Norman E. Doyle

[Division No. 1413, October 4th, 2000]

Progressive Conservative members vote yes to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

[Division No. 1409, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Division No. 1406, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members are voting yea.

[Division No. 1404, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members are voting in favour of the motion.

[Division No. 1398, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members are voting in favour of the motion.

[Division No. 1418, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members are voting yes to this motion.

[Division No. 1422, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members are voting no to this motion.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no to the motion.

[Health Care, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, has been very critical of the government's health care package, saying that it is no bonanza because funding will not be fully restored to 1994-95 levels until the year 2006.

What is the minister going to do to address the health care problems of small provinces like Newfoundland that cannot wait until 2006 to have its health care funding restored to 1995 levels?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate at report stage on Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

First, I want to express the regret of the hon. member for West Nova who is the Progressive Conservative heritage critic. He is unable to be here today to present his views on this second group of amendments introduced at report stage. I know he is truly disappointed that he cannot be here and that he is missing this opportunity to condemn the federal government for going forward with this flawed piece of legislation, despite the very serious ramifications it could have on our coastal communities, particularly communities in and around the Atlantic area.

The federal government's decision to go forward with the bill at this particular time is totally reprehensible. It shows its clear lack of understanding for the potentially explosive situation that presently exists in Atlantic Canada. Violent feelings are running very high in and around the Burnt Church and New Edinburgh areas because of illegal native fishing.

Now in the midst of this very dangerous situation, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has suddenly decided she wants to pass a piece of legislation in the House of Commons which could negatively affect fishermen. It clearly shows the contempt that the Liberal government has for the people of Atlantic Canada.

My colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, was told in committee that extensive consultations had been conducted all over the country prior to introducing the bill. These so-called consultations were more or less confined to sending letters out to fishing organizations advising them of the government's intention to introduce a marine conservation act. The government has interpreted the lack of response as a total acceptance of its plan.

Most fishermen in West Nova and in the Atlantic provinces have never heard of these plans. Frankly, they have much larger problems to deal with and worry about at this particular point in time. It is inconceivable that lobster fishermen in the Atlantic provinces would participate in discussions about a new marine conservation act when their livelihoods are being threatened by the illegal native lobster fishery.

Atlantic Canadians are witnessing the Liberal government's failure to fully enforce the laws of the country by not putting an end to the illegal lobster fishing in Burnt Church and New Edinburgh. This is despite the fact that the federal government received clarification from the supreme court in the Marshall decision and was the recipient of a successful federal court decision in Halifax.

What assurances do fishermen have that designated marine conservation areas will not have a negative impact on their fishery? Why should they expect the Department of Canadian Heritage to protect these areas when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has shown that it is completely unable to uphold the laws of the country?

If the Minister of Canadian Heritage thinks she can protect these designated areas then perhaps she should take over the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is all well and good that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to create a marine conservation act. The Progressive Conservative Party has continually shown support for protecting our natural habitat. Our recent support of Bill C-27 is but one of the many examples of our commitment to protecting the environment.

The government should be ashamed of itself for going ahead with this bill without having held extensive public consultations. Of greater concern is the fact that the government is going ahead with this when it knows that fishermen in the Atlantic provinces are preoccupied with the crisis in the fishery. This is but one more example of the Liberal government's insensitivity toward the Atlantic provinces and toward Atlantic Canadians in general.

I was somewhat surprised by the proposed amendment to replace lines 3 and 4, on page 3 to read “Minister means Minister of Fisheries and Oceans”. I respect the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, however, does my hon. colleague, or for that matter the Canadian Alliance Party, really believe that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his departmental officials are capable of protecting newly created marine conservation areas? No, I do not believe they are. I suspect most Canadians would not think so either.

I do not know what the member for Dauphin—Swan River was thinking when he introduced this amendment, but I can certainly tell him that we would not support that kind of amendment. Our party believes that our national parks system must remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Whether these parks are on land or in water, we believe that they would be better served if they remained under the jurisdiction of Canada's new parks agency.

I have examined the other amendments grouped together at report stage of this bill. Some would appear to be purely a question of semantics while others were introduced to raise questions about provincial jurisdiction. Our party has not introduced amendments because we feel that the whole process for creating this particular piece of legislation was fundamentally flawed right from the outset. Therefore, we urge the federal government to withdraw this bill immediately until proper consultations can take place with the various stakeholders who are interested in this.