John Herron

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I have the opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre. I will repeat the motion as it is very prudent for us to break it down into its parts.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should invest in a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy—

The Progressive Conservative Party indeed agrees with that.

—thus: (a) exploiting the considerable job creation potential of energy efficiency; (b) encouraging the development of high tech expertise and export opportunities; and (c) increasing the number of federally owned buildings (of which there are 50,000) retrofitted for energy efficiency through the Federal Buildings Initiative.

I want to talk about the primary origin of why this particular debate is becoming very topical. It comes down to the fact that just over a year ago the industrialized world and emerging nations attended a conference in Kyoto to make a tangible approach to cut down carbon dioxide emissions and fight the serious challenge of climate change.

Over the last 40 to 60 years the use of fossil fuels which we use to heat our homes and drive our automobiles has proliferated the amount of greenhouse gases within our environment. We are now seeing a number of extreme weather events. Last year the ice storm affected my riding of Fundy—Royal. It affected our cousins in the United States and many of our cousins in the province of Quebec. These severe weather conditions are products of what can happen with the continuance of global warming. It is prudent for us to look at this issue.

The government needs to engage in more energy efficiency. Canada has an export driven economy, an economy that relies on our natural resources and an economy that is industrially based. The industrialized world said just over a year ago that it would be investing in energy efficiency initiatives and research and development on renewable sources of energy in order to address the challenge of climate change.

President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore touched on the fact that the Americans would be spending over $7 billion on energy efficiency initiatives. This issue is just as much a trade issue from the Canadian perspective as it is an environmental issue. One thing we do know is that when the Americans want to engage in a particular topic they usually do it quite well. Given that the Americans will be spending over $7 billion on energy efficiency and they can start spending that money before the senate or the congress actually ratifies the Kyoto protocol, it is a myth that we should wait until it is ratified.

Once the Americans start spending some cash on energy efficiency is when we have to begin. If our American cousins start running their industries in a more energy efficient and cost competitive manner, it would have some very negative implications on our country's competitiveness, on our ability to trade and on the ability of our industries to compete on a cost perspective with our American cousins.

The government speaks quite often about the need to reward early action in terms of climate change. Canadians would be very happy even with some action in terms of actually pushing to ensure that we follow the same initiatives as our trading partners in the EU and the United States.

We do not necessarily see this as an issue that has really caught on with respect to the public, even though the science is definitely very clear. I say that with a little jest because the current government, as we were reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, built an environmental coalition with the Reform Party. The Reform Party still disputes whether the science on climate change is real. That party probably would, on a different day if it thought it was advantageous, argue that cigarette smoking was actually healthy.

In 1987 a conference was held in Montreal, known as the Montreal protocol. The Canadian government was the principal government in the world and led the world community in making firm commitments to the reduction of ozone depleting gases. That said, ozone depleting gases became something that was in the forefront. The public mindset was that ozone depleting gases were a bad thing for our environment. The government has yet to make that kind of initiative in terms of getting this into the public domain in terms of the need to fight climate change and reduce gas emissions.

I thank hon. members for the opportunity to speak here this evening. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting this motion by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Human Rights, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, December 10 will mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is with pride that I rise today to honour a great Canadian and former resident of my riding of Fundy—Royal, John Peters Humphrey.

The principal author of the declaration was raised in Hampton, New Brunswick and graduated from RCS Netherwood High School.

Mr. Humphrey was also the first director of the Human Rights Secretariat at the United Nations. He was part of the team that launched Amnesty International Canada and was instrumental in creating the Canadian Human Rights Foundation.

In 1988, on the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he was awarded the United Nations Human Rights Prize, the first Canadian to receive such an honour. In 1974 he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

I would also like to pay tribute to another New Brunswick son, Gordon Fairweather, Canada's first Human Rights Commissioner and a former member of the House of Commons as MP for Fundy—Royal.

I am very proud of these two New Brunswickers for their contribution to the advancement of human rights, both here in Canada and on the world stage.

[The Environment, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to Motion No. 37 as presented by the hon. member for Davenport that in the opinion of the House, the government should act decisively in response to the evidence in the Canada Arctic contaminants assessment report to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.

The member for Yukon had the opportunity to speak to this motion. She represents a riding obviously of a northern nature that is more susceptible to the effects of persistent organic pollutants than any other region of our country.

I also want to point out that pollutants that are created from afar affect us no matter where we reside in this country. Also, pollutants with respect to POPs produced where we live actually have an effect on individuals who live very far from us.

The motion refers to the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report. I would like to read a few words of that report:

The Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness and sparse population. However, over the last 50 years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources such as mining and from distant industrial and agricultural regions of the world. These persistent contaminants have been detected throughout Arctic ecosystems including air, surface seawater, suspended sediments and snow.

I would also like to highlight another comment with respect to POPs:

Contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants, known as POPs, heavy metals and radionuclides enter the Arctic through long range transport on air and water currents, with the atmosphere being the primary pathway.

The point is individuals who may not be responsible for manufacturing or creating these pollutants are actually victims of these pollutants.

The report goes on to say that from 1985 to 87 PCBs were measured in the blood of Inuit in the community of Broughton Island, NWT, known to have a relatively high per capita intake of traditionally harvested foods. Results showed that blood PCBs exceeded tolerable levels set by Health Canada in 63% of the females and males under 15 and in 39% of females 15 to 44. In 6% of males 15 years and older, they also had a higher proportion of PCBs in their bodies than the acceptable level as set out by Health Canada.

The point is the evidence of this report is actually calling on society and the world community to take actions. POPs are carbon based chemical compounds that are products and byproducts of human industry. They are highly toxic substances that cause a wide array of adverse health effects.

This motion is about human health, that the pollutants we create affect others. The member for Davenport encouraged all members of the House to speak aggressively about pollution prevention, the reduction of pollution and ultimately eliminating all persistent organic pollutants.

POPs have what we refer to as a grasshopper effect. They are released in the environment through evaporation and deposit and are transported through the atmosphere to regions far from the original source. The colder the climate, the less these substances tend to evaporate. As a result the north is a cold trap for them. POPs can be found in people and animals living in regions such as the Arctic, thousands of kilometres from where POPs are produced.

This phenomenon is especially prominent in the north. As a result Inuit women have up to eight times higher levels of PCBs in their breast milk than women in southern Canada. These are well over the limits permissible by Health Canada. Some POPs are known to affect the liver, the nervous system, the kidneys, the reproductive system and the immune system. They are endocrine disrupters or hormone disrupting substances as we aggressively discussed as we went through clause by clause consideration of the Environmental Protection Act.

No man is an island. POPs is a global problem that requires global solutions. I point to the DDT pesticide which has been used to combat malaria in a number of developing nations. Even though DDT has been banned for a number of years in this country it ends up in our food chains. As a wealthy industrialized country it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we develop replacements for pesticides such as DDT so that we can change practices for combating diseases such as malaria. It is our responsibility to help the developing world, which has real concerns with respect to malaria, to do that.

What has been done so far? At the Rio earth summit in 1992 we began to discuss the issue. Agenda 21, including chapter 19 which called for an intergovernmental forum on chemical safety to promote and co-ordinate international work on chemicals, was adopted. Countries were committed to formulating a joint plan of action.

In June 1998 the intergovernmental negotiating committee met in Montreal to begin laying the framework for a global plan. Negotiators were asked to target a short list of the 12 most dangerous POPs known as the dirty dozen. They were also assigned the task of defining a procedure for identifying new substances as candidates for future global action.

What needs to be done? The government needs to act quickly. The persistence of these substances and their accumulation in living tissue means that each year that passes without a solution will result in decades of additional exposure.

A second round of international treaty negotiation talks will take place in February 1999. A deal must be reached by the year 2000. The only effective solution is to phase out and eliminate POPS as the source and to begin now. CEPA, as is currently written, does not accomplish this fact and thereby continues to fail to protect the most exposed and vulnerable in the north.

We need to phase them out. We need to find replacements. We need to change practices. We need a stronger CEPA, one that assesses and classifies new substances quickly before they further contaminate the north. The proposed system for assessing substances is weak. Attempts to improve the new CEPA bill have been voted down by the government on a number of occasions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment spoke in committee. She said it was perhaps too premature to include any kind of mechanism to address endocrine disrupters or hormone disrupting substances, many of which are POPs. I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that in defeating amendments tabled by my colleague from the NDP, the member for York North, and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, supported by the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, and me, she had to build a coalition with Reform. The parliamentary secretary is now building an environmental coalition with a party that is still challenging the science on climate change.

The government is now in the sixth year of its mandate and has still yet to pass a piece of environmental legislation other than the MMT bill which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million. The government needs to develop an environmental agenda.

Often the government likes to criticize the Conservative government's record between the years 1983 and 1993. Our record on the environment is the establishment of the green plan, our leadership on the Montreal protocol which banned ozone depleting substances, and our leadership in bringing forth the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for the control and use of toxins. Our crowning achievement with respect to the environment was in the area of acid rain.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate.

I want to congratulate my colleague the member for South Shore for moving this motion. I also want to congratulate my hon. colleague the member for Brandon—Souris, who is our agricultural critic, for the fine job he has done in terms of raising this issue and trying to express to Canadians the dire need that Canadian farmers are in.

What we are talking about in this debate is an issue of a pan-Canadian nature. This is not an issue where we are having a fluctuation or a downturn in the market. What we are seeing with respect to the income crisis which the farmers are enduring right now is a market collapse. This is a crisis.

In this House quite often we use words that may not actually fit the situation. However the situation our farmers are enduring from coast to coast, whether it be on the prairies or in my area of Atlantic Canada with respect to pork and hog production, is a crisis.

I will speak this evening about the pork industry. It has been devastated through the crisis we are enduring with respect to the commodity pricing. Farmers are in danger of losing their business. Just recently Charles Keats stated that he may lose his farm that has been in his family for six generations. He expects to lose at least $200,000 this year alone. That is the money he spends to operate his facility.

I worked in an industry where we had to market commodities. I understand that when $130 is needed to break even and the product is selling for $82, it does not take very long for it to have a very negative effect on the business.

This is not a negative effect on their business. This situation actually challenges their very existence.

Hog farming in the province of New Brunswick is a significant industry. There are 80 major farmers in the province who produce over 200,000 hogs per annum which means $25 million for the provincial domestic economy.

This affects the people in my riding of Fundy—Royal. Nearly half the farmers who exist in the province of New Brunswick are within a 30-mile radius of the town of Havelock which is in the heart of my riding. This does not just affect the individuals who work in the farming industry. There are individuals in my riding and a nearby riding and the riding of Moncton who work for Hub Meat Packers. Seven hundred people earn their living from that facility.

I was talking a few minutes ago with my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I spoke about a few statistics which are paramount to this industry in terms of what is happening and that farmers are not getting the prices they used to get. Let us put some of this in perspective.

The price that farmers obtain for their hogs today is the same price that the hog farming industry obtained in 1944. The price of feed has not gone down. It is not at 1944 prices. Other commodities which farmers need to operate their business are not at 1944 prices.

I may have made a mistake in talking about statistics. What is at hand is that families from coast to coast are losing their livelihood. They are losing their ability to provide for their families, to pay for their homes and their car loans. They are giving up hope of having the opportunity to help their children who wish to go on to university or pursue some other discipline.

We are looking at a complete meltdown. It is the responsibility of the federal government in co-operation with its provincial cousins to ensure that the agriculture industry and Canadian farming goes on. This is a crisis. The income farmers are receiving is only 55% of what they received in 1997.

I want to talk about two particular programs which the Progressive Conservative government implemented between the years of 1984 and 1993. Those two programs are the net income stabilization plan, known as NISA, and the gross revenue insurance plan, known as GRIP.

I would hope that this crisis has demonstrated to my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House that we really do need to get a grip. I do not mean to be facetious. The government chose in terms of its program rationalization to keep NISA, which would affect the stabilization of pricing, and it did away with GRIP. GRIP was an assurance program so when there was a catastrophic change in terms of marketing, the federal government would be able to provide a bridge for the industry from one step to another. The government has chosen to abandon that program.

I will give due credit to the government of the day. There seems to be a consensus with my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party that there is indeed a crisis and I applaud them for recognizing that. I can say that the farmers have been well aware of it for all too long.

The Liberal cabinet is on the verge of making some form of announcement to have an intervention. This announcement has to be a bankable one. When farmers go to the individuals to whom they owe money for feed, when they go to their banking institutions, the banks will understand that they can provide a bridge for the farmer to ensure the viability of their activity continues to go on.

Only a few hours ago I had the privilege to speak to a number of farmers who reside in my riding. I spoke to Mr. Bill Hart from Norton who told me that it is a very negative situation when he wakes up each day knowing that he is going to lose $1,000. Mr. Hart is not an affluent individual who trades in commodities left, right and centre. One thousand dollars is a very personal hit on him and his family.

I also had a conversation with Mr. Stephen Moffett who is one of the largest hog producers in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Moffett mentioned what we have touched upon which is the fact that the cuts that have been made to agriculture reflect what we have seen for that of rural Canada. The first hit the government of the day takes seems to hit that of rural Canada.

The Progressive Conservative Party is very proud to say that our new national leader, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, chose to make his first public impact as leader on this issue. The Canadian public should be very grateful for the leadership he has exhibited on this issue.

I am splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants. In conclusion therefore, we have talked a lot about the commodity pricing that is affecting individuals whether they be in the prairie provinces, on the Atlantic coast or in the province of Quebec. The statistics get lost but what it means is complete devastation for an industry.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health, the co-sponsor of this bill. Canadians want to know what the Minister of Health has to say about the issue.

Committee members, including the Liberal members for York North and Lac-Saint-Louis, suggested amendments to improve the bill. But they need the government's support. So far, the government has rejected all the proposed changes to better protect Canadians' health.

Will the Minister of Health finally listen to the backbenchers in his own party and support their request regarding an endocrine system?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The environment committee is undergoing a clause by clause review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as Bill C-32. This bill, which was co-sponsored by the minister and the Minister of the Environment, has come under attack by environmentalists and health organizations as it fails to protect Canadians from harmful toxic substances. Substances that have damaging effects on the endocrine systems of living organisms will not be considered toxic under the assessment criteria in this bill.

Will the Minister of Health announce today that he will endorse the amendments to improve this bill's capacity to capture these harmful substances?

[Transit Passes, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to have the opportunity today to speak to Motion No. M-360 moved by the member from Kamloops.

First, I would like to say that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is very pleased to support this motion.

I would like to suggest why this piece of legislation has been brought forward.

The premise that the member from Kamloops utilized throughout the course of his speech was the need to actually address the serious challenge of climate change.

Last December, a mere 11 months ago, the international community met en masse in Kyoto, Japan. It was the first time that the industrialized nations actually met to begin setting targets and timelines to address the serious issue of climate change. Climate change is something that will ultimately affect every region in the world and predominately those countries situated in a northern climate.

This issue of achieving our targets with respect to Kyoto really stems back to the sort of country we have. Perhaps no other country in the world lives off its natural resources more than Canada. We have a diverse country and with our geographical land mass transportation has always been a historical challenge for Canadians. We also live in a colder climate. That means that our economy is very energy intensive. It is resource based and is also export driven. We need to ensure that we actually find some initiatives that are market driven and incentive based for us to actually begin to address the serious issue of climate change.

There is no single solution available today, and I believe well into the future, that will enable us as a country and the world community to be able to reduce our greenhouse gases. This initiative is a step in the right direction.

Before I get back to the motion, on the issue of climate change, this is a very positive and well thought out initiative. There is a change in the political tide to some degree because the New Democratic Party of Canada is advocating a tax cut. I applaud the New Democrats for doing that. All individuals in this country are overtaxed. Any time we provide Canadians with any kind of tax relief it is a step in the right direction.

I want to address an issue that was addressed by my colleague from Calgary Southeast. He was discussing whether this would be too interventionist from a taxation perspective. He said that government tax initiatives should never have a role in society. I prefer broad based tax relief for Canadians. This motion heads in a very positive direction and should be given some thought.

The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys and the Liberal member who spoke both addressed the issue of climate change. The member for Calgary Southeast never mentioned the issue of climate change. The member said that it would be good for the environment. Yes, it would reduce emissions in terms of smog and other things that are harmful to human health, but he missed the opportunity to say once and for all that the Reform Party of Canada understands that climate change is a global problem.

My Liberal and NDP colleagues will remember that the member for Calgary Southwest stood in this House on the eve of the world community meeting in Kyoto to address this real and serious issue. The member for Calgary Southwest denied there was a problem with respect to climate change. He actually said that the science was inconclusive and that perhaps more study should be done. Saying that the science is divided is the same kind of logic as saying that cigarette smoking is good for you.

There are individuals who advocate a so-called meeting of the minds. They ask why the two conservative parties do not have some kind of fusion, alliance or coalition. But there are some fundamental issues that differentiate the Reform Party and the PC Party. One issue is our environmental commitment and our understanding with respect to the big picture.

The hon. member pointed out that transportation accounts for 32% of all carbon dioxide emissions or greenhouse gases within Canada. Local transportation is a significant component of that figure.

Why would we not want to go forward with this? Canadians in general are overtaxed. This would encourage Canadians to use public transportation en masse. It would reduce consumption of automobile gases and smog which would be very good for human health.

I applaud the member from Kamloops for his initiative and for saying that there is only one taxpayer. He is right. We spend billions of dollars allocating moneys to maintain our rural and urban highways. This would enable us to lessen some of the day to day pressures on our roads.

I challenge the government to adopt this motion. The government says time and time again that it is committed to early action in order to address the serious issue of climate change. I would submit that Canadians would look for any action or at least a little more.

A case in point is that this government has still to bring in initiatives and aggressive tax incentives with respect to research and development on energy efficiency. The government has yet to bring in aggressive tax incentives for the use of renewable sources of energy.

In terms of home heating, only 1% of all homes being constructed in Canada today are R-2000 compatible. There are many solutions out there. The government has a role in leading the way so we can actually make it market driven, incentive based and get Canadians engaged in the issue. Another solution is producing less emissions of carbon dioxide. Public transportation would head us in that direction.

As I said earlier Canadians are overtaxed. I understand the concern is that perhaps this would favour individuals who live in urban areas and some individuals such as myself who reside in the beautiful riding of Fundy—Royal, which is very rural, and may not have the opportunity to use transportation en masse. I would also indicate that many communities would have to do that.

In my riding half the population lives in a suburban area just outside the city of Saint John. Nearly 35,000 individuals are within five or six miles of the city of Saint John. There is no public transportation system for individuals who would choose to use public transportation in terms of the bus to go into the city of St. John.

That is not necessarily because of a lack of will on the part of our valued municipal leaders such as Mr. Bill Artiss, mayor of Rothesay, and Alyson Leslie Brown-Hamilton, mayor of Quispamsis. I do not blame it on these individuals. They would be committed to public transportation if they had the critical mass to do so. Providing a tax incentive for more individuals to take the bus would be most cost effective. The people in the Kennebecasis Valley in my riding of Fundy—Royal could ultimately develop the critical mass to use a public transportation system.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

No. He is one of us.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of my colleague's question surrounds issues not as related to this piece of legislation as to other ones. I agree with her concerns that the government on too many occasions has interfered in situations that have provoked provinces into some very difficult positions.

In my critic's position I noticed it in terms of when the federal government chose to turn its back on the agreement established November 13, 1997. At that time it made an agreement with respect to climate change. The very next day the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources said that is not necessarily our position.

It was a provocative move what the government chose to do with respect to the supreme court. This country was actually formed from an act of will. We did not go to any lawyers, judges or courts to determine whether we should have a country or not in the first place. It was an act of will on the part of the political leadership of the day.

With the millennium scholarship fund it is clear interference with respect to provincial jurisdiction. It would be more prudent for them to actually inject the moneys into the CHST which would pay for health care, post-secondary education and social services. Those are the things where we should be working in partnership with the provinces as opposed to taking provocative steps.

With respect to this legislation there are very valuable ways we can have some very positive provincial-federal relations. We see that with respect to the park I had the pleasure of visiting this summer along the Saguenay River. It is one of the most picturesque areas of the world. There are very few fiords where people actually have access. We see it in Norway and we see it in one of God's most beautiful areas in this country along the Saguenay.

The federal government on occasion has interfered in areas where it should not have. I do not think this is necessarily applicable with respect to this piece of legislation because it is very possible to build some very positive partnerships with the provinces in protecting our marine areas with respect to having better conservation for everybody.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity this afternoon to address the House with respect to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. The proposed piece of legislation is designed to protect and conserve the areas of Canada's marine landscape for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians and the world.

My constituency of Fundy—Royal straddles the beautiful and scenic Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy has the largest tides in the world. Many beautiful beaches have evolved throughout the Bay of Fundy region following centuries of constant pounding delivered by these often unforgiving tides. Tourists from around the globe have been attracted to the Fundy region to witness the record tides while also revelling in the opportunity to enjoy down-home maritime hospitality.

This region has also been the focus of many environmentalists who are drawn to the area to study our unique marine ecosystem and the Fundy escarpment. Like many of our local residents, these individuals are deeply concerned with the often callous indifference for our environment.

The Bay of Fundy has been the lifeblood for many of my constituents, just as it has been for my neighbours across the bay who are effectively represented by our party's Canadian heritage critic, my colleague from West Nova.

The Bay of Fundy is home to many different species of marine life. For instance, the right whale, of which very few breeding pairs exist in the world, call the Bay of Fundy home every August. For years Fundy fishing grounds supported the very prosperous inshore scallop fishery. Groundfish used to be found in abundance, helping create a very lucrative fishing industry.

Today many of the species fishermen depend upon for their livelihoods are disappearing due to overfishing. Only the lucrative lobster fishery remains. This is also threatened. From that perspective I am very concerned for the individuals from St. Martins in my riding who earn their livings by fishing.

We support Bill C-48. We feel it is time politicians started to take a leading role in helping to preserve our environment so our next generation will enjoy the scenery and the beauty that exists throughout the country. This is another reason why I look forward to the introduction of the Canadian endangered species protection act in February.

A lot of individuals when they talk about protecting endangered species do so in order that we can protect those for future generations. Some people believe that piece of legislation is rather complex. It comes down to a number of points.

First, when it comes to endangered species we do not kill them. We do not destroy their home and we give them a habitat in which to live. We also look after those concerned Canadians who are land owners so that we can provide them with economic instruments with respect to stewardship. Obviously when that piece of legislation comes in I will have more to say at that time.

We can only achieve the goals by taking immediate action through protective measures as outlined in this bill. Education must play an integral role in helping raise Canadians' awareness of our environment.

Having been born and raised along the Fundy shore I can certainly appreciate the importance of our natural environment and the importance this environment plays in our everyday lives. Many of my constituents depend on the ocean for their livelihoods.

Our aboriginal peoples fished these great waters long before the arrival of any European settlers. Fish were an important staple in their everyday diets. They recognized the importance of this natural resource for their survival. Even today their leaders respect and appreciate the value of maintaining a viable fishing industry. Aboriginal peoples recognize that conservation measures must be of paramount concern whenever discussions surround the allocation of fish stocks.

Deriving one's living from the oceans is a cultural way of life for many individuals on all the coasts of this great country. We depend on the preservation of this large habitat for our survival and for the survival of our next generation. It is incumbent on all to begin taking immediate steps toward protecting our ecosystem.

On this note I am also very proud of the leadership which was displayed recently in my riding near the town of St. Martins in the development of the Fundy trail parkway. In this park we have an opportunity to view the Bay of Fundy.

Through the leadership of the hon. Gerald Merrithew, a minister for the province of New Brunswick at that time, I must compliment provincial colleague Stuart Jamieson and some other stewards such as Mitchell Franklin who actually had the foresight to develop this park to view the beautiful Bay of Fundy.

Recently our coastal regions have been facing another menacing attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have been pillaging the ocean floors almost unabated by officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The lucrative lobster fishery can be in danger if strong measures are not immediately taken to put an end to this illegal activity.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986 the PC government approved the national marine park policy. In 1987 the country's first national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay was established.

In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement with British Columbia to create a national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

On April 6, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed a historical and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay estuary in the St. Lawrence River.

I am proud to have had the opportunity last summer to visit this park in the Saguenay fjord. I must say that this is an incredible region and a great park.

I am proud to say that the government and provincial governments collaborated to build such a wonderful park along the Saguenay area, Lac-Saint-Jean toward Tadoussac and into the St. Lawrence River.

We have outlined the ecosystem leadership the government at the time had. I think that is an indication of the vision the Progressive Conservative government had during its era between 1984 and 1993.

I point out some of the initiatives that were brought forth which dovetail in terms of our commitment to ecosystem development and protection and respect for the environment. Under our government in 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was brought forth by the minister of the day, the Hon. Tom McMillan and the Hon. Jean Charest.

During that time it was prime ministerial leadership under Brian Mulroney that developed the Clean Air Act which took on the Americans and brought forth a national accord that addressed acid rain. The same prime minister cared enough about the environment and showed leadership at the Rio earth summit with respect to biodiversity and climate change.

The commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party with respect to our national parks and our conservation areas and the environment is unprecedented.

It is important to note that although the proposed legislation is designed to establish and manage a system of marine conservation areas respective of the 29 marine areas, it does not specifically identify a precise geographic location to be protected.

These sites will have to be chosen through much consultation with members of the general public, provincial governments and obviously those individuals who earn their livelihoods from our distinct waters.

I mentioned our aboriginal peoples' dependence on these waters for their food fishery. It is important that aboriginal peoples be involved in the negotiations. With many land claims still to be resolved, it is imperative they be consulted on creating any new marine reserve areas.

There are restrictions on non-renewable resource extraction. I believe careful examination of any proposed site must be explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration in a very sustainable way.

Nova Scotia is finally going to reap the economic benefits of Sable gas. This economic boom would not have been possible if the Sable area had been designated a marine protected area. That is why we must exhaust all opportunities for constructive consultation sessions with all those who have a vested interest in our ocean floors.

We must immediately begin the process of identifying appropriate locations for inclusion within marine conservation areas. This bill will help provide the framework for creating these much needed conservation areas.

We are very excited about trying to identify at least 10 marine parks by 2000. I applaud the government for actually setting a goal because I fundamentally believe what gets measured actually gets done. Let us make sure we take our time to do it in a very prudent, consultative fashion and that we locate those ecosystems that should be preserved the most.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue on behalf of our critic for heritage, the member for West Nova, and to participate in this afternoon's debate.