Mr. Speaker, I did not expect them to react that strongly.
But, let us go back to the proposal included in this bill, because it reflects what is found in many bills. We see this repeatedly in intergovernmental affair issues. The Liberals want to occupy every inch of space in the Constitution of Canada, to elbow their way in, to be more present, to interfere more in every area of provincial jurisdiction. We have seen it with the millennium scholarship fund.
I know that the government has an important financial leeway. Now that it has done it, that it has reduced its transfers to the provinces, payments to the most disadvantaged, funds for EI benefits and welfare, it becomes more present. Liberal members think they are very wise and know best what is in the interest of the people.
This debate is about marine areas. I remember hearing on the Réseau de l'information the press conference given by the Minister of Environment of Quebec and by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, regarding the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. An agreement suitable for both parties was signed. But what is happening suddenly? Are there regrets? Is an agreement respecting both parties' areas of jurisdiction no longer possible?
To establish marine areas, the federal government will now demand ownership of the land and subsoil. They will invoke certain sections of the Constitution to extend their powers, saying that the federal government can act in the interest of Canadians, that it is a matter of good governance, setting aside the whole question of the distribution of powers as provided in sections 91, 92 and 93 of this same Constitution.
They could not care less. We heard earlier what this government really thinks. When they think something may benefit them, they could not care less about jurisdictions.
That is why there is so much overlap between the federal government and the provinces. But in this case, not only do we see overlap between the federal government and the provinces—and we will have another example of this—but the federal government itself has seen a possibility to meddle in the environmental area. We do not question the objective of creating marine areas, to respect our fauna, our heritage, which is important. Nobody is against this. Can anybody be against virtue? Of course not.
There are important things to do in this regard. Everybody agrees with the objectives. However, the approach used by the government to achieve these objectives is not working.
Two or three departments in Ottawa have seen this. All of a sudden, every one of them wants to take care of this. Heritage Canada says: “Yes. This a good idea. We will do something”.
Let me quote some of the objectives the Department of Canadian Heritage has defined: the protection of natural self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; the establishment of a representative system of marine conservation areas; and many more.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is another department that found this initiative interesting. It has its own goals, which are to ensure the conservation of commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources and their habitats, endangered or threatened species and their habitats, unique habitats, productive ecosystems and biodiversity, any other marine resource.
This department decided it had a role to play and had to get involved in this area. It also wants to take credit for the bill.
And the list goes on. Of course, that has the Department of Environment a bit concerned. It also wants to get involved.
So, we have three departments, with different responsabilities, the departments of Environment, of Fisheries and Oceans and of Canadian Heritage, that want a piece of the action. So we can talk about marine protection zones, marine reserves or marine conservation areas. Everyone has its own name for it and everyone will have its own regulations. It will be total chaos within the federal government who, to make matters even worse, will tackle the provinces head on.
Let me ask you this: how is it that, not after hundreds of years, but only after a few months of a framework agreement with Quebec where areas of jurisdiction were respected, we are suddenly no longer able to keep going in this direction?
Why is that so? Do they already regret the agreement they signed? Did some of them suddenly wake up, saying: “We should never get trapped again. We should not respect provincial jurisdiction, but rather invade it to preserve our room to manoeuvre and defend the interests of the people we pretend to represent”? There is a problem.
In conclusion, I would like to come back to what was said at the beginning on the fact that this responsibility should not be left to the provinces because their motivations are purely political. Let us examine those words. What is their meaning?
In the end, they do not want citizens to put pressure on their provincial governments. I am convinced that Canadians approve of the environmental protection goals we are giving ourselves today and that those same voters are able to put pressure on their provincial governments. But in order to do so, they must know clearly whom they can talk to, instead of being told that the federal government is responsible for this area and the provincial government for that area. This creates dissension and confusion about responsibilities.
If things are clearly defined and jurisdictions are respected, citizens might understand better and put more pressure on their elected representatives. Ultimately, it is those voters who will put pressure on either level of government to make sure that they act and that our wildlife habitat is better protected and environmental standards better implemented in various areas.
It is not to the federal government, in its wisdom, to decide suddenly what is good or bad for us.
One of the things that bother them is the fact that when they attend international forums in foreign countries, they have to say that those issues come under provincial jurisdiction. They feel somewhat powerless, inferior, diminished. They do not want decentralization. They ask themselves what they can do and once they are back home, they get together. One will admit having had a problem relating to the environment, while another had a problem in another area. So they all agree that they should centralize even further.
Those people want a centralized state. No wonder we the big, bad separatists are not alone in denouncing this situation. There are also people from other political parties, with other priorities and other agendas, who do not agree at all to our cause, but who also condemn what is happening because they are committed to serving the interests of Canada, perhaps even more than Liberals, and who would like the government to respect provincial jurisdictions.
I find it very amusing today to hear members praising the government's virtues. I challenge these members to try to understand the agreement that was signed with Quebec on the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park. I am convinced that, in fact, most members do not even know it.
They should examine it, study it and ask the minister some questions, if they can get a word in during their caucus meetings. They should ask why this agreement is not being used as a model. They should take a stand, and we will see what comes of it.
We will put the bill into the proper perspective and use last summer's agreement as a model, so that we can do something lasting for the environment, something that will respect jurisdictions and serve the public's interests.
