Andy Mitchell

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in the debate and deal with some of the issues the Bloc has raised, particularly the critic who made the original intervention, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, who has worked hard with our department on a number of issues to try to enhance our protection of special places in this country.

I am very disappointed to hear the Bloc's opposition to this bill. The previous speaker from the Bloc tried to suggest to Canadians and Canadians in Quebec that it is not opposing an environmental bill, legislation that will help protect our marine ecosystems.

People should be absolutely clear that they are opposing just that type of legislation, they are opposing the protection of the marine environments in that part of the country. Why are they opposing it? They are opposing it because they put up a situation that does not reflect the reality of what this bill would do or reflect the reality of the conditions as they exist today.

As the member for Rimouski—Mitis said, there are eight potential marine conservation areas around the province of Quebec. I believe six of those areas are exclusively federal jurisdiction and the province of Quebec accepts that. There is no issue about infringing on provincial rights or provincial prerogatives. Those are accepted by all parties, by the province and federal government, as being exclusively federal.

When parks are established in that area, even though they are federal, as has been our practice in the past, we will consult with our host communities and the host province, but they are clearly federal jurisdiction.

There are situations where the jurisdiction could be provincial and I think we should look at the record when that situation existed. When we went to Ontario to establish Fathom Five, a marine conservation area, the first one in Canada, we worked with the provincial government and came to agreement with the provincial government. We are working today in British Columbia in Gwaii Haanas. Again we work with the province and have come to an agreement with it.

We are working in terms of some feasibility studies, one in my hon. colleague's riding of Gander—Grand Falls. It is the same thing when we are working in the straits in British Columbia.

When we worked in an area of the province of Quebec where there was clearly provincial jurisdiction, as we have with the other provinces, we developed a model to work in that area. That model was reflected with the Sagenauy-St. Lawrence bill.

The suggestions by the Bloc that this legislation is somehow a massive intrusion on provincial authority is just not consistent with the facts. Not only is it not consistent with the facts, if one looks at the practices that have been carried out by Parks Canada one will find that is not consistent with what is actually taking place. They are creating a controversy, a reason to oppose, and that reason is not based on the reality of the situation today.

It is very disappointing to see in the House that they are taking a piece of legislation which will help protect the environment, the special places of the marine ecosystems around that province, as they are around the rest of the country, and for parochial reasons that have absolutely no basis in fact they are going to throw away or oppose this very important piece of environmental legislation.

It is really disconcerting to see them do that. It is disconcerting to see them fighting a provincial election on the floor of this House and to find excuses for opposing an important piece of legislation. They know full well this legislation does not infringe on provincial jurisdiction.

They know full well it has been our practice in the past to work with the provincial governments in establishing marine conservation areas. The hon. member from Vanier made it very clear that was going to continue to be the policy of Parks Canada and of heritage Canada. They are simply creating opposition based on something that is not a fact, that is not true.

It is important that all Canadians understand that. It is particularly important for those Canadians who live in the province of Quebec to understand clearly that Bloc members in the House are opposing a piece of legislation which will help protect the environment of that area of the country. They are opposed to it for reasons that are simply not as they state. This is not an infringement on provincial jurisdiction. I thought that point needed to be made.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 24th, 1998]

(a) Figures on the cost of operating and maintaining Pacific Rim National Park Reserve on an annual basis for fiscal years 1993-94 to 1997-98 are presented in table 1.

(b) There have been no additional costs to the park for regional and national events—Oceans Day or Canada Day—other than staff time as the headquarters offfice supplies material for distribution. For a roll up of the salaries actually paid to all employees of the park, whether they worked part time or full time, see note (2) in table 1.

(c) Unlike many national parks, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve does note have gates to regulate visitation. Instead, park use fees are implemented via machines in the parking lots, which may result in some misunderstanding of the intent of the fees. This fee contributes to the maintenance of facilities and services such as visitor centres, information centres, washrooms, information exhibits-materials, day use areas, picinic sites, surf guards, film programs, et cetera. If visitors have purchased the western Canada annual pass and it is displayed appropriately, they do not need to purchase a day use pass from the machine in the parking lots. See note (6) on table 1.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on Bill C-48. I have a couple of questions based on some of them.

One of his suggestions was that this initiative or the whole idea of marine conservation areas simply began when the Prime Minister made a speech in 1996. Perhaps he may want to explain to the House how this could be an idea that only started in 1996 when the first marine conservation area, Fathom Five, was established in 1988, a full eight years before the time when he claims that this idea came forward.

The hon. member and others who spoke on this matter referred to some sort of diabolical plot by the Minister of Heritage to include this in her portfolio when it should rightfully belong somewhere else. Maybe he could explain why it is that there are already marine conservation areas which are administered by parks and have been administered by parks long before the current minister assumed her particular position. Perhaps he may want to address that point.

Most of all I would like to know how the member can blanketly oppose the legislation, even putting forward an amendment, after voting for a marine conservation area earlier this year at the Saguenay-St. Lawrence.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the motto “from sea to sea” is a fitting description of the country's geography. We are bounded by three of the great oceans of the world, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic. Much of our southern border is demarcated by the world's largest freshwater inland lake system, the Great Lakes.

With 243,000 kilometres of ocean coastline and an additional 9,500 kilometres along the Great Lakes, Canada has the longest coastline of any country in the world. This coastline includes some of the most spectacular scenery in the world.

Along the west coast there are endless miles of long, deep wilderness fiords. The bays and coves of the Atlantic shelter the fishing outports and villages of the maritimes. The Arctic although cold, barren and windswept is nonetheless strikingly beautiful. It includes some of the least visited and unspoiled natural areas in the world.

The clear waters and rugged inland strewn shores of Canada's Great Lakes attract recreational sailors from around the globe. They have also served as a backdrop for the famous paintings of the group of seven. Dramatic cliffs, the highest tides, spectacular icebergs, majestic fiords and the overall timeless essence of the sea are ours to enjoy as Canadians.

Canada's oceans and Great Lakes have played a large role in shaping the country's economy, culture and identity. They contribute not only to our economic prosperity but also to our spiritual well-being.

An act respecting marine conservation areas fulfils two commitments made by the government.

The first commitment was made by the Prime Minister to the 1996 congress of the World Conservation Union which was held in Montreal. The Prime Minister stated “Our government will introduce legislation for the creation of a national marine conservation system, the marine equivalent of our land based national parks system”.

In “Securing Our Future Together” which set out this government's plans for this mandate, the government made the commitment “to establish new marine conservation areas and develop legislation and policies for a marine conservation system”.

The marine conservation areas act will protect and conserve for all time marine areas that are representative of Canada's Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Great Lakes. It will also encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of our marine heritage.

I wish to highlight some of the reasons why it is important for Canada and indeed for the world that we move forward as quickly as possible with the establishment of a system of marine protected areas and how we are responding to that challenge.

We are, after all, a maritime nation. The vast marine ecosystems off Canada's coasts are precious, varied and highly productive. Given this rich diversity, Canada has a responsibility both nationally and internationally to protect examples of this marine heritage for present and future generations.

There is growing concern about the health of the planet's oceans and inland seas. There is concern that our efforts to protect and conserve marine environments are out of step with our dependence on them. There is concern that these waters remain largely out of sight and out of mind, and for too long a convenient place to dispose of our wastes.

Marine conservation areas have a role to play in striking a better balance between the protection and use of our marine environment. Equally important, they have a role to play in increasing public understanding and appreciation of the importance of maintaining healthy lakes and oceans for the well-being of the entire planet.

Canada with its extensive coastline and the second largest continental shelf has much to gain from a comprehensive system of marine protected areas.

Marine conservation areas will join our cherished national parks, historic sites, canals and rivers in representing our rich collective history and culture. They will add to our sense of national identity.

The creation of marine conservation areas responds directly to several national and international calls for action. For example, the establishment of marine protected areas is an important strategic direction in the 1995 Canadian biodiversity strategy. This strategy, endorsed by federal and provincial governments, will guide the implementation of the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

A resolution of the 1994 general assembly of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and its action plan call on coastal nations to establish representative systems of marine protected areas under national legislation.

The establishment of marine conservation areas will make a significant contribution to implementing the sustainable development strategy of the Department of Canadian Heritage. That strategy, “Sustaining our Heritage”, was tabled in the House of Commons in December 1997.

Marine conservation areas established in Canada's exclusive economic zone will help to fulfil Canada's obligation in international law to take steps to protect and to preserve our marine environment.

Let me now explain how Canada is meeting these calls to action.

Canada is committed to the establishment of a system of marine conservation areas that will provide a representative sampling of the full range of marine environments found in Canada's Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic oceans and in the Great Lakes. To accomplish this, Parks Canada has classified Canada's marine environment into 29 distinctive regions. The long term goal is to establish a system of marine conservation areas that represent each one of these regions.

Parks Canada through its programs and in partnership with others will ensure that high quality marine interpretive programs and visitor facilities are provided to the public.

The establishment of these areas will signal to Canadians and international visitors alike that these sites are the best that Canada has to offer, world class ecotourism destinations for those who wish to experience firsthand our unique marine natural and cultural heritage.

Bill C-48 includes strong protection measures. These are in keeping with international standards to ensure that marine ecosystems remain healthy and intact while at the same time allowing for the sustainable use of renewable resources.

There will be places where through collaborative research programs special efforts will be made to understand the nature of marine ecosystems and the effects of human activity on them. The research results, together with the traditional knowledge of local people, will be used to better manage our use of marine resources both within marine conservation areas and elsewhere. In this way, it is expected that marine conservation areas will serve an important function as models of ecologically sustainable use of marine resources.

Parks Canada is the ideal organization to play the lead role in establishing and managing a national system of marine conservation areas in which all Canadians can take enormous pride.

Parks Canada already manages a wide range of national parks and historic sites including 19 national parks on our coasts. Parks Canada is an organization with considerable knowledge and expertise to apply to the protection and presentation of Canada's natural and cultural heritages. Just think of our national parks so admired around the world.

However, Parks Canada cannot plan and manage these areas alone. To ensure success, Parks Canada must work with many government and non-government agencies that have responsibilities or interests in the planning or management of these areas.

Let me assure Canadians that the shared stewardship in the planning and management of marine conservation areas has been a key consideration in drafting the legislation before the House today. Extensive public consultation has been central to the approach taken by Parks Canada for years.

For instance, the first policy on the planning and management of these areas was tabled in this House in 1986, more than 12 years ago after much public discussion. Similarly, current policy direction contained in the “Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies” benefited from public input. These were tabled in the House in March 1994.

Parks Canada also held wide ranging discussions with stakeholders prior to the implementation of Bill C-48. In February 1997 “Charting the Course Towards a Marine Conservation Area Act” was released and invited public comments and suggestions from a variety of stakeholders.

Taking a proactive approach, this discussion paper was sent to more than 3,000 stakeholders. Those consulted included provincial governments, aboriginal organizations, environmental groups, fishing and shipping associations, unions and the oil, gas and mining sectors.

In addition, Parks Canada held a number of public meetings, as well as meetings with provincial governments and stakeholders. Drafting of the legislation benefited greatly from the presentations made at these meetings and the written briefs which we received.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that this government is firmly committed to the establishment of new marine conservation areas. The passage of Bill C-48 is essential for us to fulfil this commitment. Establishing a system of marine protected areas is central to the achievement of several national and international obligations of this government.

The marine conservation area program is a new and challenging initiative for us and for all Canadians. It was through a process of extensive consultation with Canadians that we were able to develop this legislation.

I therefore urge all hon. members to support this bill. I urge all hon. members to work with us on the government side to ensure passage of this bill, to work toward ensuring that what we have been able to accomplish with our terrestrial parks, beginning over 100 years ago with Banff, the tradition of protection, the tradition of foresight, the tradition of presenting Canadians with the very best that we have to offer can be brought forward in terms of our marine conservation areas.

[National Parks, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken a number of steps including reducing the commercial development that will be allowed in Banff, reducing the size of the community, and placing a moratorium on outside commercial development in respect of accommodation. Just yesterday I had the opportunity to announce the formation of a panel which will have as its job to set specific principles that any future development may undergo. All of these things have one very special principle in mind, that we protect our parks not only for today's generation but for Zachary's generation as well.

[National Parks Act, June 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise today on third reading of Bill C-38, an act to establish Tuktut Nogait National Park.

I begin my comments by repeating something I said in the House yesterday. I thank all members from all parties who worked diligently in committee and otherwise toward the passage of this piece of legislation and toward an important objective that we as Canadians all share, the establishment and continuing establishment of our national parks system and toward fulfilling what is a very important goal and objective for all Canadians, the protection of special places in the country.

This park will join the family of 38 national parks to date and will, as I said, work toward the completion of our national parks system to ensure that we have the representation of at least one park in each of the 39 natural regions designated across Canada.

These are indeed special places. In this case of Tuktut Nogait, the process that has been developed in this park is being put forward to protect the bluenose caribou herd, the core calving grounds of the caribou herd, and to protect the tundra landscape of the northern Arctic. It is one of the most beautiful and spectacular locations in Canada, particularly in Canada's north.

The establishment of this park has been a very long, extensive and public process in arriving at the place where we are today. The original idea for this national park was in 1989 when the community of Paulatuk undertook a study. It came to Parks Canada, to the federal government, and suggested that one way to protect the area was through the establishment of a national park.

From that point there was a period of some seven years of public hearings, negotiations and discussions so that in 1996 all parties were in a position to sign an agreement to establish the national park. What we are doing with the bill is taking that agreement and bringing it under the National Parks Act.

Since that agreement has been signed a management board committee has been established to oversee the park. It includes representatives of the local community as well as of Parks Canada. This is a full management procedure by which to manage the park. I am pleased that the board is up and running and providing us with timely advice on the operation of the park.

I will not speak too long to this issue but there are four key points I want to make briefly.

One is the importance of establishing this park to protect the important calving grounds of the bluenose caribou herd. This was one of the raisons d'etre for the establishment of the park. The science which we have seen shows clearly that the park is used by the caribou for their calving.

It helps us as a government and as Canadians to fulfil an international obligation which we have talked about. This government and Canadians have been very insistent with our American counterparts that they protect their caribou on the Alaskan side of the border. We have worked diligently within Canada to ensure that we have protected the calving grounds. We have asked that the Americans do this. To date their land in Alaska, commonly known as the 1002 land, still does not have full protection. I think we are sending a very clear message internationally that we are willing to stand behind our international statements by protecting the caribou here in Canada.

I touched on my second point in my introduction. This park establishment is going along in terms of an agreement that all parties came to in 1996. This agreement was made, and there has been some discussion about this, knowing that there was an anomaly in that area that would indicate there may be some mineral potential.

In 1994 the resource company itself was part of that decision by voluntarily, at the request of the Inuvialuit, relinquishing its mining claims to that area. We understand that this was not because it was not an area that there may be mineral exploration, we did not think that the area was not valuable, but a collective decision was made that we would protect this area despite the fact that it may have some mineral potential. That was the decision. It was not made in ignorance. It was a conscious decision made to protect a very special place in Canada and to do so knowing full well what the results of that may be.

I also want to touch very briefly on the status of Tuktut Nogait as it stands today. There have been some suggestions that this is not really a national park and that any concern over protecting the integrity of agreements is not a real concern.

Many of what we commonly call our national parks are in exactly the same status as Tuktut Nogait is prior to the passage of this legislation. Places like Pacific Rim in British Columbia, Grasslands in Saskatchewan, Pukaskwa in Ontario, Gros Morne in Newfoundland all are more or less in the same legal status as Tuktut Nogait is today.

It is important that we demonstrate clearly that we are going to protect the integrity of the boundaries of our national parks. If we were to move away from that and say we would entertain logging interests in one area, oil and gas interests in another area or mining interests in another area, then we would have great difficulties.

We decide collectively as Canadians to protect certain special places in this country. As the Secretary of State for Parks, I had the honour and the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of those decisions.

This last point is one which I spoke on briefly yesterday at report stage. We are committed as a government to work with the local community to ensure that it has an opportunity to develop economically in terms of the park. We have made a commitment that we will be spending some $10 million over the next several years with the establishment of the park.

We have also said clearly that we are going to work to ensure that the native community, the local community, has the first opportunity for the jobs that are being created in that area. We are also working with the Government of the Northwest Territories to ensure that we can proceed with the economic development. The fact is that some 80% of that mining potential I talked about earlier is outside the park and may present an opportunity as an event that may unfold in the future.

In conclusion, I am pleased that we are about to pass this legislation and see another important part of our national parks system come to fruition.

[National Parks Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment as the Secretary of State for Parks to thank the committee members who on this piece of legislation have done a lot of work, have examined it. We see some of the results of their analysis and soul searching as we hear the debate taking place here at report stage. I would be remiss if I did not take an opportunity to thank the members for their work.

Some of the members have said in debate that part of the overall agreement revolves around helping the people of Paulatuk and the community in terms of pursuing economic development opportunities. There are parts of the agreement that indicate that there is the intention of parks to work with the community on economic development opportunities presented by the park. We will work with the community and with the Government of the Northwest Territories to move forward on these things. That is one of our intentions as a department and as the federal government and we intend to pursue this.

My colleague has talked about the government's position on this amendment. I will not reiterate his position but I did want to take the opportunity to thank the committee and to make the point about moving forward on economic development.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, June 11th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Empress Of Ireland, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government and I believe all Canadians want to see this site protected. That is why last week the federal government asked the attorney general of the province of Quebec to ensure that Criminal Code provisions with respect to desecration of grave sites will be enforced.

I was also pleased to see the minister in Quebec invoke the cultural properties act of that province to ensure that the site will be protected for a year.

Finally, I have written to my counterpart in Quebec to offer collaborative approaches to ensure the long term protection of this very important site.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

I hear members opposite. They do not realize that literally millions of Canadians are not taxpayers and are in need of assistance just as much as somebody who is a taxpayer. What about someone who is unable to get a job or to find work? I know they believe every Canadian can get a job if they want one, but that ignores Canadians with disabilities and those who are unable to enter the workforce.

The bottom line is that members of the Reform Party do not encompass the broad range of Canadians. They select who they want to help. They focus on whom they want to help, but they will not reach out to the full Canadian family.

That is the basic premise of what the hon. member said in his speech. He ignores large segments of Canadian society and only wants to deal with individuals who fit their mould of being appropriate for help.