Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, which, I must admit, did not make much of an effect on me when I first perused it. I figured everyone wants to do the right thing, and Quebeckers may be more sensitive than others to this kind of infringement.
I took a closer look at what the hysterical heritage minister who introduced this legislation had come up with. No matter how well-intentioned she is, it is obvious that the minister's attitude toward Quebec has not changed a bit and that she is as hysterical now as she was recently, when she asked the Canadian Olympic committee to postpone the announcement of the city selected to host the 2010 Olympic Games.
True to herself, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage has never been keen on consultation, quite the contrary. As far back as I can remember, she has always acted imperiously to impose her vision, her ideas. Consultation is definitely not her cup of tea.
This bill will establish up to eight marine areas in the St. Lawrence estuary, but there is no indication of whether they will be located upstream or downstream and how far they will extend. We simply do not know. For the sake of argument, let us say they extend to the dividing line between fresh and salt water, somewhere between Rivière-du-Loup and Montmagny. That is where the marine conservation areas would be established. But have those involved been consulted?
I heard the member for Gander—Grand Falls saying earlier that the spawning grounds for mackerel and other fish common to these regions are located off the North Shore in the St. Lawrence River. Can the inhabitants of the North Shore, particularly in the ridings of my colleagues, the members for Charlevoix and Manicouagan, be expected to foot the bill, without any compensation, for marine conservation areas in this sector?
Were these people consulted? Will these areas be open for certain periods? Will there be more control over fishing? Will they be given the chance not just to survive, but to make a living, when the bill is passed?
The minister should realize that this policy of refusing to give an inch will lead nowhere.
I would like to digress briefly. This morning, I had breakfast with someone I consider a friend, a minister from across the way.
He was at a loss and had the following question for me: “What have the Liberals done wrong in Quebec for it to have come to this? On November 30, we will take a beating in the francophone ridings in Quebec. We will keep our strongholds, of course, but where did we go wrong? What more could we do? We sent you the saviour himself to rescue the nation.” I am referring, of course, to Jean Charest. “What went wrong? What more could he have done?”
Faced with the sort of arrogance we are seeing from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Quebeckers have learned over the years. This kind of attitude, sanctioned by the present Prime Minister, who was the leading force behind the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, leaves its mark on a people. Quebeckers have become fearful. Quebeckers are not prepared to trust a government that relies on remote control, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage is doing by imposing Bill C-48 on us, having consulted no one except perhaps a few of her friends on the receiving end of hard-to-trace grants. Anyway, she has friends in this community, of course. So she consulted her buddies, who are probably the ones who inspired the negative outcome we expect from application of Bill C-48.
If the minister had been concerned about the federal government's image in Quebec, she would have first of all undertaken consultations with the Government of Quebec. She is up to her neck now—never has the expression been more apt—in total interference in legislative jurisdictions.
Yet the Fathers of Confederation were no fools. They were people who set priorities, people who had believed, in good faith, that legislative jurisdictions needed to be divided, that some things were best attributed to one level and some to the other, according to which one had shown, historically, the greatest capacity to deal with those issues.
The government possesses huge taxation powers, far beyond its real needs. It also acts based on its spending power as well as its ability to appropriate funds, for example in the recent case of the employment insurance fund.
The government is now faced with a crushing debt, but, on the one hand, the additional economic input will enable it to do away with the deficit, while on the other, it dips into the employment insurance fund and has accumulated $10.4 billion in surplus over the first six months of the current year. This is a misappropriation of funds, nothing more and nothing less.
For all these reasons, Quebeckers are apprehensive, and the backing federal governments had 50, 60 or 70 years ago no longer exist. Everything the federal government does is closely scrutinized by the people, and by members representing Quebec and the other provinces in the House. My colleagues in the Reform Party look after the interests of western Canadians. They are more aggressive when we deal with the Canadian Wheat Board and other subjects more specifically related to the development of their own region.
Opposition members have a responsibility to speak up and tell this hysterical minister who says all sorts of silly things when she is off the air that it is about time she opened her eyes and saw what is going on. It is about time she realized what is wrong in Quebec where the mere mention of the prime minister's name gives a rash to 35% of the population. There is something wrong, and it is high time the government, and more particularly this minister, realized it.
I ask her to put on hold this bill which has the appearance of a commendable bill, because its goal is to protect endangered marine species. And who could be against motherhood and apple pie? Nobody, and certainly not in my party. But the bill also has the unwanted effect of using the federal spending power to intrude into jurisdictions that are none of the federal government's business.
The federal government is forcing things over which it has no jurisdiction. If it wants to spend so badly, why does it not use the $10 billion surplus in the EI fund, and spend a little extra money to help the unemployed, who now get only 43% of the benefits they deserve?
If the minister's remarks are well intentioned, she should revise them and admit that she made a mistake when she introduced this bill. She is getting deeper and deeper into trouble.