Maurice Dumas

[Points Of Order, December 16th, 1999]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Veterans Affairs, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34.1, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian interparliamentary union group which represented Canada at the 54th General Assembly of the United Nations, held in New York from October 25 to 27, 1999.

I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to table this report.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's announcement and to the introduction of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a very informative document.

It is an excerpt from the report on the territorial integrity of Quebec if it becomes a sovereign country. This report was submitted to the Commission d'étude des questions afférentes à la souveraineté of the Quebec national assembly in May 1992.

Through the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs having stated his intent to introduce a bill undermining the basic human rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that should answer some of the questions the House might have.

The document is a newspaper article published in—

[International Day Of Disabled Persons, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Disabled Persons.

With the year 2000 mere weeks away, we are forced to admit that we are still very far from giving anything more than lip service to their right to a full-fledged role as citizens.

In Quebec, it is estimated that close to one million persons are living with a handicap, and there are close to half a million in the workforce. Of those, many would like very much to be employed.

A 1996 study pointed out that the incomes of the disabled could be raised by academic upgrading, skills training and access to certain categories of employment.

The society in which we live can no longer turn a blind eye to this situation. Given the indecently large budget surpluses of the federal government and the crying needs of the disabled, how could we not be willing to give concrete recognition to their right to work, their right to independence and respect?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I am particularly interested in this bill because I am the critic for seniors and seniors organizations. As they are sometimes very prone to health problems, health is an issue of concern to them.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increasing research funding, particularly for health. The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports the principle of establishing these institutes. However, Quebec must receive its fair share of federal R and D funding.

But the CIHRs involve much more than research. The federal government must not designate any CIHRs in Quebec without the approval of the provincial government.

Investment in R and D is necessary. The hospital and university research community badly need funding. We all know that Quebec has received the short end of the stick when it comes to funding. The federal government must rectify this through additional funding to researchers and the university community so that they can carry on their research.

A recent article in Le Devoir about the health of seniors in Quebec described the situation facing the province's beleaguered Department of Health and Social Services:

This time, the association of CLSCs and long term care facilities is calling for funding. Today, with the need for services going up, but not the funding, long term care facilities can meet only two-thirds of the demand. The problem is the widening gap between the needs of seniors and the ability of facilities to meet those needs.

By not giving Quebec its fair share, particularly in the health sector, the federal government is responsible for this state of affairs. Of course we are not opposed to an increase in research and development budgets for the creation of virtual institutes.

Quebec is not getting its fair share of federal research and development funding. We know that, historically, Quebec has received only 14% of federal spending on research. The Government of Quebec will table, at the beginning of next year, a report on scientific policy. Quebec is in favour of biomedical research and has made commitments to support it.

I mentioned that, as spokesman for senior citizens' organizations, I think health research is essential, particularly for seniors, who represent one of the fastest growing segments of the Canadian population.

In 1998, the estimated number of Canadians 65 years of age and over was 3.7 million, a 57% increase over the 1981 count of 2.4 million. With this tendency, the percentage of seniors within the Canadian population has increased over the last few years. In 1998, seniors accounted for 12% of the total population, compared to 10% in 1981 and 8% in 1971.

The number of older persons should keep growing in the decades to come, especially with the baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1965, starting to turn 65 years of age early on in the second decade of the next century.

Therefore, about 1 out of 10 Canadians is 85 years old and over, compared to 1 out of 20 Canadians at the beginning of the century. As we approach the millennium, we do have to consider the health of our people.

I remind the House that the UN declared 1999 the International Year of the Older Persons. The purpose of the IYOP is to improve understanding, harmony and mutual support between the generations and to better recognize the contribution of the elderly to their communities.

I have often stood up in this House to defend the rights of the elderly. The federal government has tried to hold the seniors hostage and make them pay for the deficit.

The federal government did not succeed because our senior citizens are no fools and made their opposition known. Life expectancy for older Canadians has increased quite a bit since the beginning of the century. By 1996, life expectancy for a 65 year old Canadian had increased by around 18.4 years, six months more than it was in 1991, three years more than in 1971 and five years more than in 1921.

Heart disease and cancer are the main causes of death among senior citizens in Canada. In 1996, 30% of all deaths among people aged 65 or over were from heart disease and 26% from cancer. Hon. members will understand that medical research is very important to an ageing population.

Take, for example, Alzheimer's disease, which is affecting increasing numbers of seniors. In 1999, 78% of all people aged 65 or over with this disease lived in an institution. In that same year, people with Alzheimer's or some other type of dementia made up 35% of the total population in such institutions.

In general, though, seniors are involved in numerous activities and take advantage of the freedom offered by their retirement years. Many seniors are physically active. They travel far more than in the past, as well, making an average of 3.2 trips within Canada and 1 out of the country in 1994-95.

Overall, Canada's seniors are in fairly good health. Most live at home with family members, consider themselves in good health, and keep relatively active.

The Bloc Quebecois is not, therefore, opposed to Bill C-13, but it is opposed to the potential for direct interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction, population health, without any consultation whatsoever with the provinces.

The federal government is creating parallel structures rather than supporting actions undertaken by the provinces. It is vital to point out that, with the creation of the research institutes, the Canadian government is clearly giving itself the power to impose its priorities and convictions in the health field.

The federal government must respect the specific characteristics of researchers in the various regions of Quebec, and not go ahead with the designation of any health research institute in Quebec without the agreement of the Quebec government.

It is, therefore, essential to ensure that, if there is interference with provincial jurisdiction with the Canadian institutes for health research, Quebec will play an integral part in the process of selecting and administering the institutes.

In closing, we are in favour of Bill C-13 in principle, but respect of Quebec's jurisdiction must be a priority.

[Democracy, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec branch of the Liberal Party of Canada is holding its twice-yearly meeting in Hull this weekend.

This will be an opportunity for the federal Liberals in Quebec to reaffirm their belief in democracy. It will also be an opportunity for them to remind certain of their elected representatives in Ottawa that one of the inescapable principles of democracy is one person, one vote.

To question the universally recognized 50% plus one rule is to hand over decision-making to a minority.

In a country where the democratic quality of life should be an example to the international community, creating two classes of voters is to ignore what democracy is all about.

We remind the federal ministers from Quebec that they should take this opportunity to clarify what they understand by democracy. Democracy is the responsibility of all elected representatives. It concerns all citizens.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-8. This bill concerns the creation of a network of national marine conservation areas, the marine equivalent of national parks.

This network would be representative of 29 marine regions in Canada, covering the waters of the Great Lakes, inland waters including swamps, the territorial sea and the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

With this bill, the government will set the boundaries of the marine conservation areas in all the regions in Canada, in consultation, we hope, with the people of the area.

Bill C-8 gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit activities in commercial zones in order to protect marine resources.

It also gives the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Ministers of Transport and Canadian Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit transportation in marine conservation areas.

It is important to note that 1998 was set aside as the year of the oceans by the UN. The most important activities held to draw attention to this event include the world's fair in Lisbon, Portugal, and the adoption of the ocean charter by UNESCO in September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.

The government claims it is important to preserve the natural marine ecosystems and their balance to maintain biologic diversity. It says there is a need to establish a representative network of marine conservation areas, whose scope and features will ensure the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems.

The Bloc Quebecois supports environmental protection measures. It gave its support when the government introduced legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

In addition, I must say that, in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, water is precious. The Argenteuil Parti Quebecois and the PQ subcommittee on the environment for the Laurentian region submitted briefs to the BAPE.

People wanted to show their support for the protection of the environment, particularly ecosystems in the groundwater, marine conservation areas, forests and other areas.

In 1986, the federal government launched the marine conservation area program. In 1988, the National Parks Act was amended to take into account the establishment of temporary protected marine areas. Since then, the following areas were created: Fathom Five National Marine Park in the Georgian Bay, the Gwaii Haanas marine conservation reserve in British Columbia, and the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

The park is over 1,100 square kilometres and has a unique tourist component, the importance of which we are just beginning to grasp.

This marine park was 14 years in the making. Its management is shared by the provincial and federal governments.

The project began in 1985. It took quite a long time to create the park because of the public consultations, environmental studies and negotiations that were required. That precedent should have served as a model for the federal government in establishing other marine conservation areas.

It should be pointed out that co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St. Lawrence River, under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which was signed by all federal and provincial departments concerned and which provides for an investment of $250 million over five years in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.

Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill before us today for two reasons. First, it is not clear whether Quebec's territorial integrity will be respected. Second, we are opposed to this bill because Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new structure, that is the marine conservation areas, which will simply duplicate fisheries and oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine wildlife reserves.

Quebec's jurisdiction is recognized under the British North America Act of 1867. There is overlap within the federal government. With the bill, the government wants to establish marine conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada, marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans and marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of Environment Canada.

The same site could have more than one designation. It could be designated as a marine conservation area by Heritage Canada and as a marine protection area by fisheries and oceans.

In both cases, it is obvious that the local population would have a major role to play in the establishment of marine protection areas. The Bloc is concerned about problems related to the bureaucracy.

The same area, according to fisheries and oceans, could fall under different categories and be subject to different regulations.

We know that when more than one department is involved in a project, even if all the departments involved belong to the same government, there are difficulties and additional costs to the taxpayers.

The government would have been better to make sure that ecosystems are managed by one department only. The departments involved should sign a framework agreement to delegate all of their responsibilities over ecosystems to the same department while respecting constitutional jurisdictions.

I also want to mention the fact that the preliminary consultations were a failure. Furthermore, during hearings by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, almost all groups from coastal areas heard condemned the bill on the grounds that the system proposed by Heritage Canada would duplicate part of the work done by Fisheries and Oceans and create confusion.

On February 11, 1999, Patrick McGuinness, vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that it was simply inefficient, cumbersome public administration. In his view, bringing forward this marine conservation area initiative in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department was unacceptable. His conclusion was that the bill should be withdrawn.

Jean-Claude Grégoire, a member of the board of directors of the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, which represents almost 80% of all professional fishermen in Quebec, also told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that there were numerous problems.

In his testimony, he mentioned that such an area was difficult to access from a scientific point of view, meaning that people were working more with probabilities and presumptions than with real scientific knowledge of what existed.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because, instead of focussing on collaboration, as in the case of the Sagenuay-St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to introduce marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

The Bloc Quebecois concludes that the consultation conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Quebec with respect to the introduction of marine conservation areas was also a failure.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Government of Quebec is also engaged in initiatives to protect the environment and submerged lands and water in particular. Bill C-8 does not respect the integrity of Quebec's territory.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment, but opposed to Bill C-8 for all the reasons I have mentioned.

[Ménétriers D'Antan, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, some 50 musicians of the Ménétriers d'antan did us the honour of giving a concert of traditional music in the rotunda of parliament in Ottawa.

These musicians from Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière, most of whom are retired seniors, had been invited by the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and had accepted the invitation with alacrity.

Founded in 1988 by Jean-Pierre Paiement, this group of volunteers, now under the direction of Jean-Paul Desjardins, brings together musicians playing traditional music in an effort to revive the tradition of the strolling players.

They perform in public places, churches, shopping centres and seniors' residences, Saint-Jean-Baptiste celebrations and festivals. They have made three compact disks, which are available on the market.

In this international year of older persons, we pay tribute today to them and their leader. May they continue to impress their audiences with their dexterity and their playing.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, as a member of parliament, I find it appalling that I have to rise to defend the Young Offenders Act, effective legislation the government wants to get rid of. Bill C-3 is as useless as it is dangerous. As usual, the government is taking the easy way out to change legislation that is quite successful.

The Young Offenders Act led to a substantial drop in youth crime. Strangely enough, the justice minister gave us very convincing numbers in this regard when she introduced her new bill in May 1998. According to her, youth crime has decreased by 23% since 1991. She also talked about a decrease in violent crimes since 1995.

The Young Offenders Act must be judged by its results and not on the basis of a misconception.

It would be irresponsible to reform youth justice without taking into account all the relevant aspects of this issue. Since it protects certain basic concepts, such as life and physical integrity, the Young Offenders Act plays a key role in consolidating public confidence in our institutions.

Therefore, parliamentarians have the responsibility to respond quickly to concerns expressed by the public by making appropriate legislative amendments if necessary. However, they must first and foremost see to it that the public has the information it needs to have a good grasp of problems as complex as youth crime.

However, the federal justice minister has failed in her duty to provide that information. By campaigning for a stricter law, the minister is wrongly suggesting that the present system is flawed and is using that as an excuse to hide her own lack of leadership. In fact, Bill C-3 shows that it is easier for the Liberal government to sacrifice good legislation than to promote the effective approach it favours.

To properly understand the reason behind the current amendments to the Young Offenders Act, we must go back to the 35th Parliament to look at the first Liberal attempts at turning the Young Offenders Act into a scapegoat.

On April 28, 1994, the current Minister of Health and former Minister of Justice stated in the House that the move to the right responded to election commitments. I scarcely need to point out that these commitments were certainly not aimed at Quebec voters. In fact, it is hardly a well-kept secret that the Liberal Party's intention was to win over the clientele of the Reform in the west.

By passing Bill C-37 at that time, the Liberal government was introducing into the Young Offenders Act a whole series of automatic provisions which would greatly affect the fragile equilibrium of the youth justice system. By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to be automatically referred to the adult court system, this government watered down once again the specific nature of the youth justice system. At the rate things are going, soon the only connection it will have with youth will be in its title.

Continuing in the same vein, in May, 1998, the Minister of Justice introduced her youth justice renewal strategy. In particular, she announced her intention to extend the referrals to 14 and 15 year olds.

All parties involved in Quebec viewed this with alarm. Some asked “Where exactly does the government get the information that stiffer sentences were going to have any impact whatsoever on the crime rate?”

The Quebec stakeholders were bang on. Not only was the reform not necessary, but the solutions being put forward by the minister are misguided and risky.

On March 19, some fifteen organizations from Quebec publicly reaffirmed their opposition to Bill C-68. The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse and the Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Quebec, to name just a few, held a press conference at which they reaffirmed Quebec's consensus and flatly opposed the Minister of Justice.

The message was a very straightforward one. They told the minister they wanted nothing to do with her bill. They rebutted the minister's claims that her flexible system will allow Quebec to enforce the legislation as it sees fit.

Criminologist Jean Trépanier, a recognized youth crime expert in Quebec, was scathing, when it came to the minister's much-touted flexibility. At the press conference, he said “The so-called flexibility seems to be a political trick. Quebec's judges cannot ignore sentences handed down in other courts”.

Cécile Toutant, another very respected voice from Quebec, also took aim at certain of the bill's measures. This criminologist, who is responsible for the youth program at the Pinel institute, condemned the new measures allowing for the automatic imposition of adult sentences on 14 and 15 year olds. According to Ms. Toutant, the time served in jail has nothing to do with the protection of the public.

A very large coalition in Quebec is opposing Bill C-3. The youth justice coalition now includes about 20 organizations that work with young offenders.

Those who will have to live on a day to day basis with the new legislation do not care about the concerns of this election-minded Liberal government. They are the ones who will have to implement the new act. The spokesperson for Quebec's youth centres association was very clear when he said that if the bill is passed, we will have a real mess.

Quebecers do not want that mess. Therefore, we will strongly oppose Bill C-3, which is a prime example of lack of political courage.