Lost his last election, in 2004, with 30% of the vote.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 19th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I would like to add something to the question asked. It seems that the member has to leave the House. I find that unfortunate.
In establishing a marine conservation area, one of the basic conditions is that the federal government should own the land—
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act November 19th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, one thing surprises me today. We finally had an opportunity to do something in this bill. Even though the changes are minor, one thing is important, and we saw it with the EDC: we have an image to project to the world, and that goes for Quebecers as well as for Canadians.
It is essential to do an environmental assessment. We have environmental laws that enable us to assess the problem, but these laws are not applied in Canada and not even in Quebec.
In this bill, we had an opportunity to do the opposite of what we did with the EDC. For the CCC, why not apply the laws that exist in Canada? We go to other countries and we do not even apply our laws. What image can these other countries have of us in these circumstances?
Air Canada Public Participation Act November 19th, 2001
Yes, as my colleague indicates, those in the regions too, obviously. The response came from the government, which said “We will not put any regional money in the airline industry”.
Furthermore, the government is telling us that Air Canada manages its affairs well by cutting routes in the regions. And this is vision? I cannot believe I am hearing that.
The time has come to save an industry where jobs are well paid and all the companies that depend on it are important.
In Quebec, there is more than just Pratt & Whitney. There are a number of companies manufacturing parts and, of course, everything linked to the industry in the way of airports. All of this goes to say that the government should do more than just ask the private sector to invest in this industry.
I think the government must give this thought, examine all the options, not to allow a few to invest in this capital, but to invest directly itself by taking from the surpluses and breathing new life into the economy so that Air Canada does not end up with a monopoly.
Air Canada and regional airlines must be allowed to breathe. According to what happened recently, it seems that without new money or government investment, there is a problem.
This company has to operate and charge such a high fare in the regions that it lacks liquidity. So, if they were short of cash, just imagine how short they are now. If they are forced to use money they do not have yet, it means a cash shortfall. This is more or less what happened with Canada 3000. A cash flow problem means an industry never gets its head above water. Loan guarantees are not the only way to go.
New money is needed. That money is available. The Government of Canada has new money. They should use it as well as permit government guaranteed loans. The government should also have some strategy instead of waiting until companies go bankrupt, especially when Canadian and Quebec workers lose their jobs. This applies not only to Air Canada but to all jobs connected with this industry.
Air Canada Public Participation Act November 19th, 2001
Madam Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-38, which we are told is an important bill. When one takes the time to read it, however, and it does not take long, it is of a rare simplicity. In fact, it is so simple, one wonders how much it is justified.
One cannot be opposed to it, knowing how affected the workers in the airline industry are. One cannot do otherwise than to say yes to such a bill. Yet, what will the repercussions of such inaction be? This bill alone will not help this industry, which is so much in need of help, particularly since September 11, 2001.
We have no choice but to look at how the private sector might invest in its capital stock to see how it will be managed. At the present time, an individual or company may own 15% of Air Canada's stock. Will removing this limit improve the situation of shareholders? Will it be the same, or worse?
Quite frankly, I do not think there will be huge numbers of investors rushing to invest in an industry like the aviation industry, especially since September 11. They are trying to convince us that this bill is of such importance that it will solve the problems. My point of view is that the problem will not be solved if there is no direct investment in the airline or aeronautical industries.
One needs only think of Pratt & Whitney in Quebec. One needs only think of all the job losses directly linked to it, not only in the aftermath of September 11, but also because of poor management by the board. Is this board going to be changed by changing the number of shareholders? Who will monitor this? For what purpose?
There will perhaps be no other choice but to rationalize. Those who are going to invest are certainly all involved in high finance and will at some point expect the company to break even and also generate a profit. How will this be done? Obviously, all a board of shareholders could require of an executive board is to rationalize. Is this what will really happen? Is this good for the men and women who work for Air Canada?
Unions are telling us that they will accept this decapping. They have no choice. The government has no other idea. It is not directly investing the money that is required. It is simply saying that it will ask the private sector if we can privatize even more and put new money into the industry. What is the government doing right now?
Madam Speaker, I forgot to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jonquière. I appreciate the fact that she is here.
Will this new investment with new money really take place? I am not sure, particularly since the government just told us that it would deal with this as the situation evolved.
We all saw how things went with Canada 3000. It was requested that the necessary money be invested directly, while knowing full well—at least I hope so—what the situation was with Canada 3000. A short time later, Canada 3000 went bankrupt. The government did not put money directly into that company. Yet, workers everywhere in Quebec and in Canada are losing their jobs.
What is the government waiting to protect workers' jobs? As we know, Air Canada employs a number of people in Quebec. Why not invest, why not be proactive and create a new situation? The government has several billion dollars in surpluses, but it hesitates to invest directly in our airline industry, an industry that Canada and Quebec greatly need.
During various oral question periods, we asked the government to invest directly in Quebec's regional companies to support the airline industry and these airline companies. The government flatly rejected our request, saying that it would help major carriers instead. Some help.
Canada 3000 is bankrupt and has not yet received any money. The government is talking about $160 million, but I think this is for part of the loan guarantee, for new money. The government has billions of dollars in surpluses. It must protect that airline and that industry.
These amendments must not set the stage for the cap on foreign investment to be lifted in future. I know that this is not mentioned in Bill C-38, but the role it gives the government does open the door. It sees the bill as a way to allow greater privatization.
What if shareholders are not interested? What will they do? I hope that they will not lift the 25% cap on foreign investment in Air Canada. That is a risk. I am not saying that this is the direction in which the government is heading, but merely that I hope that this is not its goal.
This money must be invested directly. There are billions of dollars in the surplus. We are told that the government is waiting for the budget before deciding where to spend them but, in the meantime, the airlines are in trouble, so much trouble that some of them are going bankrupt and others are looking for ways to cut costs. Who is going to foot the bill? Once again, Air Canada workers.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to protect the environment, but is it necessary to do it by a duplication of jurisdictions and services?
We believe that the creation of marine conservation areas meets the objectives of numerous international forums, such as the World Conservation Strategy of 1980. However, such objectives, though they maybe commendable, should not lead to an overlap of our respective jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act, 1867 gives Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over the management and sale of public lands. Why redo what has already been done?
If the federal government intends to use environmental protection legislation to take over provincial lands, this is unacceptable. Instead, we must encourage co-operation between Quebec and the federal government. It is time that this government stopped using a steamroller and centralizing approach.
Quebec's legislation on public lands covers all lands, including the beds of rivers and lakes. Quebec has legislative jurisdiction over this area and it has already passed legislation. Why then have federal legislation that would deny the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and provinces? Is Quebec not as competent to meet conservation objectives?
Let us not forget that the management of the bed of the St. Lawrence River is a Quebec jurisdiction by sovereign right. The protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction. In this respect, the Quebec government is establishing a framework for the protection of marine areas. It is also possible to protect habitats and fauna through co-operation.
The Bloc Quebecois showed demonstrated its co-operation by supporting the bill establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in 1997. Despite this successful co-operation, the federal government is stubbornly opposing a process that is working well. Why is the federal government once again refusing to respect Quebec and listen to reason?
I am concerned about the future of intergovernmental relations. How can we trust a legislative process that does not respect the public interest, and a government that does not respect its own departments? Let us not forget that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a marine area protection program, and I want to insist on the fact that this program is already in place.
This bill is another example of pernicious interference on the part of a centralizing federal government in Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions, and another example of the methods used by the federal government, which ignores other partnership experiences that were very successful. Why not follow a process that has worked very well and that would work very well once again? Will the federal government respect Quebec some day?
The outcome of such a bill is obvious: confusion, but above all a lack of respect. It could result in a duplication of tasks and jurisdictions, within a government that does not even see it. How can the federal government justify this useless duplication?
How will we find our way through all these terms to protect the environment? With this bill, the government wants to create marine conservation areas through heritage canada, when there are already marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife areas under Environment Canada. Again, how will we find our way through all this? Even the government seems completely lost and conveniently forgets that programs to protect habitats and fauna are already in place.
If we stop and think about it, there is no way to know who will take precedence in the event of conflict. Which of these departments will have the last word. Who is going to decide this? To decide is to disparage one department compared to another.
This overlap is a double-edged sword for the federal government. The government insists that the environment is a priority, but it is using this bill as an opportunity to promote national identity, thereby denying the true objectives of the bill. After all, Heritage Canada is not known for its environmental expertise.
A dangerous appropriation of resources emerges from all of this confusion, and it will quickly become insurmountable. Even officials from the various departments are lost. It is impossible to understand. We are not the only ones who will not understand it. It is easy to imagine how this overlap will create confusion among the major environmental stakeholders.
Who will really manage these protection areas? In the case of a conflict, which department will settle the matter? And which department will truly be able to penalize offenders. Just who will be able to make any sense of this quagmire of overlapping departmental policies? These are some of the many questions which remain unanswered.
If the risk of confusion within the same government is so great, one can only imagine the resulting confusion when you add in other levels of government and all of the stakeholders. It the departments within one government cannot get their act together, how are they going to interact with Quebec and the provincial governments?
It is plain to see why Quebec would refuse to co-operate on this project. First, there is a flagrant disrespect for areas of responsibility belonging to Quebec exclusively. Second, the federal government is incapable of providing the specific reasons as to why this is a Heritage Canada bill, when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has a program in place.
First off, we oppose the bill, because the aim of the federal government with it is to appropriate lands under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces by legislating the creation of marine areas.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill because it ignores the distribution of exclusive jurisdictions set out in subsection 92(5) of the British North America Act, 1867.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill because it will not fail to produce endless administrative problems. It can truly be said at this point that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The stakes are too high to be taken lightly. The effects are serious and will, in some cases, be irreversible. Therefore respect for the division of exclusive jurisdictions is essential to preclude all ambiguity. Co-operation must be encouraged to avoid unnecessary and harmful duplication.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill, because Heritage Canada is trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own. It is unacceptable that Heritage Canada should attempt to have legislation passed to acquire land.
In short, the federal government, through Heritage Canada, is attempting to meddle in areas of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction under cover of the environment.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-10 because of the duplication of responsibilities among the various levels of government and departments within the same government.
I am disappointed by the roundabout way the federal government is trying to appropriate areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the federal government has chosen to introduce a bill that does not respect Quebecers and fails to consider actions and programs already in place. Finally, the federal government has chosen to flatten its own departments by firing up its centralizing steamroller, ignoring partnerships that have proven themselves.
University Football November 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is thrilled that the University of Montreal will have a new elite football team, for the first time in 30 years.
The Carabins will benefit from an investment of close to $2 million in the stadium and artificial surface, of which nearly $1,637,000 came from Quebec's Secrétariat au sport et au loisir.
Francophone students and athletes will now have a football option in Montreal. This alternative will lower costs for the academic year by providing young players with opportunities at home.
University football players and fans will now have a choice. Following the success of Laval's Rouge et Or, Quebec has built a solid inter-university reputation, and the other university teams are looking forward to the arrival of the Carabins on the circuit.
Anti-Terrorism Legislation November 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the minister has heard the same question many times but we have never had a reply. We realize the minister has reservations, as does the Prime Minister moreover.
Is the minister prepared to bow to the numerous opinions and recommendations from the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Lawyers Association, the Association des avocats et criminalistes and the Canadian Council of Civil Defence Lawyers, and include sunset clauses in the anti-terrorism legislation?
Anti-Terrorism Legislation November 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a unanimous Senate report recommends what the Bloc Quebecois has suggested right from the start: a sunset clause for the anti-terrorism bill.
Wil the minister at least recognize that the Bloc Quebec and the Senate are right, as were the many intervenors who all suggested in their recommendations that sunset clauses are absolutely necessary?
Supply October 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, and I would like her comments on this.
Should Canada not re-evaluate its way of doing things in matters of foreign policy?
Clearly, the world has changed. Canada is not the only country that must change its foreign policy. The cold war has just ended. From now on, the only thing that matters is trade. The agreements signed in China are an example of this. We only take care of the trade aspect, without going beyond it.
Perhaps we should also talk of the human rights before making the decision to trade with another country. We could re-evaluate our approach and consider another foreign policy instead of insisting on signing a trade agreement and forgetting everything else. If we can make money with a country, we go ahead and trade with it.
Should we not consider something else? I give human rights as an example because there could be something other than trade. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.
Supply October 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, that fits in with what I said when I spoke on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.
I said then that the money the government was promising today goes only for military sanctions. No money is provided to fight destitution and poverty, the root causes of this war. As long as there is destitution and poverty, the freedom that we are advocating will never be, and the war which is raging now will never cease.