I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is comforting to see the interest all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois take in the consideration of this bill at report stage. I thank the hon. member for Chambly for the kind remarks he made earlier.
To come back to my horses, so to speak, Mr. Speaker; horses are normally on land, but the white froth on the crest of waves is also called horses.
What we must understand here this evening about GroupNo. 5-and I like the expression my hon. colleague from Chambly used earlier when he talked about neo-constitutional relations-is that we are doing our very best to come to an agreement with the people opposite. That is what is commonly called creating a partnership. We are even doing so at the instigation of former fisheries minister Brian Tobin, who told me: "Yvan, we want to be your partners. We want to establish a partnership". When you want to establish a partnership, you sit down with your partner and start making comparisons and agreeing on definitions. This is the very foundation of any partnership: the equality of partners.
To do so, we need to be able to talk and to establish clear premises from the start. When I was preparing these motions, I never thought the debate was going to develop this way. I must admit that I tried to get the idea across during our committee work. I did not jump on people with my idea, but when people come and tell me: "We do want to have partnership with you and make headway", I take that opportunity to check how sound things are. That is how the kind of motions before you today came about.
I could perhaps share or read a few, if I may. They deal with simple things. I am on Motions Nos. 8 and 9. Motion No. 8 deals with clause 8, defining rights. I am simply adding the words "derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held before February 4", to include the notion of province. It does not hurt anyone. Why should the government be ashamed of mentioning in the legislation that the provinces are its main partners? This is an example.
I will read clause 9. It is very eloquent. Subclause 9(5) mentions establishing a partnership; this is the provision I would like to see withdrawn-I realize this is boring for those who are listening to us at home, but I too would rather be doing something else. Put simply, the word "Limitation" appears in the margin, on the left side of subclause 9(5). This provision contains a limitation.
Here is what subclause 9(5) says. It reads:
For greater certainty, this section shall not be interpreted as providing a basis for any claim, by or on behalf of a province, in respect of any interest in or legislative jurisdiction over any area of the sea in which a law of a province applies under this section or the living or non-living resources of that area-
What does this mean? We are told that a claim cannot be made. A limitation is imposed. This is a bad way to start a partnership. I do not pretend to be a constitutional expert. I may not have as much legal expertise as does the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra or the hon. member for Chambly. However, I am an administrator by training and when you start with restrictions, it is a bad sign.
The same goes for Motion No. 14-we can go into details this evening, since we have time to do so. I specifically use the word "provinces" in the motion. Again, it is for a simple reason. Why is the government afraid of naming one of its main partners?
I will get to motions that are even more interesting. MotionNo. 23 seeks to add a fourth paragraph to clause 23. Earlier, in reference to certificates, the member for Vancouver Quadra said that, as regards Canadian sovereignty and international law, this is not quite the way to proceed. The member for Vancouver Quadra does not have to convince the whole world. He must convince the partners, that is the provinces, and the members who are here in this House.
I would like clause 23 to be amended by adding a fourth paragraph which would read:
"(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province".
We might be told that what is indicated in clause 23 does not come under provincial jurisdiction, or what have you, but it would not hurt to include it in the bill, so as to stress the notion of partnership. One would say to the other: "Listen, if you accept it like that, I am prepared to live with clause 4, because I will not lose anything, and if it suits you, great, so much the better". But no. It cannot work like that.
I move on to Motion No. 32 right away. I will read it carefully, slowing down at the important words and comparing it at the same time. It refers to clause 29. This may be an academic exercise. In any case, I think it could be instructive for those listening at home, and even for certain members who did not have the chance to look through the whole bill.
As written, the clause reads as follows:
"29. The minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards, and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial-"
I note that the provincial governments are not quite last, but come after relations with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, in collaboration of course.
What I would like to see, and I mention it in the motion, because the provincial partners will have to make it work, because Canada is made up of provinces, I would rather see the following:
"29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments-"
So there is an direct link right off the bat. As soon as you read it, it is clear: the main partners are the provinces and agreement must be with them. This is followed by "in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada", and then "interested persons and bodies". But it is the minister, in concert with the provincial governments, who is going to "lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces-it does not hurt to mention it-the development and implementation of a national strategy".
In other words, putting things in the right order from the start simplifies things later. It is not because I am a sovereignist that I would put the words in this order. I told you earlier that my second defect is to be an administrator by training. I therefore like to be able to identify the other players from the outset so as to be able to determine what our relations with them will be. I have said "in concert". What is done in concert? To lead and develop the implementation of a strategy. Now that is clear. But let us not begin with a list that, when the clause is read by more experienced jurists, such as there might be in this House, waters down the purpose of this motion.
If you try to do that, you risk serious problems, since this act will be implemented to resolve problems. So there must be an effort, from the outset, to avoid creating problems so that the relations are very clear.