Mr. Speaker, I thought the government opposite would have done some thinking between the tabling of its first bill, Bill C-48, and its second one, Bill C-8.
I thought the government would have done some thinking, listened carefully and reread the statements and speeches made in this House, and taken the bill back to the drawing board to make it more acceptable.
Not so. I was not planning to take part in the debate this afternoon, but this is too much. I must speak up. I notice that the government tabled exactly the same bill as before, a bill that was rejected by many and rather seriously challenged by the opposition. The hon. members must realize that we can no more accept it now than we did before.
I looked at this legislation from a lawyer's point of view, since I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for justice, and since all issues in a bill that relate to justice are of interest to me. I looked to see if the government opposite, which is supposed to act responsibly, does at least respect jurisdictions and the Constitution for which it fights so hard, as we saw during oral question period. We live in the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister would say. But does that country at least respect its constitution?
We must look at clause 5 of the bill to realize that the Liberal government does not respect the Constitution for which it is fighting. Worse yet, it even creates overlap within its own departments, and I will conclude on that.
In the part of the bill that deals with the Constitution and the enlarging of marine areas, clause 5 states, and I quote:
An amendment to Schedule 1
This schedule deals with titles and marine conservation areas.
under this section or subsection 6(2) may be made only if a ) the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area—
It must therefore be established whether the submerged lands they wish to include in the conservation area belong to the federal government. According to this section, which I would put in the context of Quebec, when I think of the St. Lawrence River, the immediate answer is that they do not, that the federal government is not the owner of the bed of the St. Lawrence River.
We know this is what the bill says. There are three sites in the St. Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that the federal government wants to turn into marine conservation areas. It is ignoring subsection 5(2) and wants to go further still.
Why do I say that the riverbed does not belong to the federal government? Quite simply because I am referring to the Constitution Act, 1867. As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I must look at the British North America Act, 1867, the Constitution, because it is the overriding law right now, because the Canadian Constitution is the number one law that everyone must respect, including the federal government.
Section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the management and sale of public lands come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I know it is complicated, but what is quite clear is that the floor of the St. Lawrence River belongs to the province of Quebec, to Quebecers, and not to Ottawa.
How will they implement their nice little legislation if not through a show of force? We know how easy it is for the government across the way to flex its muscles in these areas, and we will probably witness another show of force when the time comes to implement this legislation. Legally however, based on the existing legislation, we can only conclude that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the floor of the St. Lawrence River.
I know it is complicated, as I said earlier. The government opposite finds it complicated, so you can imagine how ordinary citizens feel about it. They find it extremely complicated.
I said so in a previous speech, and I want to say it again because some of my constituents from Berthier—Montcalm just cannot believe it and they ask me “Michel, is it really so complicated?”
When you look at the St. Lawrence River and at the fish in these waters, you do so from the perspective of Quebec fishers. They realize that the banks of the river indubitably fall under provincial jurisdiction. They belong to Quebec. Now, if they want to fish, they need to register their boats with the federal government. The St. Lawrence river bed falls under provincial jurisdiction, but the water itself, the seaway, falls under federal jurisdiction.
It is very complicated for the average person. Add to that federal protected areas and wildlife reserves located in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Maybe the government opposite should at least start respecting legislation that concerns it directly. It should at least accept these jurisdictions and accept exclusively provincial jurisdictions.
I have not yet talked about fish. A fish, as such, is under provincial jurisdiction, but there are federal quotas. Recreational fishing requires a provincial licence, but commercial fishing also requires a federal licence.
It is quite complicated. Yet it could be a lot simpler if the government opposite were more co-operative, if it were not always intent on doing only as it pleases. It seems the only person here who has a monopoly on the truth is the Prime Minister. Everybody else is crazy and is wrong.
Again, we have examples in the area of wildlife protection. In Quebec, we have a good example in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is a good example to follow simply because both levels of government co-operated to make something that works and that is in harmony with the Constitution of Canada.
Both levels of government agreed to create a marine wildlife reserve with a co-ordinating committee made up of various people selected by both the provincial and federal ministers responsible. Each contributed half of the required funding. It is working out well, because there was consultation.
As for the bill before us, all stakeholders came to tell us in committee that the federal government had not consulted those involved sufficiently. They did not consult the Government of Quebec sufficiently, for one thing, and its property is involved.
We are beginning to get used to this. I have spoken about the bottom of the St. Lawrence. Everyone here in this House agrees environment is a shared jurisdiction. Clearly, under the Canadian constitution, the environment concerns both federal and provincial levels. If something is covered by environmental legislation, both levels of government have to be consulted.
I have also referred to the federal government's desire to overlap and bypass Quebec's jurisdictions. At the federal level, that there is departmental overlap.
This bill overlaps Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada jurisdictions. People from both of these departments came before the committee and told us “This makes no sense. There is too much overlap. People will not understand at all. It is too complicated. The government needs to go back to the drawing board”.
Today I realize that the bill under consideration is exactly the same. Let the Liberals go back to the drawing board before they propose something. At least the people responsible for application of this legislation within their own departments will have nothing to say against it.
Before closing, I would like to make some very important quotes.
Do I have leave of the House to quote three or four very important witnesses, who had things to say that the government would do well to listen to, or to listen to again? Once is not enough for this government.
I would just like about another five minutes on top of my ten.