Yvan Bernier

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Chairman, I have a slight problem with the expression "prepare to fish".

What is the meaning of "to prepare to fish"? Are we to cross the sea with our gear behind us or should our gear be in the water? What is the meaning of that?

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will accept that definition for the time being, but whenever something is put out in writing, I would like to get a copy.

While I have the floor, I have to say that I am unfamiliar with the procedure in committee of the whole. Would the minister or the House allow me to go back to page 2, clause 2 regarding section 5.2? I have another question on the meaning of certain words. It refers to a vessel of a prescribed class preparing to fish.

Can the minister define the expression "prepare to fish" for me, in general terms to begin with? I would also like to get any written definition his officials can provide me with, if at all possible.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Chairman, this is my first Committee of the Whole. We are talking about clause 5, on page 4, with reference to section 8.1 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, right? There was something I wanted to know. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. When section 8.1 was amended, the Cabinet was to provide definitions in the regulations. I wanted to know what the meaning of "disable" was and how far that could go.

Do the minister and his officials have a definition ready for Cabinet now or can I get one later when it is ready?

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Fisheries mentioned, the Official Opposition does support the bill. However, we would like to add a few words and say ourselves that we do support the minister's legislation.

This bill will allow the Governor in Council-for me in French it means the cabinet-to make regulations concerning straddling stocks, the classes of foreign fishing vessels to which the prohibition will apply, and the conservation and management measures with which these vessels must comply.

These measures have also been formulated by Canada in the context of NAFO, and I think they were supported by the majority. Indeed, they did receive the support of a majority of members. I guess you cannot go against common sense, and I think that Canada is well-advised to put its Coast Guard and its national defence system, if necessary, at NAFO's disposal for surveillance and monitoring purposes over that organization's fishing area.

As I said, the Bloc Quebecois supports this government initiative. As I also mentioned yesterday at a press conference, after the Minister of Fisheries made his speech, I believe this is a good compromise between diplomacy and enforcement or other monitoring measures. This legislation will empower the minister to use force but, at the same time -as we will see later on in Committee of the Whole-, we will ask the minister and the cabinet to make sure that this retaliatory tool will be used with discretion. To that end, the Attorney General will have to give his consent and authorize the arrest of fishing vessels.

As I said, the Bloc Quebecois believes that international agreements negotiated in the context of NAFO must be respected. Canada will now be able to take action and arrest those fishing vessels flying a flag of convenience, which are commonly called stateless vessels. According to the law of the sea-Madam Speaker, I always have a hard time with that law-a vessel which does not fly a flag is a pirate vessel. Canada will be able to arrest these vessels, even outside its territorial waters, but inside the waters which are part of NAFO's regulatory area.

In the bill under consideration, we have the improved version of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act which was amended in the House by Bill C-8. The Bloc Quebecois, at the time this bill, which is now a law, was passed, unless the other Chamber or the other place, as one should say, has not yet disposed of it, said it was concerned about the expressions regarding measures that might be taken "to disable -a vessel" and the use of "the force that is necessary." Very soon, in Committee of the Whole, I will ask whether the Cabinet is now prepared to tell us the definition of these words, even if the Minister assures us in advance that this Act will be applied with great discrimination.

I would also like to add that Bill C-29 is also a means for the Bloc Quebecois to show its desire to be a positive element in Canada. We in the Bloc Quebecois know the points on which we disagree with Canadians, but our position here will let Canadians know the points on which we can agree. And this the Minister also pointed out a little while ago.

In this regard, I was given an opportunity to speak a little about sovereignty. Even the journalists asked me the question: What political gain is there for the Bloc Quebecois in these measures? There is no political gain. It is out of maturity, as people, that we say yes to measures that must be taken at the international level to protect the world heritage. And in the context of sovereignty, since I had begun to speak of it, the Bloc Quebecois has made some suggestions. And when Quebec becomes sovereign, we too will be a member state able to take part in NAFO. Consequently, we would like to reassure the Minister of Fisheries that a sovereign Quebec will also comply with NAFO's management rules. It is in this sense that the Bloc Quebecois is expressing its support today in the House of Commons.

As I or the Minister said, it is rare for all the parties to agree so quickly on a bill. The Minister said yesterday that it was a way for all Canadians to speak in a single voice, but as I said a moment ago, even if Quebec were sovereign, Quebec and Canada would also have spoken in a single voice in the issue at hand.

Why did the Bloc Quebecois accede so quickly to the Minister's request? We did so because we are also aware of the fact that Canada has exhausted all of the diplomatic avenues at its disposal. As the Minister said, I worked in the fisheries sector for a number of years, and I know that action was taken. Many successive deputy ministers took action. There were even ambassadors who are now sitting in this House who were involved in these activities. We therefore saw what was coming.

We are pleased once again to see that the government has managed to achieve an honourable compromise in this matter. I will try to go faster because, in any event, we have made our agreement known. I will just try to go over the points in order to be very sure of the rationale behind them.

Here is another important point that I would like to raise. We realize that, while increasing the size of the area to be monitored beyond the 200-mile limit, we will still cover an area slightly smaller than the area managed by NAFO. This may require increasing marine or air surveillance. When we increase this kind of thing, it may mean increased costs as well. As these decisions are made, I would expect the minister to suggest to Cabinet that they use the tools they have, including National Defence and the Coast Guard, and at the same time try to minimize costs by using these resources efficiently. We must not forget that foreign overfishing is only one of the reasons why fish stocks have gone down. The minister also mentioned climatic conditions as a contributing factor.

We must make sure that we have enough money left to initiate what I would call an industrial diversification strategy. The minister said that we must rebuild fish stocks, and I agree, but in fact, we are going to give nature a chance to do the job.

A while ago, I made a few suggestions to the minister, and I think there are still some areas where the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party can work together. We will have to consider this new approach to fisheries. Using the best selective fishing devices to catch the stocks we want to catch also means setting up land-based infrastructures to receive the catch.

If we look at the history of fisheries, first it was salt fish because there was no other way to preserve fish. With the advent of refrigeration, we started to produce frozen blocks, but now the market seems to be saturated. Considering the absence of fish from Canada, I would have expected an increase in the price of fish in the United States, our main customer, but I did not notice any increase in prices, which means there have been substitutions.

There are other countries that sell other kinds of fish, even cod, and they have moved into our markets. This means that when we start fishing again, we will have to be very creative and look to market niches such as fresh fish. These are things we can do now, because we have the requisite transportation infrastructures. We have airports in Newfoundland, the Gaspé, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, so that we can reach our markets very quickly.

I will leave a list of suggestions for the minister and his deputy ministers, and I think we should use these five years to make a start with these strategies because the $1.9 billion that is now on the table to support the fisheries strategy is mainly income support for the fishermen, in my opinion. On this score, we have some differences of opinion with the Liberals because when we in Quebec speak of manpower training, we would prefer that this area come under provincial jurisdiction.

If the minister wants us to agree somewhat more on this issue as well, perhaps he could transfer the fisheries envelope directly to the Quebec Department of Fisheries, as this would allow us to adapt programs to the way things are done in Quebec. Exchanges of technology and know-how could be made between Canada and Quebec. It could be amusing to have a little competition in this area. I apologize for injecting a touch of humour into the proceedings, but sometimes it makes a bitter pill somewhat easier to swallow.

One final comment about the $1.9 billion envelope. I mentioned being opened to ideas, but we do have some concerns at the present time. Perhaps I did not explain clearly a while ago the reason why we are not receptive right now to the idea of putting in place dockside reception infrastructures. Until now, vessels were specialized factory freezer-trawlers. What we need to do is set up markets at the unloading points in order to make use as quickly as possible of species classified as underutilized. They are underutilized because the volume caught is marginal. Now that cod and flounder stocks have declined, monk fish and skate tails will be very important. I wanted to re-emphasize this point to make certain that the government listens to this idea, because we need to develop strategies geared to the industrial sector concept. This is one such example.

In conclusion-

I will say in my own voice because I want all Canadians to hear me that the Bloc Quebecois will support the bill. We want to be sure that all foreign vessels that want to overfish will be stopped. It does not matter if Canada has to fight under international law because we have a good reason to make that kind of case if some countries want to fight against us.

I am not the minister but the speech I made is an encouragement and if he does not do his job in the future, I will check.

For the benefit of my francophone friends, let me repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion because it considers the foreign fishing now taking place to be outrageous. The minister mentioned it and the deputy ministers painted a picture of the situation for me this week. We are no longer talking about the haphazard catching of small fish. We are now dealing with deliberate attempts to catch small fish. When we speak of small fish the size of the minister's hand-we could have a minister with large hands, but that is not the case-this means that fish too small to reproduce are being caught. We can no longer tolerate this situation.

Speaking for the Bloc Quebecois, I support this bill and applaud the fact that it will be passed very quickly.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start with a question and at the same time congratulate the minister for agreeing to answer questions, because I know that on a motion or a bill like this at second reading, ministers do not have to take questions, so I want to praise his courage. At the same time-I will have to repeat it later-we will support this motion.

The minister talked about the harsh decisions recently made by Canada concerning the closure of 14 fish stocks in Canadian waters. I myself favour sustainable harvesting and, when it is no longer sustainable, I agree with the minister that we must take all necessary measures and impose a moratorium.

However, the minister has been in office for nearly six months now and not all stocks are threatened to the same extent. I want to ask the minister this: If some stocks should recover a little more quickly, will we allow at least some exploratory fisheries, so that the new selective gear being produced can be used and several species can be harvested. The Bloc Quebecois even made a few suggestions in this regard.

I would just like the minister to comment on this and remind him that even if the motion to end over-fishing was tabled by the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support this project because it was a good idea. I want to make sure that, if some good questions or ideas come from Quebec, the minister will not hesitate to support them either.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak again on the issue of Pearson Airport, a subject close to our hearts. I would like to start by responding to a point the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made earlier in his speech. My friend opposite said the Bloc Quebecois was criticizing and that we might be criticising for the sake of criticizing or because we could find nothing else to criticize.

First, the people across the way should not forget they are the ones responsible for the legislative agenda. Bring in something else and we will go along. It is just that so far in this Parliament, the legislative agenda has been rather light. The people of Canada and Quebec have a right to see things happening here.

Many promises were made in the red book. Now, the government is getting political mileage out of making good so to speak some of these promises. But we need more than mere promises to make this country work.

There is an echo in this place, Mr. Speaker. So, I will carry on with my speech to make sure the Bloc Quebecois' position on this is perfectly clear. For the information of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I would like to quote, if I may, from an article published on May 9 in the Ottawa Citizen . I think it shows pretty clearly why the Bloc Quebecois is questioning the Liberals' motives for wanting to pass this motion so quickly.

I am not perfectly bilingual, but I will read this article in the language of Shakespeare, as it was written in English. This will give the anglophones in my riding an opportunity to hear how I speak this language I am trying to learn but have not yet mastered.

Here is what Mr. Greg Weston wrote. I will spare you certain points of detail, but the part that I found particularly interesting reads as follows:

Given the billions in potential profits the developer lost in all this and the government's apparent bazooka-like approach to compensation, the silence from the negotiating table seems rather deafening.

Cela veut dire que ça rend sourd un peu.

In that respect one observation from the recent compensation meeting in Toronto is perhaps worth noting: The firm with the largest stake in the development consortium and therefore the most to lose is Claridge Properties. It happens to be controlled by Montreal billionaire Charles Bronfman who happens to be a friend of the Liberal Party.

L'histoire commence à être intéressante.

As it also happens the Liberal government still wants to develop Pearson airport in a big way, will be looking for a suitable developer and is eager to get the work started this fall. One of those at the recent compensation meeting in Toronto observed a pretty relaxed group of Claridge executives. Interesting, no?

That is what our friend Greg Weston wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on May 9. How can we, from the Bloc Quebecois, give the Liberals opposite a blank cheque when there is already talk about games being played behind the scenes?

We want to know what we are dealing with before any compensation is paid. We want to know what happened, and who was involved in particular, to see how Pearson airport could be developed later on.

We sense certain things. We hear that the government wants to develop Pearson Airport, still. So, it would be very interesting to start over with a clean slate, instead of using what I might call the "humus" borrowed from the previous government and the current one as well.

I also wanted to stress the importance of this case. We are not talking about something minor. Some 57,000 passengers go through this airport. Twenty million passengers a year. Three hundred destinations in 60 countries. Plus 56,000 direct and indirect jobs and some $4 billion in economic spinoffs in Ontario.

So this is very important; we cannot remain silent and trust them when they say that there were no lobbyists. The $4 billion at stake is very important for the economy.

The contract still has not been made public. However, if we believe what journalists have told us about it, the Nixon report points out that lobbyists' involvement of this case seems unusual. Lobbyists were more active in this case than in any other where the government must make decisions. So it is very

important that Canadians and Quebecers be aware of what goes on behind the scenes.

Another thing that struck me is how fast the contract was signed in the midst of last year's election campaign. The former Prime Minister hastened to sign this contract, this agreement, despite the current Prime Minister's election promise to cancel it. However, the same bunch of friends seem to be hiding behind all this. I think that Canadians and Quebecers have the right to know what is going on.

The other thing that bothers me is that, in the redevelopment and operation of Pearson Airport, the government had promised not to finance the modernization of Terminal 1. Nevertheless, it has apparently granted rent reductions worth several millions of dollars, which amounts to investing. It seems as though the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

The Nixon report also lists 10 unusual deductions for calculating gross revenue on which the rent is based. Again, are friends of the current and former governments pulling the strings to help themselves? For us, it is very important that all this be disclosed.

The other point, as there are two kinds of opposition in this country: Opposition members and the media. The Toronto Star also tells us that, according to its own research, the transaction would probably have triggered an increase in the per passenger cost related to the use of this airport. The increase would have been passed on to users. If it is a government responsibility to develop transport networks in Canada, I think that the government must assume the responsibility of facing Canadians and telling them that this transaction will result in increased costs to them, instead of relying on a friend to do that dirty job.

Let us say a word about this government which refuses to shed light on the issue and refuses to conduct an inquiry into that transaction. We are dealing with the transport sector. On Thursday, I must go back to my riding. I will sit on a rural dignity committee and listen to people who have things to say about railroad transport in Eastern Quebec, and specifically in my riding of Gaspé. This is an initiative taken by local people, because the government refuses to hold such hearings. As a member of the opposition, I agreed to sit on that committee and report back to Ottawa the grievances of those people.

But why does the government refuse to assume its responsibilities? People have things to say. We are talking about transport. Why do people in the Gaspé Peninsula have to take the initiative and set up their own committee, without the means available to a House committee, such as interpreters and a staff to type transcripts? They will do a very good job, but some people may feel somewhat prejudiced by the way hearings will be conducted. Indeed, although I understand English, I cannot speak it as fast as those people. But I will be there and I wanted to point that out.

My time is running out. I will conclude by mentioning two major points which will more or less summarize what I said earlier. How did the previous government come to approve a project which goes totally against public interest? Are there interests other than the public's interest at stake, such as friends of the former and current governments?

We, Bloc Quebecois members, feel that a public inquiry is absolutely necessary in this case. The credibility of the government opposite depends on such an inquiry. If members opposite continue to hide behind closed doors and let lobbyists govern the country, you can understand that it will give us strong arguments for the upcoming referendum. Indeed, it will be very easy to say: Look, if you want to continue to live in a type of federation which lets lobbies make decisions, you can have it.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, please excuse my astonishment. I did not expect to rise so soon in the House on this matter.

Never mind, there is so much to say on the subject, that I would be tempted to say: "Let us get on with this, the party is over". That attitude must have prompted the motion from members opposite.

If I understood my colleagues well, and what members opposite did not understand, our main objection to this bill is the fact that in principle it does not allow us to see what the lobbyists involved are doing.

On my opinion, to avoid making the same errors in the future, it is important that we review such measures. Because this is no small matter. We are talking big money here. Moreover, we are dealing with the future of transportation in Canada, which was really the issue here and which they are trying to make us forget. They want us to casually disregard what has happened.

The biggest surprise, and all my colleague agree on that, is that it was only when the election drew near, or during the last week of the campaign, that the new Prime Minister rushed in to announce that an end would be put to that "bargain".

Now, in Parliament, we are told that we must keep silent and that we will not be told what really happened. We call that writing a blank check. I must admit that I find it hard to live with such an arrangement.

What are we to think of all those things which they are trying to hide from us? The things they hide from us tell a lot about the way political parties are financed. We are talking about lobbyists. The Bloc Quebecois has very strict rules regarding party financing, and we must thank Mr. René Lévesque for that.

We must specify who gives us money, and the maximum allowable amount is $5,000. This, Mr. Speaker, is a good example of transparency. You can see who gives us money and whose interests I represent. People may contribute $5, $10 or $100. There are very few in my riding who can make a contribution of $1,000, and this brings me to another issue: the underdevelopment of regions.

Remote regions like mine do not have the monies or incentives which would allow us to be represented by very articulate lobbyists. They are capable of great things, but we are not on a level playing field in that regard. There is one thing though which the public has understood, and I will get back to this when I discuss the underdevelopment of our regions.

The public has the right to know. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois had limited funds with those $5 and $10 contributions to which I referred earlier. Nevertheless, with these small amounts, it succeeded in getting almost two thirds of the seats in Quebec: 54 out of 75 to be precise.

Personally, I only spent 60 per cent of the amount allowed to me by the returning officer, and that was enough to defeat two powerful organizations, two old parties. Why is that? It is because I talked to people; I did not try to buy their vote with money. In fact, I could not even afford a single page of advertising in newspapers. But I talked to people and journalists, and the public got my message.

The Liberals now have the opportunity to do exactly what the public expects from them, and that is to tell the people what this is all about. The people have to know what went on with this deal. They have to know why such a thing cannot happen ever again. It is very important.

I also want to talk about the economic underdevelopment of some areas. If the current Liberal government cannot show us how to ensure that, from now on, lobbyists will not be able to continue to influence Canadian development and economic policies in any negative way, how can we benefit from the expertise of these lobbyists? This is a good question, since all the Liberals talked about in the red book and during the election campaign was jobs, jobs, jobs. But when will we be able to work with people who know how to get money from the government to put remote areas residents back to work?

I know that I am digressing, and I will come back to the Pearson issue, but I just want to ask how am I supposed to explain to people in my riding, where unemployment is at 27 per cent and the labour force participation rate stands at 42 per cent, that I gave the government a blank cheque to pass over in silence the millions of dollars that were wasted and the nasty trick we were about to play on the Canadian air transport industry. I will never be able to explain the situation to my voters. However, if the minister or the Cabinet wants to play this little game, maybe they can try to explain the whole situation or send lobbyists to develop the remote areas that are currently underdeveloped. We have the resources, but maybe we are not developing them the right way. But we were never given a chance in the past, since each time we came up with a good idea, as many people from the Gaspe Peninsula have noticed, a funny thing happened and the project was always taken away to the city.

This leads us to believe that lobbyists have a lot of clout and that is not acceptable to us. Also it is difficult to understand that only two groups were involved in that deal as there were only two parties-and some criticized us for this. But there is now a third party, which I would call the voice of the Quebec people, that is the Bloc Quebecois. And we do not want to put up with that kind of things.

I agree with everything the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and Leader of the Opposition said the other day in his speech and I would invite every Canadian to reflect on it. We make so many speeches to try to promote awareness among members on the other side. Although they do not belong to our party, our colleagues in the Opposition must also have something to say against this lobby system, which may be responsible for the increase in poverty and a wider development gap between central Canada and the rural or isolated areas like mine.

How can I make the government think? As an hon. member, the only means I have is the opportunity to express my views in this House. I do not have millions of dollars but I represent a riding as equal and as influential as the others.

During my election campaign, I used to say: "Local problems call for local solutions". If ever the federal government must give up its direct control over Pearson Airport, I would understand, as the hon. member who spoke before me said, that it could be transferred to a municipal airport authority. Torontonians would know how to use such a development tool, such an important link in the transportation system. However, I repeat that, before any decision is made, the government will have to clarify the role of the lobbyists in this issue. Pearson must become a reference case so that never again is such a situation imposed on the Canadian taxpayers, especially not during an election.

[Fisheries, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is all very nice; however, what fishery workers need is hope. Right now, the government is giving them false hopes; in fact, the package offered is 6 per cent smaller than last year's.

Nevertheless, I will give the minister a chance. How does he reconcile his will to help Atlantic economic diversification with the fact that his government just reduced by $160 million ACOA's budget for the next three years, as well as FORD-Q's budget, an office whose role is precisely to promote regional economic diversification? Perhaps the minister could clarify this issue, because so far, rather than discussing he is cutting.

[Fisheries, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans unveiled his new program regarding income support and labour adjustment for fishery workers adversely affected by the dwindling groundfish stocks in the Atlantic.

How can the minister be satisfied with a program which does not propose any measure to get the fishing industry going again through the development of new markets or new products, and how can he justify the reduced assistance, considering that compensation cheques will now drop by 6 per cent?

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, regarding the motion, I would like to tell the member from Western Canada that in my riding of Gaspé, which takes approximately 7 hours to cross by car, around 11 per cent of the population is anglophone.

If the notion of French predominance were to be accepted, that would mean that, for all intents and purposes, the anglophone communities of my area would be deprived of services. Even when Quebec is sovereign, I will be the first one to offer the people in this part of Quebec the right to speak their own language and to be served in both official languages.

The question I want to ask the member of the Reform Party is this: If the goal is to save money, it can be done through less emotional means than that, and will the member support a motion to eliminate overlapping, for instance? I would like to point at to her that only in training, we could save $250 million in Quebec, or one billion for Canada as a whole. A while ago, we were talking about a figure of $660 million. Would she be willing to vote in favour of the elimination of overlapping jurisdictions?