Mr. Speaker, before Oral Questions, I interrupted my speech a bit like one of those western thrillers, with a reference to the government being like an onrushing train. Then we had to stop. I was saying that if this government maintains its lack of respect for democracy and for the work done in committee, it is headed straight ahead, yes, as it said during the campaign, but straight ahead into a brick wall. That is what is going to happen if there is not more respect shown for its colleagues in committee and its minority status as a government.
Now, on another note, I will address some other aspects. When a bill is introduced, the public wonders what changes it will make in their lives, how it will improve their lives, and how it will improve society, make this a better place to live, a safer place where rights and freedoms are respected, a more just society. We must always keep that in mind when bills come before us.
I have spoken of democracy. The way this bill was presented was perhaps not the right way. They are trying to backtrack and to deviate from the committee consensus, to return to their desire to encroach on others' jurisdictions. There is a desire to be intrusive. There is no respect for the underlying democratic principle or for the division of power. Once again, Canadian federalism is being sidetracked. This makes those of us on this side of the House anxious to get out of federalism, and the sooner the better.
Since this is not the time, and since we have a job to do here, to preserve provincial jurisdiction, we will of course be against this amendment which would withdraw the one passed in committee with the intent of ensuring provincial jurisdictions were respected. We are not just speaking for the joy of hearing our own voices. The people watching at home need to know this is not just a squabble about paperwork, about amendments or amendments to amendments. It has a real impact.
I was an advisor to the Minister of Environment in the Quebec government during the flooding in the Saguenay in 1996. During these disasters, it was important and essential to have some kind of command unit and ministerial coordination. It was the same in the case of the ice storm. Quebeckers overcame this crisis with dignity and efficiency, thanks to the dialogue between the population, Premier Lucien Bouchard and the Hydro-Québec president. A whole population acted in harmony and with integrity. Emergency issues were dealt with in a civilized and harmonious way.
When we have two leaders or two ministers responsible for Public Safety, they can encroach on each other and it seems like, finally, no one is in charge. In that case, the population is left to fend for itself. That is a real danger, and this is why my learned colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin had this idea. This was the thrust of his proposal, that is that we would have due regard for the jurisdictions of each level of government and we would ensure that, when necessary, when public safety and protection are threatened, we do not have to wonder who is responsible: Ottawa, Quebec or both. In such a situation, someone tries to play politics.
Thus, we need to know which way to turn. I admit I would rather turn to Quebec than to Ottawa. In this sense, it is a fundamental amendment that was introduced in committee, and it is a vexatious, useless and undemocratic amendment that was introduced in the House to cancel this work approved by the majority in committee.
Of course, we will fight against this amendment. We hope that this will serve as a lesson once again to this government. It seems to need several lessons to acknowledge its status of a minority government and finally develop legislation that respects the citizens, the provinces and Quebec.
