Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must express my amusement with the speech by the Minister of the Environment in which she refers to her environmental concerns.
She tells us that she wants to act before there are any ecological catastrophes and before our environment deteriorates. I might begin by reminding her of her government's terrible record as far as greenhouse gas reduction is concerned. I believe that this government's failure to meet the objectives of Rio is an obvious sign of its lack of desire to take these environmental concerns into consideration. That was my first comment.
Second, the minister had very little to say about the negotiations surrounding the harmonization process. I would remind her that, in principle, it was intended to eliminate potential conflicts between the provinces and the federal government. It was also intended to eliminate duplication and overlap.
I would remind her as well that Quebec refused to sign that agreement, for two basic reasons. First, it wanted recognition of Quebec's exclusive and overriding areas of jurisdiction within its constitutional rights.
It also wanted changes to the legislation, such as those in Bill C-32, to take the concerns I have referred to into account. I take pride in speaking out against this bill, simply because it does not address the concerns defended by the Quebec Minister of the Environment.
My question for the Minister of the Environment is a very simple one. When I look at the bill and the spirit of that bill I see that it calls for interventions at the national level, for instance those in clauses 139 and 140 on national fuels marks and clauses 152 and 150 on national emissions marks.
Does the minister not agree that her bill represents a direct attack on the provinces and an obligation for them to adopt provincial regulations, as otherwise the federal government will end up directly interfering with what Quebec can do in environmental matters?