Mr. Speaker, minor disturbances occur from time to time, but as I was saying-I have lost the gist- I was saying that one of Canada's prime objectives in connection with Bill C-98 is to reaffirm its sovereignty over its coastal waters.
One of my colleagues whispered to me that one project dear to my heart was separation. How is it that, when Canadians are talking about affirming their identity, they talk about sovereignty and, when Quebecers talk about wanting to be sovereign, Canadians call it separation?
Nowhere have I seen reference by international journalists or in the international press to Canada's wanting to separate from the rest of the world with the announcement of Bill C-98. It just wants to assert its sovereignty.
I hope my little digression will help some people to understand and to use the proper terminology in the future.
I would also like to add, before getting into this small digression, that the Bloc Quebecois took part in Bill C-29. We knew it would be difficult. We knew that our plan to protect fish stocks in overlapping zones outside our territorial waters had no basis whatsoever in international law. However, I should add that no point of law prevented us from taking the action we unanimously authorized the Canadian government to take, here in this House.
What I want to say is that common sense prevails, always. When we appeal to people's common sense, when we take the time to explain things to them, they understand. When we do not take the time, we keep going round in circles. This is what has been happening in the constitutional context for the past thirty years; we have not taken the time to properly explain to people, and we are going round in circles.
In terms of the bill before us this morning, we could have avoided going round in circles, but we did not take the time to properly explain. Had that been done, we in the opposition would have worked with the government members opposite and talked about our suggestions for part I and whether fundamental principles could be respected and an order of consultation established in connection with part II-that sort of thing. We would have saved a lot of time and a lot of taxpayers' money, and the problem would be solved. At least we would have a timetable that would allow us to say we would progress.
At this point, we do not have anything. I am saying right off the bat that if the government ever uses its majority without taking into account the comments made by members who disagree with it, we will always have problems with this bill. If I understand correctly, the minister of fisheries sees this bill as the way to correct the management errors we made in the past. We should, however, ensure that everybody understands and that the solution is appropriate to the problem. We must first agree on the definition of the problem before trying to define solutions.
All this to say-I am not such a bad guy after all-that I agree with the minister of fisheries that many things in Canada are scattered. I, too, recognize that this management is a little chaotic. I may not be using the same words as the minister but I think the same thing.
In this regard, I could agree to go back and sit with the people on the fisheries committee and work on what could be called an integrated ocean management system. For the people listening to us, integrated management system does not necessarily mean that everything should be centralized. We should first of all ensure that the right hand knows what the left hand will be doing.
At this time, when we are still at the starting gate, I am not sure that the other members of the cabinet are aware of the full import of this bill, but there is one thing I would like to know. If it is supposed to make things easier, I would like the minister of fisheries to show us that he is on top of this by inviting the 14 other ministers concerned by this bill to come and tell us how they see their participation in this proposed management committee, how all this will come together, so that we can see and feel it in front in us. But I have yet to hear the other ministers.
This sums up my position this morning. I could perhaps close with a brief summary of what I said and I will then have a motion to table. In short, this is the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Part I of the bill defines in the laws of this country Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. It is certainly important to recognize one's sovereignty. However, I am not sure that we needed a federal act to do that. Indeed, we were once told by the ambassador representing Canada during the negotiations on the convention that such recognition could be made by cabinet.
As far as I am concerned, Part II is only window dressing. The bill does not meet its objectives. The required legislative framework for the implementation of a national strategy is ill-defined and federal responsibilities regarding the management of oceans are vague. What is even worse is that the bill disregards the provinces' jurisdiction, including in the environment sector-as the hon. member for Laurentides will explain later on-and defines provincial ministers as mere associates on the same level as any other person, whether in the private or the public sector, interested in the issue.
This bill could therefore generate disputes. This is unacceptable, in our view. Consequently, we oppose the legislation. We feel it is
necessary to clearly define a strategy for the management of oceans, but that strategy must be efficient and not lead to conflicts.
In that regard, the minister must go back to the drawing board and come up with a strategy that will clearly define the responsibilities of each one involved in the process, without creating any new overlap between federal and provincial departments.
On that note, I would like to table a motion-although I do not know if I can do so at this stage-which could read as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurentides, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-98, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada, be not now read a second time, but that the order be revoked, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the standing committee on fisheries and oceans".
In so doing, we would create a climate which would ensure the implementation of an ocean management strategy much more quickly, efficiently and constructively, with the participation of parliamentarians. That would also result in significant savings.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore table my motion.
I note that there is still some time left but as I have already stated I would not wish to drag things out in my concern to save the taxpayers' money, and to launch into patriotic speeches as well, a move which I expect would offend some of those present in the House this morning because any flag waving I would do would not necessarily involve the flag of Canada.
Not that I have anything against Canadians, but my objections are instead against the federal system as it exists at present and as it is administered at present. The bill tabled this morning is to my mind a perfect illustration of the fact that no effort is being made to seek agreement among ourselves. The minister makes a decision. Perhaps an ill-advised one. I am, after all, prepared to attribute good intentions to him from time to time. But the minister heads in a certain direction, deliberately closing his eyes and ears to everything around him, probably even within his own caucus.
On these grounds therefore I invite the minister to withdraw the bill, to provide an opportunity for us to develop a strategy at last, but a strategy that must be created in an atmosphere of mutual trust. If we cannot manage to do so I feel Quebecers will understand that if, every time we take the floor to try to get our point of view across to the others, theirs is the one that wins out it would not be surprising if at some point when nothing can be changed from within it becomes necessary for us to break out of this federal morass.