Mauril Bélanger

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who said that the government is going too far in its efforts to preserve marines areas.

Yet the critic for his party, in his remarks at the beginning of second reading, stated that he could not support this bill because it did not go far enough, because it did not include conservation measures.

Perhaps he should check with his colleague, the critic for his party, to find out whether the bill goes too far or not far enough or whether the Reform Party opposes it as a matter of form and not reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment a bit and then ask the member a question.

I refer the member to section 8.(4) of the act which talks about agreements with provincial authorities. There is no forcing of anybody to do anything. We are talking about agreements with provincial authorities and other agencies, as has been the case in the establishment of parks throughout our history. Let us not get carried away by inventing motives that do not exist.

The member started his speech by parrying for more consultation. There are ample elements built into the proposed legislation to guarantee consultation in designating 28 of the 29 conservation areas the legislation intends to establish. He rightfully requests more consultation. Then he said that he would vote against the legislation because it is hollow. To determine that, he referred to the annexes where the conservation areas are not listed. Of course not, because they have not been selected.

There has been a mapping out of the 29 areas in Canada representing the 29 ecological zones we wish to protect with the marine conservation area legislation. The locations within these areas have not been selected and that is the subject of consultation. Which is it? Should we decide there should be no consultation and make these decisions unilaterally? Of course not.

The government has indicated its intention once the legislation is approved to establish 10 such areas, hopefully by the millennium year, in consultation with the relevant authorities and not unilaterally as the member would rightfully object to.

We cannot possibly list them in the annexes. The member cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Does he want consultation or does he want us to go ahead and pick unilaterally? I do not think so. That is the question the member has to answer.

[Canadian Museums, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question.

This is a happy coincidence, but this morning the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced funding for the museums assistance program will increase by $2 million to $9.4 million, which will allow all museums and galleries to do more to promote our common heritage.

The minister also announced an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, which would allow Canadian museums and galleries to attract international exhibitions to Canada to travel across the country without having to cover insurance costs. This will foster a better knowledge of our heritage.

[French Speaking Communities, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as is usual with them, our friends opposite come to the rescue of Canadian francophones when it suits them.

They forget to mention the school system, the community radio stations, the expansion of the TVA television network from sea to sea and the support that the Canadian government gives to many institutions to help the French speaking community not only to survive, but to flourish.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the member opposite. Would he tell the House which of the 29 areas he or his party do not want to be conservation areas?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief comment and a short question.

I find interesting the notion that, when it came time to pass the bill creating the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, few members seemed concerned about a three-party administration or about any sort of duplication. I hope members are not using scare tactics in order to impede the bill's progress.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Davenport on his usual fine work, his suggestions, and his very detailed recommendations. It will be not only my duty but also my pleasure to forward them to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and to the government for consideration.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as I did earlier for our colleague from Halifax West, I would like to thank my colleague from South Shore for his remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. I thank him for his positive contribution to this debate at second reading and for supporting the principle of the bill, so that a full and comprehensive debate can take place and that we can learn from the experts who come to testify before the committee.

I too look forward to starting work on this bill as soon as possible in committee with his colleague from Nova West, and I thank him for his remarks.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax West for his comments, as well as his colleague from Saskatchewan, for their constructive approach to this bill, which is an important one.

Like them, I am eager for this bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage so we can hear testimony, continue consultation, examine our colleagues' suggestions and improve the bill if necessary. If improvements are needed, we will try to acknowledge this and to make the required changes.

I hope he will convince our colleagues in the other opposition parties to refer the bill to committee so we may begin to examine it.