act.
I think that is plenty of confusion. It is enough to cause bloody chaos. Just reading it, one is aware of the increase in the coefficient of complication when this applies. To list them again: marine protected areas, marine wildlife areas and marine conservation areas, each with their own regulations, and then on top of that, the regulations superimposed by Heritage Canada. One can easily get lost.
Now let us look a little more closely at Heritage Canada's ability to protect the ecosystems of its existing national parks.
In 1996, the auditor general pointed out that Parks Canada's biophysical data were incomplete, or to put it more bluntly just not up to date, except for the Mauricie National Park. According to him, the department has not monitored ecological conditions in any regular and ongoing way.
The management plan for 18 of the national parks was 12 years old, whereas it was supposed to be reviewed every five years. During his visits, he became aware that there was no connection between the parks' business plans and their management plans. What is more, the management plans placed more emphasis on economic and social factors than on ecological ones.
There is also the marketing plan, which is aimed at drawing more visitors to national parks. The auditor general is concerned about Parks Canada's ability to preserve ecological integrity in national parks and to ensure sustainable park use.
People will understand, in the light of this unfortunate discovery, that we have little faith in Parks Canada's ability to preserve marine conservation areas, since it does not seem to have the resources to protect existing national parks.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park to serve as an example. This way, each time a new conservation area is to be established, the federal government would have to negotiate a partnership with Quebec. It must accept the principle that nothing is done without the agreement of the provinces concerned.
The opposition parties have proposed a whole series of amendments to prevent the federal government from acting unilaterally, but the government rejected them all.
The bill is another attack, another foray into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces, when they are involved. Quebec cannot function in this system. We have clearly demonstrated our openness to the federal government, particularly in the management of the marine area of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is sad and regrettable that this government has not learned the lesson.
This is why we continue to oppose Bill C-10, given that the Bloc's amendment was rejected and that we consider the improvements made are insufficient. Quebec's lands are not for sale.