Robert Lanctôt

[Highway Infrastructure, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after many speeches and requests by the Bloc Quebecois to the federal Minister of Transport, last week the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry finally had something to say but said it to the wrong person. The member asked Quebec's transport minister to take action and stop playing politics in connection with the plan to extend highway 30 and to build two bridges, when he should have been addressing the federal Minister of Transport.

The member for Beauharnois--Salaberry also recommended to the minister that he take the estimated $108 million in federal funding available. This money is available for all of Quebec, not just for highway 30. We have said this repeatedly, as have the stakeholders, and everyone is ready to go ahead except the federal government.

However, there was a rumour on the weekend that the federal government is bumping up its contribution. The Bloc Quebecois would like to see this rumour finally become reality and would remind the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry that it is he, his party and his government who promised to build two bridges and finish highway 30 during the election campaign.

He made a promise and now he should deliver on it.

[Highway Infrastructure, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to see that the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Chambre de commerce et de l'industrie de la Rive-Sud de Montréal, the Chambre de commerce et de l'industrie de Châteauguay, the Comité d'action régional pour le prolongement de l'autoroute 30, the Association des constructeurs de routes et des grands travaux du Québec, and the Quebec government all support the extension of highway 30 and the construction of the two bridges.

The Quebec government is ready to start the work as the main contractor. All that is missing is the federal government's will to fund half of the project. Everyone is ready, except for the federal government. The time for meaningless election promises is over. It is now time to deliver.

The federal government must announce before Christmas that it will quickly fulfill its election promises.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members to reread my speech of yesterday on Bill C-36, if they can.

Today, we are dealing with the amendment on the Official Secrets Act. Will people be permanently bound to secrecy or, as proposed in the amendment, for a maximum of 15 years?

I will begin with the motion and, later on, I will discuss the issue in a general manner. We have no choice but to support the proposed motion, because it is the lesser of two evils. In a bill of such importance, we are forced to choose an amendment with which we are definitely not pleased, but which is not as bad as the alternative. It is with some reluctance that we will support this amendment.

We moved 66 amendments in the standing committee on justice. Out of that number, only one was accepted. That was done perfunctorily. The amendment simply added the term cemetery in the clause on hate propaganda. Imagine that.

We discussed very important issues, including the sunset clause. We talked about the definition, which was too broad. We provided examples, even after the amendment by the Minister of Justice. During that sitting of the committee, we were told that, yes, to use our examples, protesters could be deemed to be terrorists under such a clause, even duly amended. It is not because a clause is amended that the whole issue is settled.

Let us not forget that this clause on definitions includes several possibilities. There is a cumulative effect. In a number of places, including in paragraphs (d) and (c), protesters are included in the definition of terrorist activity.

This motion is important, but it is with some reluctance that I say so. The Bloc Quebecois could have brought forward many motions, but we saw what happened.

As I said, out of the 66 amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois, only a minor one was accepted. One wonders how such a result can be arrived at.

It is a well-known fact that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the bill at second reading because we were convinced in principle that we had to pass an anti-terrorism bill to make our fellow citizens feel more secure. However, we are not fools, and we are not blind. It does not take much imagination to see the scope of the powers granted under this bill. I am not just talking about the powers of the government in general, but about the powers of ministers, such as the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence, who will wield extreme power. This bill was supposed to be an exceptional series of provisions.

Beyond the exception, situations must be dealt with. Is there a balance between security and freedom? We worked on amendments to bring some balance to the bill. There is no balance in it. Amendments were put forward. The government put forward several amendments on the first day. The amendments were presented to us. I am a member of the standing committee on justice. The government amendments were presented to us at 4.15 p.m., between 4:15 and 5. Moreover, some were added as we moved along.

When I hear government members say that they had the time to look at the amendments, I must say there is something I do not understand.

As a lawyer, I have often wondered why the wording of acts is so imprecise, so vague and how it is that it can be interpreted in so many ways. Now we have the answer. I had the answer for the first time.

As a new MP and a lawyer sitting on the standing committee on justice, I have seen how it is done and I must say it is not just a matter of going over some things with a steamroller, but it is also that people do not understand these amendments. In this regard, I would have loved to put a few questions to the members who voted so recklessly. They accepted the government amendments but not the ones we had put forward and worked so hard on. We had worked hard to put forward sound amendments to strike a balance between security and freedom.

How can these members say today that they have studied the bill? How could they study the amendments? It was impossible except during the proceedings of the committee, which ended at 3 a.m.

You should have seen how quickly the vote was taken and how little time we had to look at each amendment and read it. Some amendments were several lines long and we only had three to four seconds to read them before we had to vote on material received at 4.15 p.m. We had a binder three to four inches thick full of amendments. How can we say that the impact of those amendments was considered?

Not only are we witnessing window dressing but things are being concealed in a bill of great importance. I am very disappointed with the kind of work done in committee. I was sure that through our involvement as members of parliament we would have a say. We tried to give these amendments serious consideration.

At one time, we were not even discussing the amendments. Those moved by the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative-Democratic Representative Coalition were all rejected. It was a charade.

I am disappointed as a citizen, as a lawyer, and most of all as a member of parliament. I thought we were seeking a balance between security and freedom. To enjoy freedom, however, we must maintain democracy, but this is not the way to build it.

What happened on September 11 was definitely a breach of democracy, but we are doing the same thing here in another way. What message are we sending to the rest of the world? This is but a facade: we keep hearing that ours is a democratic country, but it is completely false.

We would have liked to have a well thought out legislation that would have provided a balance between security and freedom. However, we are being deprived of any chance to ensure that this bill truly meets the expectations of Quebecers and Canadians.

When the government says that Canadians agree with what this bill is trying to do, that is completely false. In order to achieve that kind of balance, first the Minister of Justice would have had to do more than say “I will listen”. During oral question period in the House, she said “Yes, I am open to your ideas, I will listen. I will listen to the members, I will listen to the witnesses”.

More than 60 witnesses appeared before the committee, and it is not true to say that they were listened to. There was so little listening done that not even the Senate was not heard. The Senate put out a report that was not even followed by the government.

How are we supposed to take the government seriously? It cannot be taken seriously, and that is a problem. This is not simply about taking the government seriously; it is about our democracy, our institution known as the House of Commons, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is a complete stalling tactic, because the government is fooling people into believing that there was an opportunity for debate, but the debate took place before the bill was introduced in the House.

It gets worse. Yesterday was the first day of the report stage for the bill. After only three hours, notice was given that there would be a gag. Today, we voted on this motion. After only three hours of debate at report stage, a gag was ordered, not only for the report stage but also for third reading. It cannot get any more anti-democratic than that. It is really unbelievable.

I would like us to be really serious and examine the amendments. There is a problem when in committee we are told by senior officials and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that demonstrators such as those in Quebec City would fall into the definition of terrorists.

We cannot allow this government to run roughshod over democracy and freedom.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is arrogance or a lack of awareness, but this sort of response is incredible.

The debate was held before the bill was tabled. This is the only consideration of the bill possible, and we thank the members for their participation in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where I was present. The amendments arrived between 4.15 and 5 p.m. Some were even tabled on the spot.

How do they expect us to consider these amendments? As a lawyer, I have often wondered how the legislator could produce anything so vague and incomprehensible. Now I understand how. It is as if a bulldozer ran over it. I was there and I did not even get a chance to look at the amendments. All we could see in committee was the Liberals voting in support of the amendments.

When the minister says she is listening—even in her answers to questions put outside the House, she said she was listening—she listened to none of the 66 amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, not even the—

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we had great hopes for this bill. We thought that it was possible to reconcile security and freedom. It seems that we were expecting too much from the government.

Following the sad events of September 11, we recognized that we had to change our way of doing things and moreover of seeing things. We realized that we had to take real action to reassure citizens. Obviously, it is essential to ensure the protection of every citizen against the threat of terrorism.

Following these tragic events, we also learned to appreciate what makes us unique, that is democracy and freedom. So, why in this case put aside democracy and freedom in order to compromise them? Why put aside these values, which are so precious, instead of reaffirming them and making them even more precious?

At second reading, we said we were in favour of the principle, because we thought it was necessary to have an anti-terrorism act. However, this bill is unacceptable for us. We tried to amend it but only one of our amendments was accepted by the committee. As far as the amendments made by the minister are concerned, they are really not enough to re-establish a true balance between security and freedom.

The government saw fit to grab broad powers in this bill to justify excessive control of our freedoms. It is inconceivable that in the society like ours one might think that we are gullible enough to accept such an approach. Enough is enough. Any reasonably intelligent person will speak up against this abuse of power.

We could never have imagined that one day the world would be changed for ever by a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre, just as we could never have imagined that one day our government would decide to sacrifice our rights and freedoms, as is the case today. Where are we and where are we going? The answer scares me.

The principle—security— is noble, but the approach is harmful and hypocritical. It makes even less sense when it is our political leaders who are acting this way. This is a golden opportunity for the government to grab limitless powers while having a legal reason to do so. This is where we are at and where our so-called democracy is at.

The government put forward many amendments, but it is too little too late. In spite of these amendments, it is still grabbing excessive power and unfortunately freedoms are being denied as a result. Do not tell me that these attempts at amendments are broad and positive, this is not true. Once again, it is only window dressing.

First, the Bloc Quebecois was asking for a sunset clause. A sunset clause was aimed at putting an end to the bill except for the part implementing various international conventions. The sunset clause would have caused the act to cease to be in force after three years. That is what the Bloc Quebecois wanted.

True enough, one must react to these unusual circumstances, but one must not panic and fall into the trap. This is why the bill must be limited in time.

The Bloc Quebecois' proposal would have allowed the government to face the terrorist threat without losing sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, our freedoms must prevail.

The request was rejected. Instead, the justice minister amended the bill to include a sunset clause coming into effect after five years and concerning only two paragraphs. It involved preventive arrest and investigative hearings. This is obviously not good enough. As a matter of fact, it does not amount to a sunset clause, because one only has to obtain a resolution from both Houses to be able to extend the application of those paragraphs.

Second, as far as the review of the legislation within three years is concerned, this period is much too long. The Bloc Quebecois suggested one year, which would immediately have allowed us to avoid risks of violating individual rights and freedoms. We have shown that this bill could really violate to several aspects of the charter, and the Barreau du Québec has also underlined that possibility.

Moreover, given the haste surrounding the drafting of the bill, the risk of errors and, consequently, the probability of violating individual freedoms are heightened. It would be wise to review this legislation after one year in order to adequately deal with its obvious flaws.

The government's reaction has been to refrain from changing the bill and to rely on ministers responsible for the enforcement of the law to produce reports on the number of arrests and investigative hearings. That is all, and that is not enough.

Third, the Bloc Quebecois condemns the fact that the attorney general can get around the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act concerning certain types of information. It is unbelievable that such a way of doing things is and can be proposed as being entirely justified and justifiable. The information and privacy commissioners must keep all their powers, rather than increasing those of the attorney general.

Fourthly, we also deplore the fact that Canada waited until such unprecedented tragedies took place before reacting and taking note of the two international conventions. This is something that ought to have been done a long time ago. While Canada is constantly boasting of what a lead role it plays, it is still clearly demonstrating that this is not the case.

A fifth point is that we protest the fact that this bill deviates from the appearance of justice, to implement provisions which, in fact, are a repetition of Bill C-16, the bill on the registration of charities.

Charities will not be able to believe in justice when evidence is given behind closed doors without the key parties even being present. The main question that arises here is this: how can one offer defence against something one does not even know about?

Sixth, the bill enables the governor in council to put entities on the list of terrorists without any legal authorization and without that entity having access to the evidence supporting its inclusion on the list. That is unacceptable. It is a reversal of the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt. What have we come to? It is easy to see where we are headed, which is why our present concerns are justified.

Seventh, it must be emphasized that the government did not consult the Quebec justice department. There is an emphasis everywhere on co-operation and collaboration. But this is a principle the Government of Canada seems not to grasp. It seems that advantage is being taken of the unusual situation to cast aside the constitutional provisions relating to exclusive areas of jurisdiction, such as the administration of justice. Looking around us, it is easy to see that co-operation is what will defeat terrorism.

Another point of concern to us is that the government has not seen fit to assess the costs associated with enforcement of this bill, if sufficient financial means to apply it properly are not in place. This is one more demonstration that this bill is triggered by the panic set off by the threat of terrorism. We can conclude that, if the means are not there, all of the objectives of this bill will be nothing but empty words.

Ninth, the Bloc Quebecois would like the Communications Security Establishment to be required to get an authorization from a judge before wiretapping. It is another example of appropriation of powers by the government, in this case the Department of National Defence, which will be able to intercept communications with a simple written note to that effect.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the individual freedoms and the freedom of association because of the broad and sketchy definition found in the bill. Despite the justice minister's amendment, the potential for abuse remains and many protest groups could be included in the definition. The amendments we tried to defend and to promote in committee were defeated. This is totally unacceptable in a democratic society that is based on freedom of information.

In short, the merit of this bill rests on the necessity to respond to the terrorist threat. But the extent of the impacts on our liberties is inordinate.

While it is certainly a great thing to take action in the current context, care must be taken not to overreact and restrict democratically acquired rights.

Instead of promoting the development of our rights and freedoms, the government is withdrawing, figuring this should reassure the public.

What is happening is the complete opposite, with the government becoming more crafty, overpowering, controlling and disrespectful through this bill.

The government is giving itself the power to act arbitrarily and is openly showing total disregard for the charter of rights and freedoms, which it insisted on imposing and is now at the centre of our freedoms.

History has always shown the contrary. It is in countries where the respect for the rights and freedoms is highest that public safety and security is best ensured. As suggested by the Bloc Quebecois, our freedoms must be promoted. In other words, we have to promote who we are.

[Canada National marine conservation areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, normally I would not use the two minutes that I have left, because I had many opportunities to speak this morning. However, given the importance of Bill C-10, to which we are opposed, I will use those two minutes.

Before oral question period, I was saying that there is confusion within the government's own departments, whether it is Fisheries and Oceans, or Environment Canada. Now, in addition to these two, Canadian heritage wants to be responsible for certain areas, this strictly for Canadian unity reasons.

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 departments of a government cannot work together, how can we expect provincial governments to co-operate? It is understandable that the Government of Quebec would refuse to co-operate 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; it cannot be clear, because of the very nature of its objectives. Canadian heritage is trying to take over 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 jurisdictions that belong to Quebec and the other provinces?

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

Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that ignores action already taken, and successfully. I am talking of course about the agreement regarding the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

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.

In closing, I want people to understand what we are saying here. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of protecting the environment, but we cannot be naive to the point of agreeing to pass this bill. The government tried to get the House to pass similar legislation in previous parliaments through Bill C-8 and Bill C-48. Now we have Bill C-10, which creates overlap and through which the government is trying to use crown lands.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, following the moving of the amendment to the amendment, I would like to rise again today because I believe it is very important that I make the following comments.

Once again today I am addressing the 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, on land or under 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, not in just in 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 the lands and areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces by creating marine areas.

As I explained earlier today, for the federal government to be able to take over everything, several critical elements must be present including as a prerequisite that it has clear title on the submerged lands. But it does not own them.

This is not only because the Constitution Act, 1867 says that the management and sale of public lands are an area of provincial jurisdiction, but also because Quebec's legislation on public lands applies to all public lands in Quebec including the beds of waterways and lakes as well as the bed of the St. Lawrence river, the estuary and the gulf of the St. Lawrence river, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

The Canadian heritage backgrounder mentions three areas: the St. Lawrence River, the estuary and the gulf of the St. Lawrence. The government wants to apply the bill to three areas under provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government would contravene section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides that the management and sale of public lands are within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and not the federal government. The federal government cannot use an environmental protection measure to appropriate lands belonging to Quebec and the provinces. Rather it should seek the provinces' co-operation.

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 was 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 they 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. And, now, we have Canadian heritage, whose mandate is limited to promoting Canadian unity. Which of them can we trust? Which of them should we trust?

Canadian heritage uses the environment for national unity purposes, while fisheries and oceans 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 whose 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 double edged sword.

On the one hand, the government insists that the environment is a priority, while on the other it takes advantage of this fine principle to flog national identity, using Canadian heritage which, I would remind hon. members, possesses no expertise whatsoever as far as the environment is concerned.

The result is pitiful. 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. There is no way of sorting it out. Confusion reigns among the departments.

If there is confusion amongst 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 be in charge of the stakeholders? Which will penalize those breaking the law?

All of 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.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wants to protect the environment, but is it necessary to ensure that protection by duplicating jurisdictions and services?

The creation of marine conservation areas meets the objectives of numerous international forums, such as the World Conservation Strategy of 1980. However, how can we not turn away from such an objective, as commendable as it may be, if it has the effect of bypassing the appropriation of our respective jurisdictions? It should be highlighted that Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over the management and sale of public lands. That is what is provided in section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. Why redo what has already been done?

It is unacceptable for the federal government to use environmental protection legislation to take over provincial lands and Quebec lands. It would be better to promote and encourage co-operation between Quebec and the federal government. It is time that this government would stop using a steamroller and a centralizing approach.

Besides, in Quebec, the legislation on public lands covers all lands, including the beds of rivers and lakes. Quebec has legislative jurisdiction over this area. It is exercising its legislative power and it respects the Constitutional Act. Why then have some federal legislation that would deny the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? Is Quebec not competent enough to meet conservation objectives?

Let us not forget that the management of the bed of the St. Lawrence River is a Quebec jurisdiction by sovereign right. The protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. In this respect, the Quebec government has already acted by establishing a framework for the protection of marine areas. It is also possible to protect habitats and fauna through co-operation.

The Bloc Quebecois would rather promote an attitude of co-operation, as was shown with the bill establishing the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park in 1997. Yet, despite this successful co-operation, once again we are seeing the federal government stubbornly opposing a process that is working well. Why is the federal government once again refusing to respect the Constitutional Act, and Quebec by this very fact?

I am concerned about the future of intergovernmental relations in crucial areas like the environment. How can we trust a legislative process that does not respect the public interest, and a government that does not respect its own departments? Let us not forget that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a marine area protection program, and I want to insist on the fact that this program is already in place. Why are we creating a new one?

This bill is another example of pernicious interference on the part of a centralizing federal government in exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and other provinces, and another example of the methods used by the federal government, which ignores other partnership experiences that were very successful. Why not follow a process that has worked very well and that would certainly work very well once again? Will the federal government respect Quebec some day?

The outcome of such a bill is obvious: confusion, but above all a lack of respect. It could result in a duplication of tasks and jurisdictions, within a government that does not even see it or that sees it and acts deliberately nonetheless, which is even more worrisome. How can the federal government justify this useless duplication?

How will we find our way through all these terms to protect the environment? With this bill, the government wants to create marine conservation areas through Canadian heritage, when there are already marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife areas under Environment Canada. Again, how will we find our way through all this?

Even the government seems completely lost and conveniently forgets that programs to protect habitats and fauna are already in place.

There is a question that comes to mind: who will take precedence if there is conflict? Who will have the last word? Which department will be the one willing and able to respond to the questions and to deal with the discrepancies in application? The government will certainly not want to answer this, because that would be tantamount to putting one department on a lower footing than another. Would that be the intent of this bill?

Duplication and overlap are double-edged swords to the government. On the one hand, the government insists that environment is a priority, while on the other it exploits the environment in order to use a bill to foster national identity—imagine—and thus deny the true objective of this bill. Who, outside of Canadian Heritage itself, can tell us that Canadian heritage is defined as having environmental expertise?

The confusion that is certain to ensue will lead to a dangerous appropriation of resources, and will quickly become insurmountable. Even the staff of the various departments will be caught up in it. It is mind-boggling. We will not be the only ones to understand not a bit of it. It is easy to imagine just how this overlap is going to lead to confusion among the key stakeholders.

Who, really, will be administering the protective zones? Which department are people to contact in the event of conflict? Which department will really hold the means of dealing with offenders? Who is going to be able to find their way through the labyrinth of duplications, of overlapping departmental policies? These are just some of the questions that remain unanswered.

With this risk of confusion within one government, one can easily imagine what confusion there will be for other levels of government and for all stakeholders. If departments cannot work together within one and the same government, how will they be able to do so with Quebec and the provincial governments?

It is easy to understand why the Government of Quebec would refuse to co-operate with this bill. First of all, it is in flagrant disrespect of the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. Second, it is impossible for the federal government to provide any kind of precise answer as to the reasons this bill comes from Canadian heritage when Fisheries and Oceans already has a program in place.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because the federal government is planning to use it to appropriate lands that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, by designating them as marine areas.

In addition, this bill does not respect the division of exclusive areas of jurisdiction as stipulated by section 92 of the British North America Act of 1867.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill because it can only lead to endless administrative problems. It can truly be said at this point that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The stakes are too high to be taken lightly. The effects are serious and will, in some cases, be irreversible. Therefore, respect for the division of exclusive jurisdictions is essential to preclude all ambiguity. Co-operation must be encouraged to avoid unnecessary and harmful duplication.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill, because Canadian heritage is trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own. It is unacceptable that Canadian heritage should attempt to have legislation passed to acquire land, and under cover of the environment.

In short, the federal government, through Canadian heritage, is once again attempting to meddle in areas of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction under cover of the environment.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-10 because of the duplication of responsibilities among the various levels of government and departments within the same government.

The Bloc Quebecois wants the Liberal government to be forced to work in partnership and in co-operation with Quebec and all the provinces that have legislated in this area, thereby repeating what has already been successful, that is the Saguenay—St. Laurence marine park. In spite of all that, our amendment was turned down. It is for all those reasons that we are opposing this bill.

I would like to add that if we want the federal government to create and establish marine areas, there is an essential prerequisite. The government must own that territory.

As I already said, under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the management and sale of crown lands are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, Quebec legislation on crown lands applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including the beds of waterways and lakes.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the comment I want to make is that, in establishing a marine conservation area, one of the basic conditions is that the federal government should own the land.

Over and above the fact that it is mentioned in section 92.5 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says that the province of Quebec and the legislature of every other province may exclusively make laws in relation to the management and sale of the public lands, we also have a law to that effect in Quebec. The member, who was once the Quebec environment minister, must know that that province has an act respecting the lands in the public domain, which applies to all public lands in the province, including the bed of waterways and lakes.

I would like to put a question to the member for Jonquière concerning a comment heard earlier, according to which nothing in the bill says that we can ask if an area is needed and if we are encroaching on a Quebec jurisdiction. Could she give more explanation on those facts and on the Constitution and Quebec laws?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, this had nothing to do with the fact that he had left the House. I wanted him to hear what I had to say.

So, in response, in establishing a marine conservation area—