The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today before this House, not only as a member of parliament, but also as a citizen concerned with protecting the environment.

Like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I am in favour of legislation aimed at protecting the environment and of measures focusing on environments at risk, be they land or water.

Is it necessary to remind this House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? Our support, however, is neither blind nor naive. We will continue to support pro-environment bills, but not at any price nor in just any way. Hence our opposition to Bill C-10.

Our primary objection is that the federal government's intention is to use this bill to appropriate lands that are under provincial jurisdiction by making orders concerning the creation of marine areas.

The federal government would contravene section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that the management and sale of public lands are a provincial, not a federal jurisdiction. The federal government cannot use an environmental protection measure to appropriate provincial lands. It should seek the provinces' co-operation, instead of resorting to its usual steamrolling and centralizing approach.

This is yet another example of the federal government's stubbornness about a process that works well. Again, the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the result of co-operation and partnership. Why does the government refuse to listen to reason?

It is the case with the young offenders legislation. The Quebec approach, which is based on rehabilitation and reintegration, has proven effective, but the federal government continues its push for a hard line approach. Today, I realize that the government is using the same process with this bill in that it wants to pass it first and then look at the issues.

I fear for the future of intergovernmental relations because we cannot trust a process that does not respect the public interest and, more importantly, because we cannot trust a government that does not respect its own departments. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a program of marine protection zones in place. I stress the fact that this program is already in effect.

The result of all this is a state of confusion, and particularly of lack of respect. This is a case where the winner will be the one that will manage to gain the upper hand. Within the same government, we could end up with a duplication of tasks and skills.

Why do we want duplication? How can the government justify this duplication? Why is it necessary? How many levels are required? How far will the federal government go in its quest for duplication?

What worries me about this scenario is the rivalry that will result. On the one hand, we have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has expertise in this area. There is the Department of the Environment, which also has expertise in this area. On the other hand, we have Heritage Canada, which has a mandate to promote Canadian unity. Which of them can we trust? Which of them should we trust: Heritage Canada, which uses the environment for national unity purposes, or Fisheries and Oceans, which manages our marine natural resources? Can we trust the federal government to make the right choice in this case? Sometimes, I wonder whether the government has any judgment left, let alone common sense.

My main concern about the bill is the flagrant lack of co-operation within the government itself. I strongly doubt whether such behaviour would reassure the other levels of government regarding the introduction and enforcement of a bill which intentions are noble, but which really boils down to unhealthy rivalry.

This brings me to another question: Who will have the upper hand in the event of conflict? Which department will have the last word? If the federal government answers this, it will be tantamount to revealing its true objective and its true nature as far as the purpose of this bill goes. This could easily become a two edged sword. On the one hand, it insists that the environment is a priority, while on the other it takes advantage of this fine principle to flog national identity, using Heritage Canada which, I would remind hon. members, possesses no expertise whatsoever as far as the environment is concerned.

The result is regrettable. Even if we do not go so far as to call it a downright dangerous appropriation of funds and resources, there is confusion, total and insurmountable confusion. There is such confusion that even those in charge of the various departments are lost themselves.

If there is confusion among the departments, it is easy to imagine what confusion there would be among the key stakeholders. Which department will be the one to really administer this protected zone? Which one will really administer the stakeholders? Which will penalize those breaking the law? All these questions remain without answers, and no answers will be forthcoming, for there is no one capable of answering without sinking into a morass of duplicating and overlapping policies.

With this much confusion within the federal government itself, it is easy to imagine the confusion there would be at other levels of government. To whom would a provincial government such as Quebec go in connection with the administration of a protected zone? I have no idea.

This confusion gives rise to another problem as well. The problem is a fundamental one. If the ministers of a government cannot work together, how can we expect the provincial governments and Quebec to collaborate? It is understandable why the Government of Quebec would refuse to collaborate in this project. The federal government is unable to tell us clearly and precisely why this bill comes from Canadian Heritage, when Fisheries and Oceans Canada already has a marine area protection program. The Bloc Quebecois cannot but oppose such an incredible administrative muddle as this.

The way this bill is to be implemented is not clear and cannot be because of the nature of its objectives.

Canadian Heritage is assuming jurisdictions that are not its own. It is also trying, with this bill, to take over areas that are not its areas and thus to meddle once again in provincial jurisdictions and in Quebec's jurisdiction, under cover of the environment. How far will the federal government go in taking over Quebec's and provincial jurisdictions?

I reiterate my opposition to Bill C-10 on protected marine areas for several reasons, including the overlap of the responsibilities of departments and, more particularly, because of the indirect approach taken in appropriating jurisdictions that belong exclusively to the provinces and Quebec.

Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that ignores action already taken, and successfully.

I fear for the future of people who believe in this government, which takes no account of their interests. I fear for the future of our environment when the objectives of a bill put before us ignore its primary focus, the environment.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Mississauga South Ontario

Liberal

Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the member suggested that Bill C-10 interfered in provincial jurisdiction. He also noted that the proposed legislation had areas of overlap with provincial legislation.

Would the member advise the House of one example of overlap to which he refers?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Mr. Speaker, the example is simple. These are provincial jurisdictions, these are Quebec's jurisdictions. The two levels of government co-operated when the agreement on the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was signed. The question begs the answer.

Duplication on the government's part will be twofold. It is trying to take over lands that belong to Quebec, lands that come under provincial jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution Act, 1867. It is duplication to try to take over lands by using such a noble piece of legislation, a bill dealing with marine areas and wildlife conservation on certain lands.

I have been asked to give examples. Well, it is all the pitiful attempts by the government to use the environment to get hold of some land. This is unbelievable, in my opinion.

We must protect the environment, but through co-operation with Quebec and in the respect of existing jurisdictions. The federal government did it once. The Quebec government was very co-operative and this allowed for the protection of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine conservation areas. That agreement was made possible thanks to Quebec.

Why is the government now putting this in the hands of Heritage Canada, when there is overlapping even in that department? We wonder about the reasons for such duplication. Just imagine. This government already has experts in the Department of the Environment and in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the sponsor of this bill is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We wonder why. I am asked “Where is the duplication? Where is the overlapping?” Nothing could be more obvious.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in the debate on Bill C-10, on marine conservation areas.

We know that the bill reflects the pan-Canadian vision that is characteristic of the present government. History will probably remember this government as the champion of centralization, as far as the development of this great beautiful Canada is concerned, a country that is more and more untied because Ottawa wants it to be so, even though it does not necessarily have the agreement of the Canadian population. Of course, members understand that if I mention the agreement of the Canadian population, it is because it is obvious that there are doubts about the agreement of the Quebec population.

We know that the present federal government, under this parliament and under the previous one, has been guided by the social union framework agreement, signed in February 1999 by nine provinces out of ten. Mr. Bouchard, the head of Quebec state, like all his predecessors no matter their party allegiances, refused to take part in a scheme aimed at trivializing Quebec by refusing to recognize its specificity and the existence of its people.

This is why Premier Lucien Bouchard refused to sign the social union framework agreement, which has nonetheless actually been implemented. It is a tragedy for Quebec and for the people of Quebec to see the actions of this institution, which is so pretentiously democratic. We saw it recently at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Canada praised democracy and demanded democracy from other countries, even taking a tough stance against the Cuban government. This does not ring true when one knows how things work in this great Canadian democracy, where returning officers are still appointed on a partisan basis.

When the premier of Quebec, the head of the Quebec state, refused to sign in 1999, as one of his predecessors refused to sign in 1982, the unilateral patriation of the constitution under Prime Minister Trudeau, it did not change anything to Canadian logic. It did not disturb the federal steam roller, which is there to level the provinces. It is there to standardize them, which may be necessary. That is one of the constraints of globalization to increase efficiency in Canada, but it is a tragedy for Quebec to be stripped of its specificity and of its distinct character and to be moulded, week after week, month after month, into the great Canadian whole with no attention being paid to its distinctive features.

No attention is being paid to the fact that Quebec is supposed to be, according to the member for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister of Canada, a distinct society. It is the government people themselves who invented this concept, following the commitments made in Verdun, where Quebecers were told that they were a distinct society. Then, without even using that expression, commitments were made during the referendum campaign, just as Mr. Trudeau had made commitments in 1980. He had said that he would put his head on the chopping block if changes were not made, although he did not say which changes exactly. They put theirs seats on the line for Quebec to be duly recognized within the Canadian federation.

What happened in the following months? They announced that the constitution was being patriated, which happened in 1982 without Quebec's consent. This phenomenon occurred again in 1999 with the social union.

This is quite a change; the more it changes the more it is the same. No efforts were spared, through a shameless propaganda campaign to the tune of $1,000 or $2,000, as we say in Quebec “The sky is the limit”, to try to convince Quebecers they can be good Canadians. They have tried to convince Quebecers slowly and carefully of the value of the concept of nations, founding nations in particular, and distinct society to mention a few, to get back to this one, which was put forward by the Primer Minister himself. They never said to which areas distinct society would apply.

Would it apply to marine conservation areas? No, it would not. Would it apply to parental leave? No, it would not. Would it apply to the young offenders issue? No, it would not. Would it apply to privacy policy, where I dare say Quebec is far ahead of Canada as it is in many other areas?

We could also mention the personal information issue about which the Conseil du patronat as well as the Quebec Bar and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux told the government “stay out of this. Quebec's legislation is excellent. We do not need the strong arm of the federal government interfering in the area of personal information. Stay out of this. We have good legislation in Quebec”.

Distinct society does not apply in this area any more than it does with regard to parental leave, marine conservation areas and 5$ a day care. If the government was consistent, it would say “We made commitments during the referendum campaign. With all due respect for democracy in Quebec and for the people of Quebec, we are going to implement what distinct society means. Distinct society means an unconditional right to opt out, because Quebecers are distinct, because they have successfully handled a particular responsibility of our collective life. We therefore have no need to duplicate what already exists”.

No, that is asking too much. Why? Because we know perfectly well that, if this government dared to do such a thing openly, particularly with the knowledge of the English majority in this country, there would be quite an outcry from English Canadians, who would once again massively reject, as they did the Charlottetown accord, any vague desire by this government to recognize that the people of Quebec have distinct rights or characteristics.

It is a dead end for Quebec. Slowly but surely, Quebecers are coming to the realization that there is no future in this country. There is no future for characteristics specific to Quebec or for the normal evolution of the Quebec people in this country. It is two countries in one. It is two different kinds of logic: the Canadian one and the Quebec one. This was the simple description that Marcel Léger, the well known and marvellous Parti Quebecois organizer, came up with during the constitutional debate. René Lévesque described it as two scorpions in the same bottle. If we go further back in time, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission referred to two solitudes in 1963.

That is the real Canada, a country in which the provinces are all put on the same footing, a country in which the power will be inexorably displaced to Ottawa, where decisions from coast to coast will be made in Ottawa. It has no time to lose with Quebec, which will be made to fit in and slowly disappear.

People need to be aware that, particularly because Quebec cannot control its immigration, some demographers feel that the Island of Montreal will be non-francophone within eight, ten or twelve years. People need to be aware that, as a result of immigration and the birth rate, Quebec will go from its present 24% of the Canadian population to just 21% within 25 years and just 16% within 50 years.

There is, therefore, an implacable process under way that will end up with Quebec's being trivialized, neutralized, if it continues to be part of Canada. Quebec must leave, and the necessity of this is illustrated by Bill C-10 on marine areas, in which the government announces quite openly that the ownership of these will be federal, whereas there is a law in place which states that the beds of the rivers, the St. Lawrence and its estuary are the property of the government of Quebec.

This is confrontation. This is what all these squabbles about overlap are, these meetings of public servants who want to wage administrative battles to the detriment of the public purse. It is the poor old taxpayers who will have to pay through the nose for all these multiple meetings, evidence of how conflicted this country is, while the federal government ignores the recent example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which offered a model of a well administered conservation area. This is no longer a model for the new Canada that has been under construction since 1999, with social union and all the logic that goes with it. This needs to be understood in future by all concerned.

I am sure that some hon. members on the other side are unaware of the gravity of this situation.

There are social democrats and humanists among the Liberals, and among others, who have not assessed the situation. There are people of vision, who love Quebec and know it. I am sure they do not want Quebec to be minimized and ultimately wiped off the map.

Under the democratic process mentioned earlier, what are we reduced to, if we want some degree of vision? The people of Quebec are reduced to being cut down, and systematically so, and will end up looking like Acadia, with all its charming influence. Then, the next stage is Louisiana and folklore. That is the sad truth. It is relentless.

My colleagues from Quebec sitting opposite must understand what machinations they are involved in. It is abnormal to be so negligent, so careless. Or perhaps they are happy, I do not know. There is one thing, though, there are things to be said between Quebecers and between right thinking persons, on the evolution of this people.

I must mention the article by Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse on Saturday, which gave rather nasty and cavalier treatment to a report on the constitutional position of the Liberal Party of Quebec . The report was written by an eminent constitutionalist, Benoît Pelletier, from the Outaouais region.

It is a discussion paper for right thinking federalists, those who still dream of a Canada where Quebec will be respected, something I see as Utopian, a dead end. Ms. Gagnon says, and I quote:

In the next round, if there is one, God help us—

As if the problem were resolved.

—all the provinces, all the native nations and all of Canada's lobby groups will put their demands on the table, and the effect of this would probably move Quebec's position away from the status quo.

As if the status quo existed. This is the type of smoke and mirrors that we get from these types of individuals, such as Ms. Gagnon, and from others in Quebec, but Quebec is caught up in Canada's moving ahead.

It is somewhat like what the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport wrote in his document entitled “Building Canada through Sport”, which is a monumental mistake, but which at least is transparent. Since February 1999, Canada has been moving ahead, it is not the status quo. What we have is a Canada that is moving ahead like a steamroller, a Canada that trivializes the role of the provinces, something which may be necessary for its own good performance, but which is tragic for Quebec.

Ms. Gagnon continues by saying:

What would be achieved, for example, in having enshrined in the constitution a specificity that is obvious and that exists in any case?

“A specificity that is obvious and that exists in any case”. This “that exists in any case” is the type of smoke and mirrors used by Quebec federalists; it would exist in any case if it were enshrined in Canada's constitution. However Quebec's specificity does not exist in writing. According to these people, it is a perception, and yet, Quebec exists, the Quebec nation exists, the Quebec homeland exists. This is not recognized here and this is what is tragic.

In my opinion, this is why Quebecers will not always be able to have it both ways. We will lose at one level or at the other. If we do not react, as we are being asked to by the Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, it is going to be a matter of life and death for Quebec, in terms of its influence.

We know the influence Quebec has right now. Those who, like us MPs, have had the privilege of travelling, of meeting people on the international scene, see the planet differently. They see a planet with a rather impressive Quebec geographically, a Quebec that is home to seven million francophones who have a definite role to play and who contribute to humanity, which is unique, with its French influences, of course, and its English influences, with its important Montreal minority, a minority that is very respectable and very rich in every sense of the word, and its allophone population, because Quebec is incidentally a wonderful destination for immigrants.

There is also the Anglo-Saxon influences, particularly from Canada and the United States. We are a truly unique people, which is clearly an asset in terms of its contribution to the planet and to humanity. One just has to look at the situation from afar to realize that the fact that Quebec is not sovereign is a complete aberration, Mr. Trudeau would have said that it was a crime against humanity.

It makes one wonder where Canada's social democrats are and why they are not leading the fight for Quebec's sovereignty. Quebec has things to say. Quebec is different. What Quebec has to say would benefit not only Canada, but the international community as a whole.

I cannot get over how this great country of Canada has failed to grasp that Quebec's sovereignty would benefit everyone.

I cannot get over the naïveté, bad faith or cynicism of which Lysiane Gagnon is capable when she writes things like this about Quebec's specificity, which exists anyway. I cannot get over it. It is sticking one's head in the sand to reason like this when one is aware of the constitutional problem, because there is one. There is a constitutional problem in Canada.

I think we must go back to the basics of Quebec-Canada relations. There is something wrong with the course of action adopted following the 1995 referendum, which, in my view, consisted of three scenarios.

The first was the status quo, business as usual. The second scenario, driven by English Canadians frightened by the 49.4% of votes in favour, and the 60% of francophone votes in favour, and I think we are still allowed to say this, was to try to please Quebecers. The government would try to amend the Constitution of Canada so that Quebecers would feel comfortable in this country moving ahead. The country would amend its constitution to reflect the will of the people, because it had had a real scare, because for much of the evening on October 30, 1995, Quebec had decided in favour of sovereignty. As luck would have it, around 11.30 p.m., that sovereignty slipped out of our grasp. We have lived with this.

I think that English Canada could have learned something from this. The Liberal government therefore had the choice of making the country more welcoming to Quebecers.

A third scenario, which was the one the Liberals adopted, was to dig in their heels; let Quebecers do what they liked, let them make their own choices, but in Canada, this was the direction they were taking. Take it or leave it. They had no time and no energy to spare to try to find approaches that would make Quebecers happy because they would never be happy anyway.

So, they have chosen the hard line. They came up with Plan b and they enlisted the ineffable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. All of this was part of one big scheme. The style the minister has chosen is not conducive to problem solving.

They dug in their heels and said that that was the way to go and that Quebec could get on board or withdraw. The ball is now in Quebec's court. I think this deserves more in depth consideration. To help us with our reflection, we have before us today a technical bill that is utterly misleading and is part of a Canadian centralist vision where the federal government calls the shots and the provinces have to yield. In 8, 10, 12, 20, or 25 years from now, the provinces will be just big regional county municipalities.

This may be a good thing for English speaking Canada, but I maintain that it would be a tragedy for Quebec. I will fight tooth and nail to prevent this tragedy.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Mr. Speaker, what a beautiful follow-up when, after having spoken myself on a bill described as technical, I hear a general explanation such as the one my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois just made.

This debate today is very important on very important legislation about the environment. The government has trivialized it, but my colleague really put it into perspective to show how important and urgent it is and perhaps show, as we heard, how dishonest the government is.

As the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was saying, a bill like this one is once again an encroachment. This is done so often that we are not in a status quo situation any more. We are getting into something that might be dangerous for Quebecers.

How can Quebec counter such a bill and all those encroachments in its areas of jurisdiction? If such a measure and such encroachment on areas of jurisdiction persist, how can the Quebecers who are listening today know what will happen and how can Quebec counter these attacks?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Châteauguay for his question, which is not easy to answer. There is no magic way to counter the initiatives, which are to some extent illegitimate, of a government like this one, because our democratic rules are involved.

A government can legislate in areas where it believes it is legitimate to do so. When this government decides to more or less disregard the constitution, particularly where ethics are concerned, then the roads are clear, as we say in Quebec. It will be up to the voters to make a decision, following a properly conducted election campaign with a real debate. Hopefully, if there is a referendum, this type of issue will be raised.

It is all the more odious that listening to the member for Châteauguay, I was reminded that this government, which claims to be democratic and boasts about Canadian democracy, acted without a mandate, without consultation, without proper debate and without a popular verdict, in other words without the support of the population and without any referendum, when it decided in 1982 to repatriate the Constitution and in 1999 to launch the social union.

On the one hand, the government decided to repatriate and bring a major amendment to the constitution by entrenching into it a charter of rights, which was a transcendent event in the history of Canada, without a referendum, without seeking the opinion of the public and without any mandate. The issue was never raised during the election of 1980, but that did not stop the government. Neither did the government address the issue of social union in 1997 as we had. There had been discussions between the provinces to try to improve co-operation with Ottawa. When the federal government started throwing its weight around to impose its point of view, while giving goodies to the provinces that had given in, it had no mandate to do so, there had been no debate, let alone a referendum.

This is all the more unbearable today that we feel that the government is relying on this transcendent event in the history of Canada. Some people are talking about the major one, with the repatriation of the constitution, and the minor one, with the social union, in the evolution of Canada, a Canada that is moving ahead.

Today, the government draws on the social union to come up with this kind of bill, which is giving obvious moral authority to the Government of Canada without having any real legitimacy. It has no legitimacy, as it arises from a people's consensus that would have the Canadian government head in that direction. It is thus very wrong to act in this way, especially when the federal government claims that Canada is a democratic country.

I do not know if this answers the question of my colleague from Châteauguay, but like other measures taken in recent months, this bill clearly shows that this is how things are done in Ottawa now, and that Quebecers need to take note, because the provinces including Quebec will be cut out of the loop.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the previous two presentations by the Bloc.

It is the considered opinion of everyone who I have talked to in my travels across Canada that the worst part of the legislation is that many of the groups that would be mobilized against the legislation need to know which areas are being targeted by the government. The government refuses to include the specifics on which areas it is considering for marine conservation protection under the heritage bill.

Would the member like to comment as to which areas are being specifically targeted in the legislation in terms of what the people in Quebec might know about the government's intention?

The bill was brought up in the first session of the last parliament. It has been around in various formats for a long time and objections to it have also have been around for a long time. The government has said it would have those specifics but we still do not have them. I know the member was here in the last parliament. Does he feel the circumstances have changed since the last parliament? Is he able to address this obvious bad piece of legislation, without any schedules attached that need to be there, in order to mobilize local groups to comment?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's question, I do not feel there is much interest for this bill in Quebec.

If I go by the consultation that was supposed to take place, I am told that hardly anyone showed any interest in it. I do not know if it opens the door wider to federal intervention or if Ottawa will be reluctant to intervene since there is hardly any interest or support coming from Quebec.

I will take my area as an example; I cannot see the federal government stepping in when it came to a rather extraordinary body of water, namely Lake Saint-Pierre, which might be designated by UNESCO as a world heritage site for its flora and fauna. I cannot imagine that the federal government would throw its weight around.

Unless the federal government waves its constitutional magic wand, pouring in millions of dollars, using the surpluses, money from the unemployment insurance fund, pretending to be generous with Quebecers and giving them goodies, in our opinion anyway, to buy their conscience when they should condemn federal intervention and stand their ground. They might instead see it as being advantageous to their association or pressure group, making it easier money wise, as they would be freed from financial constraints.

As we know the flesh is weak. We know the government can be forward-looking. We know it, the Privy Council is here to make sure of it. Unless the federal government is banking on human weakness, I hope that the people, in Quebec at least, will see through it and be on their guard for Quebecers' sake.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. The Canadian Alliance supports sustaining and developing national parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. The Canadian Alliance also supports sustainable development and environmental protection regulations that have been fully debated by parliamentarians.

The bill is bad legislation in that it strengthens the power of cabinet while diminishing the effectiveness of elected representatives. No valid argument exists at this time for the need for the legislation.

It is obvious the government is not fully committed to the file, as legislation has been allowed to die on the order paper at least twice previously. We know it is unnecessary in that the regulatory framework already exists to accomplish what the bill purports to want to achieve. To sum it up, it is a power grab by the heritage department, and other government departments are not saying anything when they should be.

I have a living example from when I was in the Atlantic provinces last week with the fisheries committee. There is a fisheries department with its set of regulations for marine conservation. There is a lot of offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Newfoundland and off the south coast of Nova Scotia. There is a board called the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board which has full representation from the province and from the federal government for joint decision making. Its job is to issue the leases for oil and gas development.

If there is one thing that would be at complete conflict with oil and gas development, it is obviously the creation of a no-go marine conservation area. One would think that would also have joint federal and provincial administration and decision making. Guess what? It does not.

Where is the natural incentive for the province if it is fully represented on the offshore petroleum board and unrepresented on marine conservation areas as envisioned under the Fisheries Act or under the fisheries department and by this legislation? Obviously, it sets up a federal-provincial problem and an incentive that is unbalanced in favour of offshore oil and gas development at the possible expense of the environment. It is hardly a balanced approach to take and an obvious shortcoming of this and other marine conservation legislation.

In my question to the Bloc member for Trois-Rivières I spoke about my concerns regarding knowing where these 29 parks contemplated by the marine conservation legislation of the Department of Heritage existed. The legislation should describe the location of the parks it intends to create and insert the information into the schedule.

There was lots of time to do it. If the department did not have time when it first submitted the legislation to the last parliament, it certainly has had time by now to fill in lots of the gaps. However it does not want to because it might mobilize even more people concerned about the legislation.

Right now if the government was going to create a land based park, a new national park, it would have to bring it to this place. If the bill goes through and it wanted to create a new offshore park, order in council or cabinet could make that decision. It never has to come here. That is totally inappropriate. However, if we ever wanted to reduce or remove one of those areas from that status, then it would have to come back here. That is what I call hypocrisy, a double standard and any other number of negative terms.

I spoke on the bill before in its previous form. It has not changed a whole bunch. There are things that are not well known to the public that need to be known. For example, fishing activity, aquaculture or fisheries management, marine navigation, marine safety plans are all subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage under this bill. That is a power grab.

One can see there is already difficulty, and I saw examples of this last week, between the agenda of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the agenda of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in terms of which one is the lead agency, which one deals with the stakeholders and all that when it comes to offshore oil and gas development on the east coast. We are going to get there on the west coast in terms of oil and gas development. The debate and the discussion is going to move forward. Quite honestly, it is a mess. We do not need this piece of legislation.

Right now it is very clear whose mandate and responsibility some of these activities are. It is going to become diffuse, subject to competing agendas. We are going to see the special interest groups and the lobbyists using leverage on various government ministers and departments. They can go to one department and ask for their wish list. If they do not get it, they can threaten, cajole or do other things to go to the other department. They can handout their Brownie badges to whoever they think is appealing to their special interest, and the greater good gets lost. This is a way to fudge the ability to act in the national interest. It compromises the ability to act in the national interest and increases the viability of special interests to win the day rather than the greater good.

The bill, without any social economic studies, could for example prohibit exploration or exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic material.

Let us think about what I just said a few minutes ago. To set up one of these areas which excluded or prohibited fishing, the minister of fisheries and the minister of heritage would have to say it was okay. Why would the minister of heritage be asked if it was okay for fishing to be allowed some place on the British Columbia coast, or off the coast of Nunavut or off the coast of Nova Scotia? This is a problem. Any stakeholder that has looked at the legislation is very concerned about the implications. Those are all problems.

What is the lead agency? If we have a marine conservation area, which agency? With this we would have three federal departments that could set up marine conservation areas. Which department would set it up? How would they make that determination? Which would be the lead agency of the three to help chair this discussion?

I asked those kinds of questions last week in Halifax of fisheries officials and others. There were no answers. We are debating legislation that would change the status quo, which has been long contemplated. Nobody is even trying to respond to this kind of request in the public domain. This is nuts. The government members should be embarrassed at the mess it has created on marine conservation areas.

I have a major problem too in that provincial responsibility is potentially being completely co-opted by the federal government. I already talked about the natural incentive for the provinces when it comes to the offshore petroleum board, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. However it has major implications. Let me talk about west coast oil and gas again.

We will have a new provincial government this week. The election is on Wednesday and I think even the governing party has conceded of which is unheard. So we will have some new directions.

British Columbia worked long and hard and fought the federal government over who owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland coast. It went to the supreme court. This was a very long, detailed, expensive debate and proceeding. Guess what? The province won, it owns the seabed.

There is nothing in the legislation that excludes the ability of the Government of Canada to pre-empt that provincial jurisdiction by creating a marine conservation area in that area. That is a very clear conflict of jurisdiction and one that should be automatically clarified in the bill but it is not.

However the other parts of the coast where the province does not own the seabed are still problematic in terms of a federal power grab and a federal administration that is largely out of touch, particularly with remote coastal concerns on the British Columbia coast. I can speak to that with great authority, so can virtually all of the municipal level politicians and many of the provincial politicians from that part of the country.

We will have a major debate and a major initiative on things like what we will do on west coast oil and gas development. We do not need this piece of legislation hanging around in the current format to muddy that whole debate.

We know the heritage department has an agenda, but it will not fess up and tell us what it is. I have already said why it will not. One reason is because it does not want to stir up people who would be very upset with the specifics of what it is contemplating. Therefore, it wants to keep it general and broad, then it will only have to deal with the large, urban based groups that will look at the legislation more as a framework or a legal document rather than as something specific that is affecting a bunch of stakeholders. Somebody called it the mushroom syndrome, and that is right.

The bill requires provincial governments to obey it. The bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways. It will prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas exploration workers, local anglers, recreational boaters and others from being able either to earn a livelihood or enjoy themselves, at the possible expense of achieving almost nothing. If this were truly going to do something for the environment we would be more than happy to support it. The reality is quite different.

I did attend some of the heritage committee meetings. I was party to helping bring some witnesses to that committee. I was embarrassed at the treatment they received from some of the government members. The chief of the Campbell River Band was at the committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there. West coast fishermen were there. Rather than hearing the committee accept their legitimate face value concerns, what did we hear? We heard 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. I expressed my great concern at that time. Now, much later, I am still out of sorts about what happened on that particular day.

This is a sloppy piece of legislation. As I said, we would have three federal departments that could protect marine areas, two being Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill would put Heritage Canada into that picture as well. Any time we have more than one party responsible for managing something, we get diffused management and diffused objectives and things tend to fall apart. I learned that during my long working career. I think most Canadians would understand that precisely.

Also we have provincial governments that have legislation. Believe it or not, we have had provincial governments far-sighted enough to create marine conservation legislation. I ask members to guess what they have done under that legislation. They have actually created marine protection areas. We have quite a few in British Columbia that have been set up under the provincial government. Is that not marvellous, Mr. Speaker?

The legislation does not appear to deal with all of that. Yes, the government has had a very complicit government in British Columbia to deal with in the last 10 years. Hopefully we will have a new government in British Columbia that will set some new directions and new initiatives in terms of dealing with the federal government on a much more equivalent basis rather than in terms of the mushroom syndrome.

We are very concerned that we will be pre-empted from an opportunity to fully develop industry in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions by legislation that blindly creates parks without taking a lot of stakeholder interests into account. It is clear from the way this bill has been developed that those things have not been taken into account.

We recommend that the municipal level of government be put into this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a decision making role in whatever these specific areas are that municipalities are interested in. There has been no movement in that regard.

In summary, this is a bad bill and we should kill it.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Werner Schmidt Canadian Alliance Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a most enlightening dissertation and exposition of legislation now before the House. I wish to thank my hon. colleague for being so specific and thoughtful in his analysis and for the thoroughness with which he approached the problem with and the difficulties in the legislation.

There was one part of the legislation he hinted at that I think we should explore further. It seems to me that the legislation seems to be taking out of parliament the very essence of what parliament was created to do for the people of Canada. The difficulty centres around the possibility of an agency other than even a government agency actually creating a marine conservation area.

I know that this is particularly dangerous. It is bad enough if parliament gives this kind of power to an individual minister or to the cabinet. However, when the clauses contained in this legislation actually make it possible for a special interest group to force and to cause to be created a conservation area which then does not allow certain kinds of development to take place, then not only have we really usurped what the people of Canada elected us to do here but we have insulted every single, solitary person in the House, including members on the government side.

I would ask the hon. member whether he could explain a little more clearly whether that in fact could happen under this legislation. If that one provision is there, the bill should be scrapped, if for no other reason than that one, because it denies the House.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the legislation would pre-empt parliament, and yes indeed, cabinet would be able to create these marine conservation areas in a vacuum. I am very concerned about that. That is reason enough to topple the bill as far as I am concerned.

We live in an age that is cluttered with information and new information. That applies to every trade association, every stakeholder group, provincial, federal and municipal levels of government and the citizen at large.

One of the things that this or any parliament does is to open a window and allow people to catch up to the debate. It allows time for people who have an interest in the specifics to mobilize and to offer their input, pro, con and constructive. Those are the essentials of why we need to make that change, not only to this legislation but to any legislation. More and more of the legislation in this place is an enabling framework to allow either the bureaucracy to enact regulations or the cabinet to make decisions that basically are announced the next day by a press release or a press conference. The spin is managed and it is a done deal. That is not, in the long run, what is good for society.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Is this a Henry VIII clause?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the member for Vancouver Island North. In fact the member and a group from the fisheries committee were just in Nova Scotia. As he mentioned in his speech certainly there were some concerns raised by fishermen about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and decisions it might make that would impact their industry. There also were some concerns raised on marine conservation areas that might or might not be proposed in the future.

I wonder if the member would expand a little further on the concerns that fishermen expressed to us and others relative to those two points, especially as they relate to marine conservation areas.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the comments. We had some very good submissions to the committee dealing with the issues but people were asking questions for which they should have been able to get clear answers. One of the things I found most interesting is that we did not get a clear answer on whether people are allowed to fish in a marine conservation area. That was one of the questions asked. The official answer was yes, but of course that is not really the case.

If members listened to my speech and my analysis they will know that people can fish if they make application and it is approved, under this legislation, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That is a far different answer. The way it works now in most marine jurisdictions is that fishing is open unless it has been closed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Who is managing the fisheries? It is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister of heritage is not managing the fishery nor should she be.

We were also asked, and we in turn asked, who the lead agency is when there are multiple jurisdictions looking after marine conservation areas. There was not a clear answer on that question either. There obviously should be. There has to be. There must be. It might not always be the same agency or department. If we end up with three we may have to zone our marine conservation areas as to who is responsible for which ones in terms of being the lead. This is very frustrating to marine conservation proponents as well.

Even though we had the expertise in the room that we thought was appropriate under the circumstances, we did not get clarification on the important questions related to the legislation. There should be a whole lot more people getting a whole lot more concerned about the legislation. Part of the problem is that it has been around so long that nobody takes it seriously any more. One day it is going to be dropped on them and then they will be concerned.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that the House is eager to give unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the decision taken by this House earlier today with respect to the third reading of Bill C-26, when debate on Bill C-10 is completed this day, the House shall revert to consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-26, provided that, at 6.30 p.m. today, Bill C-26 shall be deemed to have been read a third time and passed.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way?