Pauline Picard

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange to see that this government is so interested in marine areas, that it is such an important issue for this government. Let us not forget that the idea of passing mirror legislation with regard to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park came from the government of Quebec.

The federal government thought it was a good idea and decided to copy it. So it included in its bill, as a condition for the establishment of a marine conservation area, that the federal government must own the lands where such marine conservation area is to be established.

So, unless one does not know how to read or is completely dumb, it seems to me that an essential condition for the establishment of a marine conservation area is that the federal government must own the lands where the marine conservation area is to be established.

This condition was not in the Saguenay marine park mirror legislation. In that case, we saw good co-operation between the federal government and the Quebec government. Everything was done through joint management, which we do not see in this bill.

Moreover, there is all this overlapping between the various departments I mentioned earlier. They are invading one another's areas of responsibility. It is so confusing. And, on top of that, the provinces would have to give up part of their lands so that the federal government can once again encroach on our jurisdiction.

This is typical of this government. Since we came here in 1993, it has been trying, in a roundabout way, to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It needs all these powers to achieve the status of supranational government. It does everything it can to try to take away chunks of each province's territory and jurisdiction. We are not surprised to see the government impose a condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas. This is such an insidious way of getting what it wants. Canadian Heritage is using marine conservation areas to take away a chunk of Quebec's territory. We are not fooled.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

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.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the government has decided to follow up on parliamentary issues that began during the 36th parliament.

National marine conservation areas have already been the object of two bills, namely Bill C-8 and Bill C-48.

Bill C-8 was introduced by Heritage Canada to provide a legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems.

As always, the Bloc Quebecois supports the establishment of environmental protection measures. We supported the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

I should point out that the Quebec government is currently taking measures to protect the environment and, more specifically, the seabed.

The Quebec government is also open to joint management, as demonstrated by phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.

Having said that, we cannot support Bill C-10 for three reasons.

First, contrary to what was done in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to act alone by giving itself the right to establish marine conservation areas without any regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

Second, the creation of a new structure proposed by Canadian Heritage will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment Canada's protected areas.

Third, although it is unable to protect the ecosystems in existing national parks, Canadian Heritage wants to create marine conservation areas.

The bill is consistent with the course set by a federal government, which is increasingly intruding on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Not only is it intruding, but now it is proposing duplication. In fact it would like to duplicate its own responsibilities.

Is it necessary to stress the fact that the bill before us does not respect the integrity of Quebec's territory? One of the main conditions to establish a marine conservation area is for the federal government to be the owner of the territory where it is to be established. The Constitution Act, 1867, states that the sale and management of public lands are an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec legislation on public lands applies to all public lands in Quebec, including the beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence River, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

In addition, the legislation would provide that Quebec could authorize the federal government to use its lands in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction but only by order in council.

I would add that habitat and wildlife protection is an area of shared jurisdiction and that the Quebec government is planning to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.

It would be in the best interests of the federal government to work with the provinces instead of challenging them.

We already have several examples of co-operation such as the protection of the ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and in the St. Lawrence River. All federal and Quebec departments have endorsed the St. Lawrence action plan, phase III.

Can the government explain clearly why it wants clear title to submerged lands to establish marine conservation areas?

Can it give us assurances and commit to respecting Quebec's land claims? Or is it going to ignore them as usual and establish marine areas wherever it sees fit?

It is our opinion that the mirror legislation which established the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park must serve as the model. It provides that both levels of governments, in Quebec City and Ottawa, continue to exercise their respective jurisdictions. There was no transfer of lands. The co-ordinating committee, which was struck to recommend to the minister responsible measures to reach the management plan objectives, encourages the involvement of local communities and is part of a Canada-Quebec co-operation framework.

There are other examples of co-operation. The environment is a shared jurisdiction under the Constitution Act 1867, and Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in the British North America Act, 1867.

By rejecting the concept of co-operation and by imposing title to the territory as an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is disregarding Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment, a further intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to illustrate just how complex the situation is in Canada when it comes to bodies of water. I will give an example that I have already given in a prior parliament but I believe it demonstrates just how complex the issues of jurisdiction are in relation to bodies of water, and the duplication between the federal and provincial governments.

Take the example of a fisherman who wants to go fishing on the St. Lawrence River. So far, so good. This fisherman has to ask the provincial government for a fishing licence.

He fishes on a boat he purchased in Quebec but on which he obviously paid a federal tax and a provincial tax. In order to launch his boat he must register it with the federal government.

Up to this point, everything is fine but before launching his boat he gets ready on the shore. He is on a territory under Quebec jurisdiction since the shores come under provincial jurisdiction.

However, the moment he launches his boat he changes jurisdiction because his boat is now on water, which comes under federal jurisdiction.

However, for clarity I must say that the bottom of the river is still under provincial jurisdiction. The fish that swims in the water and that the fisherman will try to catch is, unknowingly, under federal jurisdiction. But its friend, the crab, which is crawling on the bottom of the river, is under shared jurisdiction, even though the bottom of the river is still under provincial jurisdiction.

Once it is harvested, the fish that swims in federal waters will end up at the bottom of a boat. Then it falls under provincial jurisdiction. One must pay very close attention to the regulations, since there are federal quotas for those fish.

If we are talking about commercial fishing, there are federal and provincial laws and regulations regarding food, the environment, safety, equipment and so on. Do members understand? It is very complicated, is it not?

It is even hard for us to find our way through all this, so members can imagine how lost the average citizen who is not familiar with all these jurisdictions feels when he is told to get a licence.

[Charitable Organizations, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, how very interesting. L'Action nationale has sent me a letter in which it requests the minister to allow me access to its tax file and authorizes the information to be made public.

Does the minister now intend to make public the explanations provided by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency so that we may understand the reasoning behind such a decision?

[Charitable Organizations, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the Minister of National Revenue to review the unfair treatment of L'Action nationale , which is losing its right to issue tax receipts, a right it has had until now, and one which the Council for Canadian Unity enjoys.

Does the Minister of National Revenue intend to review this Canada Customs and Revenue Agency decision, and at the same time clarify why such an apparently incomprehensible decision was taken?

[Canadian Economy, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in his last budget, the Minister kept a $3 billion contingency fund for emergencies.

I ask him today how much of this $3 billion has been used to date, and for what purposes?

[Canadian Economy, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance admitted that Quebec had brought down a good budget, with a number of dynamic measures to support a faltering economy.

Now that the way has been laid, will the Minister of Finance follow the lead of Ms. Marois in Quebec City and meet the demands of all economic stakeholders, who want targeted interventions to stimulate the Canadian economy, exactly as the Bloc Quebecois plan suggests?

[Travel Agencies, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the travel and tourism industry has suffered and is still suffering from the September 11 events.

Travel agencies are among the hardest hit. Most of them are small businesses that lost their revenues when the airspace was closed.

Their work is intimately related to that of airlines, since they are often the ones that print tickets and deal with customers.

The U.S. government has already designed a program to help travel agencies that are suffering. However, no such measure has been taken in Canada.

The Association of Canadian Travel Agents is asking, justifiably so, to be compensated for losses estimated at $20 million.

I remind the Minister of Finance that if it was important to help airline carriers, it is just as important to support travel agencies. Otherwise, tens of these small and medium size businesses will disappear in each of our ridings.

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, such an idea surprises me a great deal. It has been proven in the health field that investment in health services and health care stimulates the economy.

Everyone knows that poverty has negative effects on health. Often the poor have health needs because of a number of different factors. Investing in health care, investing in resources, that stimulates the economy.

At this point in time, the government really does have the means. The proposed plan is in the order of $13 billion. Those are very conservative figures. Using $5 billion leaves it with $8 billion. The government need not worry. We also know very well how the Minister of Finance operates. All surplus funds go toward the debt, while the provinces are in obvious need.

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his kind words.

It is true that the riding of Drummond has experienced extraordinary economic growth. Small and medium sized businesses in the riding are doing rather well but they are adversely affected by the economic slowdown. They are concerned about this. Most of these businesses are in traditional sectors and they export 80% of their production to the United States. Everyone is concerned about the situation.

We are also affected by globalization. Some businesses invest in our region, which makes up for some layoffs, but people who have worked for 25, 30 or 35 years for a company are losing their jobs because of globalization. A company will shut down and move its operations to Mexico because workers there are paid less to do the same job.

This is very disrupting. Sometimes as many as 400, 500 or 600 workers can be laid off. The textile industry, in particular, is very vulnerable.

These workers include people who have been with a company for 30 or 35 years. These are older people who have worked at the same job throughout their adult life. They have a very hard time qualifying for another job because under our rules they are considered to be older workers. These people, who are in their fifties, often have children who are still in university, which is very costly. Unfortunately, since the federal government abolished the POWA program, they have nothing to turn to.

These measures, which were included in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development signed by all committee members, including Liberal members, would have given some hope to those who have been laid off because of the circumstances, the economic slowdown and globalization.

I may not have answered the hon. member's question specifically but I wanted to stress the fact that it is a very important measure for workers and for all Quebecers and Canadians.

The government absolutely must restore this measure. It should be changed, as we said in the past, but it should be restored to support people who lose their jobs.