Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal member say in his eloquent speech that when a party is elected on a particular political platform, it must follow up on that platform. He could have talked about the elimination of the GST, pay equity, withdrawal from the free trade agreement, the elimination of the GST on books or the end of patronage appointments, all to be found in the red book, but he simply forgot.
Listening to his speech helped me understand why people have so little confidence in and so little respect for politicians. To summarize his speech, we could say, as we used to say in the schoolyard when we were kids, “my father is stronger than yours”. That was more or less the substance of his speech.
I will now try to ask a different question to the Liberal member. I will ask him what part of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park agreement would be unacceptable in Bill C-48. I remind him that this has nothing to do with the big bad separatists.
Second, clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 reads as follows:
—is satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.
Clause 5(2) talks about lands owned by the Canadian government but, at the same time, section 92.5 of the Constitution says that Quebec legislation applies to all public lands, including river beds.
First, how can the member explain the inability to come to an understanding on the basis of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park agreement, and second, how can he explain the difference between clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 and section 92,5 of the Canadian Constitution?