Mr. Speaker, I was going to start off my comments in a somewhat different way, but I will begin by speaking about the ideological underpinnings of these amendments, and quite frankly of the bill more generally, as a result of some of the earlier comments by my Alliance Party colleague from British Columbia.
The suggestion was that amendments and position of my party on this bill were ideologically driven and not practical. There may be some validity to the ideologically driven part of it. The practicality issue I would reject. We have to set this in a planetary context. This is not the only government that has looked at these types of processes and legislation to protect our natural environment in its waters and seas.
We have had such leftist governments, such as the United States government that has been involved with these types of endeavours for 20 plus years. The Australian government built a system based on a legislative framework to protect its natural environment in its oceans around its coastlines, as has New Zealand and a number of other countries across the world. These endeavours were not driven by an economic analysis per se. They were driven by the need to protect and conserve these natural areas.
My friend from the Alliance suggests that this somehow is not a practical endeavour. The reality is that this legislation is much weaker than the legislation found in other countries and the motions before us attempt to strengthen the legislation. Nowhere is that more true than in the motions that I have with regard to clauses 12 and 13 of this legislation.
There is no question that this reflects a different approach by my party than that of the government and certainly that of the Alliance Party. It is our belief that if we are serious about protecting the ecosystems in the oceans, around our shores and within our boundaries, such as in the Great Lakes, we need this type of protection. We have to be serious about what will be permitted and what will be prohibited in these natural areas.
We already heard from the members on the other side of the House that this was only a framework piece of legislation. That very attitude unfortunately speaks to me about how serious the government is with respect to protecting these areas, both the ones that are tentatively designated now and those that will come in the future. If they were serious, they would support the amendments to clauses 12 and 13.
If the members on the other side were considering the possibility, and I will use one example, of allowing bottom trawling or the use of dragging gear in the oceans, then they would not be really serious about protecting the natural environment and preserving it for future generations. As I said earlier, I want to expand a bit on this issue.
Very recently we had some substantial research conducted on the coral that exists in the waters off of the Atlantic coast. It was interesting to hear some of the witnesses at the committee in the spring who talked about this and to look at the research that was done during the summer, including the pictures and videos that were taken by the research team.
The interesting part is that until very recently there was a strong belief in the research community that there was either little or no coral in the cold waters off our Atlantic coast. That was very recent. Research now shows that to be completely wrong and that the coral goes back 2,000 or 3,000 years. It is very small coral; it is not like the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. Some of it is only one metre to one and a half metres in height but it has taken that long for it to accumulate. It provides one fragment of the ecosystem in that area.
Huge trawlers have been going through using dragnets and literally ripping the coral off the bottom of the ocean floor. I talked about the research team that made the video this summer. It brought back pictures which showed sections of coral and then a big gaping hole. The only explanation that could be given was the trawlers and the dragging gear they use. That is one example. I will deal with another one.
Although the legislation as drafted prohibits the exploration and development of carbon fossil fuel types of industrial endeavours, it does not prohibit the construction of a pipeline through one of these zones or designated areas.
We have an image of the type of construction that would go on if we were to lay a pipeline in these areas and the damage that would be done to the ecosystem. That could be permitted under the legislation. It certainly is not prohibited.
If the government is serious about the legislation, the amendments I propose for clauses 12 and 13 are absolutely mandatory. If there is to be any integrity or credibility to the legislation, those amendments should be passed.
Going back to the ideology, one of our former prime ministers wrote an article in the Globe and Mail this week. He is a member of the board of the World Wildlife Fund of Canada. This goes back to the balancing act the government is arguing it has achieved, which is to balance off economic interests versus environmental interests. I always find it offensive when we have to talk in those terms. That is the type of analysis the government is bringing to bear. It said it found the right balance.
In his article, Mr. Turner pointed out:
Our governments are currently leasing huge areas off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia for oil and gas development, which is also being carried on in the Arctic, including the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea. Scientists tell us Arctic marine ecosystems and marine mammals, such as the polar bear, are further threatened by climate change.
It is the cumulative effect again. He further said:
B.C. is contemplating lifting the moratorium on oil and gas activity off the west coast.
That would be right in the ocean if the government lifts the moratorium. He made another point, and it is important to speak to our fishers on both coasts and in the north, that we have so badly decimated, perhaps destroyed permanently, our cod and wild salmon stocks. One cannot help but think that if the theme in the article and the background we are arguing for the legislation had been put in place 20, 30 or 50 years ago, we would not be faced with the loss of both those fisheries.
He went on to make another point, and this is the underpinning which I believe we should have. He said that we have these first tentative steps that are important, and I recognize those. The last speaker from the government side made these points about some of the areas. Mr. Turner pointed out:
Although these first tentative steps are important, they do not reflect the scale or vision of what is really needed. Our national goal should be to establish a system of marine and freshwater protected areas, representing all 78 natural marine and freshwater regions of Canada, by 2010.
In conclusion, the legislation as drafted will not accomplish that goal.
