Madam Speaker, I was here last night for the first part of the debate, as was the member for Vancouver Quadra, who had several comments on each group of motions presented by my colleague, the member for Gaspé.
I note today that he is no wiser for having slept on it, for he is still singing the same tune.
First, when they talk about co-operation with the provinces, consulting the provinces, the member, whose constitutional expertise is recognized by everyone, takes a very legal approach, while the proposals by the member for Gaspé boil down to this: Why always speak of the Constitution, which was written in 1867, when things have changed, many areas have changed, the fishery has changed? There is something of interest here, which is co-operation by the greatest possible number of partners. Co-operation and consultation.
Approval is not always necessary. It is up to the minister, as recognized by international law, and we accept that. But the member for Gaspé is trying to suggest to the legislators that the minister be placed under a slightly greater obligation to consult, to be more open to those partners wishing to co-operate. Since last night, the member for Gaspé has been holding out his hand in co-operation.
Yesterday, he spoke primarily about the provinces; today, he is adding another aspect. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and people reacted to his speeches. People said: "Yes, in fact, the member for Gaspé co-operated very closely with other members of the fisheries and oceans committee". This is recognized by everybody.
But when we get to the House and consider the motions, the reaction is always the same: "No, no, we cannot do that. We cannot consult the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans because it would take powers away from the minister, it is not supposed to happen that way, it is not consistent with parliamentary practices, it is not part of the parliamentary tradition, it is not provided for under current parliamentary rules".
When I hear this, I cannot help but remain stunned and surprised. The Chair and its officers ruled that the motions moved by the member for Gaspé were in order, which means they can be debated. But the member for Vancouver Quadra has a different interpretation, saying: "No, we should not debate these things in here, this is not the right place".
I am not as experienced as the member for Vancouver Quadra, but I would like him to tell me where the right place would be, if this is not it. We are here in the federal Parliament, in the House of Commons, to pass pieces of legislation. Where are we supposed to debate them?
The member for Chambly said: "Are we always supposed to debate constitutional issues in the Chateau Laurier, at night?", thus reminding us of the night of the long knives. Is this the place? If it is not the Chateau Laurier, it might be another hotel, just tell us which one. He never tells us where we can discuss this. Moreover, he tells us that it is not in the standing committee. It is not in the House, it is not in committee, it is not with the provinces. But where on earth can people help the minister carry on his responsibilities, and form partnerships with him?
There has been consultation on the Coast Guard, but we will get back to this later. The minister consults people, but we know full well he only does as he pleases. He can do it, he is the boss.
What we are asking him to do is to mention in the bill that a spirit of consultation and co-operation is needed, but he refuses to do so. I am surprised that such motions do not get more support from the other side of the House.
Then the member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke with his usual eloquence and sincere optimism. And what happened right after his speech? We were told a blunt no, as always, on legal grounds. It is not allowed, it cannot be done here, this is not the proper forum. But we are never told where, when or how.
Those with a long experience in this House should help newcomers and say: "If it cannot be done here, it must be done in this other place". And when I say other place, I am not talking about the "other place", as the Senate is called, because it would seem that is not the place where things are done either. It is not where you find the most dynamic and innovative ideas.
From what I understand, that place is more of an extinguisher, a delaying force. Most of the time, it exercises a power to suspend things. Young and dynamic members, such as the member for Gaspé, make very interesting proposals, but what do they do? They
reply that this is not the right place and these are not the right motions.
In conclusion let me say, as the member for Berthier-Montcalm said earlier, that we will have to think about the meaning of the words written in the Liberal program where they mentioned reforming-maybe not the type of reform the Reform Party wants-the parliamentary system of Canada in order to increase the contribution of members of the federal Parliament, who were duly elected to represent their constituents.
We present motions, considered as admissible by the Chair, but we are told this is not in the Constitution and this is not place to do it. Let me finish with the following thought.
I tried to share the optimism of my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, but the reaction of the member for Vancouver Quadra brings us back to reality; this federalism is stuck in glue. Stand-pattism is threatening us all, in that area as in others.