Grant McNally

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get as many responses in as I can. The prime concern of the Bloc and all members is the issue of provincial and federal jurisdiction. If a marine conservation area is to be put into an area of provincial jurisdiction and the province does not want that to happen, according to the bill it will not happen. It is a non-starter. It will not even get initiated.

There has to be provincial support if it is in an area of provincial jurisdiction. If it is in an area of federal jurisdiction, because of the amendments we made the government must also engage in the same consultative process. This was not the case prior to the changes being made. It may have been but it is more clearly laid out now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I mentioned in my speech that it was qualified support in terms of the trust factor, but we need to start somewhere.

The fact that we were able to change the bill in committee and that the government acted on some amendments brought forward by our colleague from Skeena give me rise to believe that is the intent.

As I said earlier to my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, the nub of the issue will be in the implementation of the process. There are enough safeguards in the bill to ensure that a local community or province does not get a marine conservation area if it does not want one. We had an example in Bonavista, off the coast of Newfoundland, where that was the case.

While the minister of energy and resources for British Columbia, Richard Neufeld, had initial reservations about the bill, he is now supportive of it because of assurances he received from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Lots of consultations went on before I got to the committee. I was involved in some of them. I am not sure about which ones were shut down before I got there, but we need to start somewhere. In many ways this is qualified support. The idea of a marine conservation area is a good one. We need to find a way to balance all the needs and issues my colleague has brought forth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis for the good work he does as chair of the heritage committee. He is fair and balanced and tries to encourage positive debate.

I agree with him that changes were made because of the interventions not only of myself but of other members. I acknowledged that earlier in my speech and I commend the government for it.

As I stated in committee, if we lay these things out clearly in the bill to allay the fears of individuals we will have done a good thing. I think we have moved in that area.

The nub of the issue now rests in the area of something we can never legislate: trust. We trust Bill C-10 will be implemented in the spirit in which we worked as a committee and that the assurances we receive will guide the direction of the bill. We will be able to tell whether we have been successful when we measure how the minister has implemented these notions and ideas.

I am somewhat hopeful this can be done in the consultative way my colleague described and include the coastal areas. I hope these ideas will not be unilaterally imposed on anyone because of the improvements we have made to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc highlighting the importance of being here to listen to this very important speech. I appreciate that.

The test of our success in how we deal with the bill will be measured in months and years to come in the implementation of this legislation. It is my hope that the intent of the bill will be maintained through government policy concerning the creation of marine conservation areas.

The concept of creating marine conservation areas is supported in principle by PC/DR coalition members. The preamble to the bill outlines these principles of preserving representative areas within the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and the Great Lakes. The intent is to create a total of 29 marine conservation areas across the country in these regions.

The main concern the coalition has raised, and others have raised it as well, surrounds the implementation process of these conservation areas. There must be a solid process of consultation with local coastal communities before these areas are established. I have referred to the preamble on page 2 of the bill, lines 7 to 14, which says that parliament wishes to affirm the need to:

--involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments, bodies established under land claims agreements and other appropriate persons and bodies in the effort to establish and maintain the representative system of marine conservation areas;--

For areas that are under provincial jurisdiction, the bill clearly outlines a collaborative process in clause 5 which reaffirms the need to work together on the creation of a marine conservation area. The bill is less clear in regard to lands and areas that may be under jurisdictional dispute between a province and the federal government. To provide for greater certainty on this issue, the coalition proposed an amendment at committee which would have called on the federal government to obtain a legal ruling on such an area before proceeding with the creation of a marine conservation area. In other words, if an area were under dispute the federal government would not go ahead with the creation of a marine conservation area until the dispute was settled. Unfortunately this amendment was defeated. I think it would have added more clarity and strengthened the bill.

The government's argument is that it would only proceed if it had strong legal reasons to believe it had an unencumbered right of title to the proposed area. Nevertheless, if an area is in dispute the government could simply proceed with the creation of a marine conservation area, forcing a province to fight such a move in the courts if the province believed that it had the same unencumbered right of title to the same area.

Let me state that this was not the intent of the government. That came out in committee. Department officials clearly indicated that the intent was not to create an MCA in such a unilateral manner. The government has given reassurances on that front as well. Provisions within the bill also seem to lean in that direction. However, it will be up to the minister to ensure the true intent of the bill.

My colleague from Delta--South Richmond, who is a very studious member of the House, has questions as to whether this is actually worth something and whether we can trust the government. I maintain those same concerns, hoping that the government will proceed on a path where it does more than simply consult, and in way that includes the coastal communities, particularly fishing concerns, which I know my colleague has particular concerns about because he is an expert in that area. We can only tell through the test of time whether the government will in fact prove that we should have trust in it in this particular area. I think we need to remain guarded on that.

Let me say that the implementation of each and every marine conservation area established or modified in Canada would have to go through this consultative process. Some have concerns that an MCA may be created or enlarged by simply passing an order of the governor in council, which some see as a back door way of imposing one of these areas without full consultation.

For that to happen an amendment must be brought to parliament for debate. The report must include, and I quote from subclause 7(1) of the bill:

(a) information on consultations undertaken, including a list of the names of organizations and persons consulted, the dates of the consultation and a summary of their comments, and any agreements reached respecting the establishment of the area or reserve, and

(b) an interim management plan that sets out management objectives and a zoning plan—

I will return to an important clause that was amended in committee with the aim of alleviating concerns that the government may impose a zone on an area without its consent. Subclause 10(1) of the bill states:

The Minister shall consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies, with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate in the development of marine conservation area policy and regulations, the establishment of any proposed marine conservation area and the modification of any marine conservation area, and any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate.

Regardless of the area of jurisdiction, whether provincial, federal or lands that may be in dispute, it is quite clear that the new law would require consultation. It would be a positive strengthening of the bill. It is my hope that the Liberal government would act within both the letter and spirit of the clause.

Too often we have seen the government move ahead unilaterally on issues. This does not work well to build positive federal provincial relationships. Of particular importance is the need to consult coastal communities where the areas would be established. The consultative clauses must be adhered to if the government wishes to build support for the legislation. Advisory committees would be established as outlined in subclause 11(3) of the bill. I will read it into the record. It states:

The Minister shall consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies, with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate with respect to the composition of advisory committees.

There is a repeated pattern of language that is similar. I have read it into the record to reassure those who have concerns about consultation and to admonish the government to remember these parts of the bill when it creates the zones.

There are others who have concerns about different types of activities in marine conservation areas. Fishing is permitted under licence. This is noted in subclause 15(3) which states:

For greater certainty, the superintendent of a marine conservation area may not amend, suspend or revoke a fishing licence issued under the Fisheries Act.

I will focus on the enforcement aspect of Bill C-10. The act would be administered by marine conservation area wardens as outlined in clauses 18 to 23. The wardens would be tasked with enforcing the act. They would be peace officers as outlined in the criminal code.

Would the wardens be properly equipped with sidearms to carry out their duties? What would they do when confronted by individuals in contravention of the act? What would they say to people removing sensitive marine items from the area or dumping pollutants into the water? Would they say stop or I will splash?

This brings to mind the hardworking parks wardens tasked with enforcing the National Parks Act. I met with some of the wardens last week who are responsible for enforcement. They outlined their frustration with having to enforce the National Parks Act without a sidearm.

There are people who regularly break the parks act by removing sensitive material such as ancient fossils and other artifacts which are then sold illegally for large sums of money. Poachers are another serious problem in national parks such as Banff, Jasper and others. Some individuals illegally take out big horned sheep, bear bladders or other animals and sell the contraband for thousands of dollars.

This is going on now. Wardens are unable to battle the lawbreakers to the best of their ability because they are not properly equipped with sidearms. RCMP officers currently patrol the parks. However they are severely limited in their ability to enforce the act in the back country away from the paved highways they travel.

These are areas the wardens know. They should be able to patrol them with the appropriate tools to stop those who would abuse the laws and illegally remove animal species and our national treasures.

At the same time the policy pursued by the heritage minister takes away resources from the RCMP that could be deployed in a more strategic and beneficial way, especially since the demands on them have been greatly increased following the events of September 11.

It would make sense to give wardens in our national parks the tools to do their job. Will the heritage minister undertake to provide sidearms to our park wardens so they can uphold the law, protect our parks and bring lawbreakers to justice? Will she do the same for marine conservation area wardens who would be faced with the same conflicts?

Clause 13 of the bill focuses on banning oil and gas exploration in the Marine Conservation Areas Act. Concerns have been brought forward by many individuals that the clause may be used to shut down the development of offshore oil and gas before it has a chance to be established in some regions of the country. Departmental officials have assured committee members that is not the intent of the legislation.

I referred earlier in my speech to an amendment that was brought forward which indicates the government must undertake appropriate resource testing to ensure potential marine conservation areas are not established where there is a significant possibility of oil and gas development. This is of particular concern in British Columbia where the new Liberal government is undertaking a study to determine whether it will lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas development.

There must be a balance between important environmental concerns and the potential economic development of resources that could significantly benefit areas that have proportionately low populations and limited economic development bases.

Is this a perfect bill? No, it is not. Is the notion of preserving representative areas of our marine regions as conservation areas a good idea? Yes, it is. As I have outlined, the coalition hopes and expects that the government will proceed in a consultative manner to build consensus with communities surrounding areas designated for the creation of marine conservation areas.

Protecting our environment is important and necessary not only so Canadians can enjoy it now but so future generations can enjoy it as well. We hope the government will be able to accomplish this goal in a balanced manner by ensuring that affected people and communities are an essential part of the process of establishing marine conservation areas.

Our support hinges on the degree of good faith the minister demonstrates in sticking to the consultative processes outlined in the bill. It also hinges on her ability to build trust through meaningful consultation with local coastal communities. If the minister can do that she will be able to accomplish a good thing in creating these marine conservation areas. She will be able to build support for her idea.

This is the model we should be moving to in the House. I was encouraged that the government acted on some of the amendments of my colleague from Skeena. The member did a good job in committee and should be commended for it. We did not all agree with every notion and idea he brought forward, but he worked hard and diligently as did other members from the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP.

We did not all get what we wanted in the bill. No one gets everything they want in a bill, including government members. If we want this place to change we must take these steps. If we want to engage members of parliament in a meaningful way and send a message to the people of our country that the business we do here is important, means something and reflects the opinions of individuals across the country, we must acknowledge small steps in that direction and build on them. We must move forward in a way that starts to break down many of the partisan walls that have emerged in the House.

At times I can be as much of a partisan as anyone else. At the same time, for the good of the country it is time to start breaking down walls and building consensus on important issues. We need to expand our framework into something bigger and better so we can address issues that encompass the entire country.

We have focused on marine conservation areas today. I hope this becomes a model for us to move forward and consult even more in the development of legislation.

While the bill is not perfect and does not contain all the safeguards we would like in terms of consultation, we are generally supportive of the idea of marine conservation areas. For that reason we in my party will be supporting Bill C-10.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the PC/DR coalition to Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

While coalition members generally are supportive of the concept of marine conservation areas, we do have some concerns as to the details included within the bill which, as enabling legislation, would set the framework for the creation of these areas. I will outline some of these concerns as will some of my colleagues, but notwithstanding the concerns we have with the bill, coalition members will be supporting the legislation.

To begin, as a new member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage I want to say that much work had been done on the bill by my colleagues prior to my arrival. I commend them for their good work. The parliamentary committee heard testimony previous to this fall and recently heard interventions from other concerned individuals, many of whom were from my home province of British Columbia.

Opposition members from all parties have raised valid concerns about the bill. To the government's credit it has considered some of these concerns and at least attempted to implement some changes based on the input from the testimony of the witnesses along with issues raised by opposition members. This was most notably demonstrated in the House at report stage when the parliamentary secretary took the intent of an amendment from my colleague from Skeena to move forward on making sure that a report--

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my previous question.

I agree that tax cuts can lead to stimulating the economy but I would also indicate that free trade can provide a vast number of jobs. It has been a good program, although the Liberals originally were against free trade. It was brought forward by a previous Conservative government.

I want to ask the member again about the comment she made last night. She said it was a voice being added to the debate. Does the member agree with the comment she made last night, that the price of free trade has been a loss of Canadian sovereignty? Yes or no.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, her speech last night on the softwood lumber debate was a good representation from the member, and I have one question which also relates to prebudget consultations.

I am quoting from Hansard , page 7067. The member said: “Noted military historian Gwynne Dyer said recently in a speech in Pembroke that the price of free trade has been a loss of Canadian sovereignty”. I am wondering if this is something she agrees with since she quoted it. It seems to be contrary to the Alliance's position on free trade.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my intervention tonight by asking the government 10 questions on softwood lumber.

First, why has the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade allowed the softwood lumber trade crisis with the United States to drag on so long without taking serious steps to bring a resolution to this problem quickly?

Second, 345 people have lost their jobs in my riding. In British Columbia 1,600 people have lost their jobs. A total of 30,000 Canadians have lost their jobs due to the softwood lumber crisis. Does the Prime Minister not realize this is a local, regional and national issue which demands immediate action?

Third, the Prime Minister says he talks to President Bush every two or three weeks and perhaps speaks to him at occasional photo ops at international meetings. Does he not realize this is not working and he is not getting the job done?

Fourth, why does the Prime Minister refuse every solution offered by the coalition and opposition members, such as stakeholder meetings, appointment of a special envoy or immediate high level meetings on the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States?

Fifth, the government acted quickly on a Brazilian ban on Canadian beef, on split-run magazines and on Bombardier aircraft conflicts, yet has still not solved the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States after six months. Why does the Prime Minister not simply get on board his Challenger jet and get this issue solved with President Bush now?

Sixth, the Prime Minister has raised the spectre of linkage, of providing energy to the United States with the ongoing softwood lumber trade dispute, on two separate occasions and most recently in this place a few days ago. Why does the Prime Minister talk tough here and potentially threaten our energy industry, while accomplishing absolutely nothing on obtaining a settlement with the softwood lumber trade dispute?

Seventh, the Prime Minister and trade minister knew the softwood lumber deal would expire during the five year life of the deal, yet have demonstrated an inability to prepare any contingency plan to solve the problem the day after the deal expired at the end of March. Why was the Liberal government so woefully ill-prepared to anticipate this potential outcome on softwood lumber?

Eighth, the Minister for International Trade and Prime Minister have failed in their responsibility to save Canadian jobs in the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States. Why should Canadians trust the government to solve any major problem adequately on any issue, given its disastrous handling of the softwood lumber trade dispute?

Ninth, given the fact that the softwood lumber dispute has affected so many jobs across the country, does the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance have a contingency plan for dealing with the devastating consequences of secondary industry loss and related business losses and the economic impact these losses will have on local economies and the entire national economy?

Tenth, the lumber industry is the number one industry in Canada, accounting for billions of dollars in exports and thousands of jobs for Canadians. How can the Prime Minister possibly defend the “don't worry, everything will be fine” approach to the softwood lumber crisis, while Canadian families move to the ranks of the unemployed and will now be unable to provide for the basic needs of their families?

Those are very important questions. I am waiting for some answers from the government on those important questions.

I would now like to turn my attention to the local impact that this trade crisis is having on people within my own community.

Last Friday two mills were closed down in the major city of Maple Ridge, the biggest town in my riding of Dewdney--Alouette. That has put 345 people out of jobs. This will have a devastating effect, not only for the families and individuals who were employed in those mills, but for the entire local economy.

These job losses occurred because of the economic need of International Forest Products to close these mills because of the devastating impact of the over 30% countervail duty on their products.

The Albion cedar mill and the Hammond cedar mill employed many people with high paying jobs. The Hammond cedar mill was Maple Ridge's largest private employer. It operated under the first countervail of 19.3% levied back in August, but the new 12.6% levy was the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.

Its vice-president, Mr. Jack Draper, said “We cannot do business. It is impossible”. One of the employees, a Mr. Bill Westmacott, said:

For some it's going to be very difficult because their skill set is as a mill worker. This mill has worked throughout thick and thin. It's been tough through everything. Most guys have been lulled into the feeling that it would be here forever. People are still hopeful it won't be that long. But as far as I'm concerned, the federal government is sleeping at the wheel. It's typical. The west is suffering because of the indifference of Ottawa.

These local mills add $500,000 to the local tax base in municipal taxes, which has a spinoff effect in the local economy of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and surrounding areas.

The IWA local union president has also expressed his concern that the Americans are simply waiting to pick off our raw log exports and mill them in the United States. We hope that is not the case. Unless the government gets on its feet to solve the problem there will be a devastating impact not only on the union president, the jobs and the individuals he represents but on many other people in my riding.

If one travels along the Lougheed highway which runs parallel to the Fraser River, one sees many mills throughout the communities of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Albion, Whonock, Ruskin and many others. This very important issue must be dealt with and the government is simply not responding in an appropriate way to solve the problem immediately.

I want to read into the record some of the previous interventions I have made on behalf of my constituents on this issue. On at least four or five occasions I have asked questions on this issue in the House previous to this date.

I have written to the Minister for International Trade on behalf of my constituents. I am afraid that it has become a bit prophetic. I wish that had not been in the case. In my letter dated August 16 I wrote:

The recent ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department to impose a 19.3% countervailing duty on Canadian softwood exports will have a devastating effect on local companies operating in my riding of Dewdney--Alouette.

The forest industry accounts for hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in our local economy. It is predicted that the countervailing duty will cause almost immediate mill closures and layoffs in this sector. Needless to say, my constituents who may be out of work as a result of this countervailing duty need to see decisive action from the Government of Canada, and they need to see it now.

I have read media reports that indicate the Government of Canada is continuing to argue Canada's case, and intends to appeal the decision of the U.S. Commerce Department in the U.S. courts. While these are necessary actions, they could take months or even years before they are successful. In the meantime, thousands of jobs could be lost, and hundreds of mills shut down. This could cost Canadian producers billions of dollars.

The people in the forest industry need an immediate solution and they need to see their government fighting for their interests in an unprecedented way. It is my belief that the resolution of this trade dispute must become the Government of Canada's number one priority.

I look forward to receiving a response at your earliest convenience.

I am waiting for an answer. People in my riding certainly are waiting for an answer from the government on this very important issue so that they might have a solution to a problem that is affecting them to such a huge degree. I want to talk a bit about what is happening in the United States.

These countervailing duties do not just happen on softwood lumber. They also happen in other areas of commerce. However, these duties are now affecting our softwood lumber.

What happens is that the U.S. industry lobbies the U.S. commerce department to impose a duty on Canadian products. In the case of softwood lumber, the U.S. commerce department has complied with the request. Basically, it is what we might call back door protectionism.

Canada has a very important free trade agreement with the United States that allows it free access to American markets in this industry. However, with the Americans' approach to the U.S. commerce department's countervailing plan, it works at cross purposes. It not only hurts Canadian jobs and the Canadian industry, it also hurts American consumers who have to pay a higher price for their product, even if it is from Canadian producers who are able to withstand the burden of the high tariffs and still get their product to market in the United States while receiving this blow to the head duty on their product.

It would make sense to get this issue solved quickly for the survival of our forest industry which is so vitally important in British Columbia and across the country, as other members from other regions have said. It also has a huge impact in other areas.

The softwood lumber issue cuts to the heart of many. Some of us have been in this place for years now while the softwood lumber agreement was in place. We talked to the government about having a contingency plan for when the softwood lumber agreement expired. The response was inappropriate. It responded by saying that we would have free trade. We would have hoped for that but to not have a contingency plan in its hip pocket, when it had already been through similar trade disputes in the past where the Americans slapped on countervailing duties, was woefully inappropriate and showed a lack of foresight and a lack of vision on the government's part not to have anticipated this dispute.

Because the government did not anticipate this dispute and did not have a plan in its hip pocket to deal with this countervailing issue, thousands of people are losing their jobs. What are we to say to them? Do we tell them not to worry because we will take care of them? How can we ask people to trust the group that put the deal in place and allowed it to go on for five years without having a plan to combat a countervail at the end of that plan to solve the problem? It is a bit like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. The football is there, Charlie Brown goes to kick it, Lucy pulls it out and Charlie keeps coming back to kick the ball every time.

In many ways the government is like Lucy holding the ball and asking Canadians to come and kick the ball. Eventually they are going to stop believing the ball will be there to kick because they have seen the way in which this government has handled this issue and many others, which simply demonstrates how woefully unprepared it is to do so. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

It is very frustrating when members of the House come to this place with solutions about how to anticipate these problems and they are rejected out of hand.

They are not only rejected out of hand but no alternative solutions are being proposed by the government. We even heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade refer to those who are concerned about this issue as nervous Nellies. He has apologized somewhat for that comment, and I commend him for that, but it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that the government is out of touch with the impact this trade dispute is having on real people, on their lives, on local economies and on our national economy at a time when we are already in a downturn due to the change in economic climate, as well as the events of September 11. By adding this trade dispute on top of everything else is a disastrous recipe and there is no concrete response coming from the government.

In the last few days my party and other parties have raised this issue in question period. At the most, we get 35 second non-answers or flippant responses. There was joking in the House today on the government members' side when this issue was brought forward rather than a concrete plan or set of concrete actions that could be put in place. We have asked the Prime Minister to initiate high level discussions, working with the president of the United States, to come to a resolution of this problem immediately. We are past the stage of simply waiting for an answer. There is too much at stake.

Speaking of local economies, some constituents from the travel agency business sector came to my riding office last week. They are facing the impact of the downturn in the economy, particularly the events of September 11. Their commissions have been cut because of their inability to sell tickets and they have had to lay people off. That is another sector of the economy that has been affected by the events of September 11 and the downturn in the economy. Close to 400 jobs have been lost.

I bet there will be very few people, after losing their jobs, who will be looking for a flight to visit a family member in some other part of the country or are able to afford to take a holiday with their families. It is affecting local business. It is affecting Ernie Day and his colleagues who run a travel agency in Maple Ridge. They have asked that the government be responsive to the issue, which is why I have mentioned it in this debate. The government does not have a response or a comprehensive set of ideas, solutions or suggestions on how to handle the impact of not only the events of September 11 but this particular issue of softwood lumber.

I wrote another letter to the Minister for International Trade on the issue of the shake and shingle industry which has also been lumped into the trade dispute when it should not be. I am awaiting a response from the minister on that issue too.

There is a proposal in the U.S. congress called the softwood lumber fair competition act that has been referred to the committee on ways and means. It is a way to include the shake and shingle producers in the same softwood lumber issue. It is having a potential effect on that sector of the lumber industry when it should not be. It is again another example of the Americans' protectionist stance when they claim to be free traders.

In closing I simply want to encourage the government one more time to take some concrete actions in this place today. I am urging the Prime Minister to go to Washington for some high level meetings with President Bush because this is the most important industry in terms of dollars that we have in Canada. If we do not show the people of our nation that we are willing to commit with our actions to the words we say we believe in, then our words are not worth much. We need to get this solved and we need to get it solved now.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief points to make at this stage of the debate.

First, I would like to begin by touching on the motions brought forward by my friend from Windsor--St. Clair. Again I commend him for bringing forward these ideas. I am not sure we can support all of them because they are very restrictive. It pains me to say this, but I think the government has had some balance in some other clauses which actually addresses these issues and part of Motion No. 7 is actually covered in clause 13 of the bill.

Second, what we saw earlier in this place at report stage on the first group of motions was quite unique. What happened, for those who are not aware of it, is that we had a very important amendment brought forward by our colleague from Skeena, which he withdrew with the consent of the House because the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister and the government, incorporated the intent of that amendment into a government amendment. I believe that is a good faith step on the government's part to demonstrate that it is willing to take into consideration some of the ideas and concerns that have been brought forward by opposition members and incorporate them in the bill.

I want to highlight that because it does not happen very often. In fact, I do not know if I have ever seen that happen in this place. The parliamentary secretary moved the motion and it was seconded by the member for Skeena, a member of the official opposition.

That is a small step, I think, but is one that we need to celebrate in regard to the fact that we can move forward together in this place on even a small issue such as that.

The third point I will make is that I hope the goodwill in making that small change to this bill demonstrates to us the intent of the government toward the rest of the bill. It demonstrates that the concerns brought forward by my colleagues on the opposition side have been considered and that it is not the intent of the government to proceed with the creation of a marine conservation area unless there is extensive consultation with the jurisdictional areas in which that zone would be created, and a zone would not be created in an area where there may be high potential for gas and oil exploration. The fact that the parliamentary secretary has brought forward the motion would seem to indicate that is the intent of the government.

I will close by simply saying that it is our strong hope that the degree of trust we are putting in the government to make this change and some of the other changes that have been made in terms of consultation, which I will address in much more detail tomorrow at the next stage of the reading of this bill, is held to, that the changes we have attempted to put into the bill will change the letter of the law so that the spirit of the law may be adhered to, that is, that there will be wide consultation with all concerned parties before an area is created. We think it is a good idea to create marine conservation areas, but we think it must be done in balance with consideration of the local communities where these marine conservation areas will be established.

I will end my remarks by saying that it was positive that we made that change together here in the House. We should support the amendment later on in this place.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-10. We worked on it extensively in committee. Members of the coalition have concerns about the bill but are generally supportive of the concept of putting in place marine conservation areas.

I begin by speaking to Motion Nos. 1 to 4 which we are debating at report stage. My friend from Windsor--St. Clair brought forth some good ideas in terms of protecting marine conservation areas even further than laid out in the bill.

Clause 4 of the bill already balances the environmental concerns along with economic sustainability of the areas. I am not sure that we would be able to support his amendment although we appreciate his intent to further protect these areas.

I also want to talk about Motion No. 3 of another friend in committee, the member for Skeena. I commend him for his hard work. He brought forward a number of amendments in committee and as a result the committee heard more witnesses who had real concerns about the bill, particularly from British Columbia. He did a good job and should be commended for that.

We did not get all the amendments we wanted in committee. However, as the Alliance, coalition or other parties, we did move the government in some respects on the bill which improved it. It is not a perfect bill but it does set up some marine conservation areas of which we are supportive.

Motion No. 3 proposed by the member for Skeena would amend Bill C-10 by adding after line 36 on page 4 the following:

(5) The Minister shall undertake a mineral exploration review and assessment study prior to establishing any marine conservation area. The results of the Minister's mineral exploration review and assessment study shall be included in the interim management plan for that proposed marine conservation area.

That is a very positive motion and we support it. It helps all parties to know that the government would not impose a marine conservation area in a particular place where there might be a high potential for oil and gas exploration. This is particularly important in our province of British Columbia where the current Liberal government is exploring the possibility of lifting a moratorium with regard to offshore exploration of oil and gas.

One of the main concerns that members shared in committee, particularly my friend from Skeena and I, was that the government might establish a marine conservation area in a unilateral fashion that may cut out coastal communities where these areas may be established for other purposes.

The government assured us that was not the intent of the legislation and it moved to amend some other clauses. Those amendments did not go far enough, but at the same time we put a level of trust in the government. It said that it was putting forward a process for establishing marine conservation areas that would include consultation with coastal communities. There would not be a backdoor implementation of a marine conservation area in a place where there might be a potential for oil and gas exploration.

The motion brought forward by the member for Skeena is one that would have the MERA report examine the feasibility of oil and gas in a particular area. It is the scientific study that would determine whether this could be done in a particular area. It would be included in the interim management plan and be tabled in the House so that all members could see it. It would not simply go to the minister for her to review and make the decision behind closed doors. It would be brought forward so that members of the heritage committee could examine it followed by an examination in the House, and then we could decide on whether to move ahead.

It builds another accountability mechanism into the bill which reflects the need for consultation with local communities. It would also alleviate the concerns and fears of communities that the government might act in a unilateral fashion by imposing a marine conservation area on a community. The fear is that it might try to put a marine conservation area in place where there are oil and gas exploration possibilities before a review is conducted.

It is a positive move that we should support. It would benefit the government by supporting the clause because it would go further in giving all of us in this place and all interested parties in this debate a message that the government would not impose a marine conservation area anywhere in the country where there may be other economic resource questions to be determined by local and provincial governments without first consulting extensively with coastal communities and affected groups. That would be a good thing and we are supportive of that.

I have talked a little longer than I wanted to on the motions. I will talk a bit about the bill a little later if I do not say everything now. Our concerns with the bill centre around the consultation process.

A big part of the concern has to do with clauses 5, 7 and 10 which were discussed in committee. The intent of clause 5 is that a marine conservation area would not be established without consulting widely with involved communities. That is a good thing. There are some who have concerns that the government may establish a marine conservation area and then through order in council at a later date expand that territory to create either an MCA or an enlargement of the particular area.

The intent of clause 7 is that even if a marine conservation area has been established, it must go through the same process of consultation, examination by committee and be brought forward to the House for debate and a vote before it can be enlarged. We are hoping that is the intent of the clause. That seems to be the letter of the law, but as we know it is the spirit of the law that will have impact on what happens with the bill.

It is our hope that the government will stick to the intent and spirit of the bill, which is to hold wide consultation with concerned groups, particularly coastal communities where marine conservation areas would be established prior to the establishment of these areas. Once they are established there should be no backdoor process of enlarging or expanding a marine conservation area without this consultative process. It seems clear in the bill that is the way it should be, but too often we have seen in this place that what should be is not necessarily what happens.

It is my hope that the government moves ahead on Motion No. 3 presented by my friend from Skeena because it is a positive motion which we will be supporting. It gives ear to further debate in this place and implements the bill in a positive consultative process.