Bernard St-Laurent

[Speech From The Throne, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

In the Liberal government's speech from the throne, only one short paragraph is devoted to personal security. There is one short sentence, at the very end of this paragraph, stating that: "Criminal procedure will be reformed to better serve victims of crime". No concrete measure was put forward regarding the security of individuals. There is no clear indication of genuine concern on the part of the government either. In a word, what we have here is seven or eight lines of lip service.

What positive steps, if any, does the minister intend to take to better serve the victims of crime?

[Minister Of Justice, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is now a card-carrying member in good standing of the Club to annihilate the right of the people of Quebec to determine its own future. After the irresponsible statements by certain ministers of the government, Stéphane Dion in particular, now we have the Minister of Justice following suit.

Last fall, he was stating that the wishes of the people of Quebec were to be given priority, not the method by which sovereignty was to be decided upon. Now this week we find the minister doing an about-face, contemplating asking the Supreme Court for an opinion on the legality of a future Quebec referendum.

The Minister of Justice believes that Quebec's fate is tied to the consultations that he deems appropriate. He is wrong. Quebecers are the ones who will determine their own fate, regardless of what the minister says.

[Strikebreakers, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after voting in favour of an antiscab bill brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois in 1990, the Liberal Party is about to make an about-turn by refusing today to support the bill that I introduced in this House in order to prohibit the use of scabs during labour disputes.

Again, the federal government is giving in to Ontario and ignoring Quebec's legitimate demands. Need I remind members that the Ontario government has just abolished its antiscab legislation which protected workers in that province?

What the Liberal Party is about to do is totally outrageous. We hope that, when Liberal members rise in the House to defeat the bill this afternoon, they will realize that they are breaking promises they made to workers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

[Canada Labour Code, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank, naturally, all those from each party, who made the effort to speak, to express their personal opinions and that of their party.

I am sure we have made progress, ideologically speaking, in many areas. We have also had the opportunity to understand somewhat better the more radical positions of certain other individuals and certain other parties.

I heard certain key words, like "wait". This bill is a bit too early, we have to wait for the upcoming reform. I say that, if we have to wait, why not wait for third reading on this? It might perhaps provide an opportunity for the Code to get out in the meantime. This business about waiting, you know, it is not our fault if we are ahead. We are what we are in the Bloc.

Bill C-317 provides a good opportunity for social advancement and for respect of those who keep the economy moving, that is, the workers, and the employers too, because Bill C-317 has the highest regard for employers, as it indicates.

I would simply like, at this point, to repeat my thanks to all those who felt it was worthwhile taking part.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton-South West come very close to being a threat, when he says that Quebec better not think that the day after a Yes vote it will be just as easy to negotiate from province to province, and so forth, but in a way that is distinctly ominous.

However, I agreed with what he said when he commended the business community on its initiative, courage, determination and vision of the future. The Bloc Quebecois and, in fact, all Quebecers could not agree more. These people are driving 85 per cent of our economy, at present.

However, I fail to understand why, in the same breath, he attacks the people of Quebec who had the initiative, the courage and the vision to choose a country for themselves. That he does not like.

So I want to ask the hon. member this: When he says Quebec had better not think it will be easier, should we take this as a threat or simply as the way people talk who cannot tolerate the fact that others decide to simply make a decision?

[Partnership, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is at a crossroads. To ensure their future, the people of Quebec must take their destiny back into their own hands. In this context, the mandate for sovereignty that Quebecers will be giving their government next Monday must not be construed as a rejection of Canada, but rather as the will to assume responsibility for themselves. Over the years, the people of Quebec and Canada have developed strong bonds of friendship, and they have many interests in common.

A partnership would be in everyone's best interests, since more than 300,000 jobs on each side are at stake. Partnerships are clearly the way of the future.

On October 30, Quebecers will not only take their destiny into their own hands but also hold out a friendly hand to their Canadian partners.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the no side unable to agree on the country that it would offer to Quebecers, but federal ministers, including the Prime Minister, make contradictory statements regarding the right of veto and the notion of distinct society.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recognizes the right of veto, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs only sees it as a general principle, while the Prime Minister says that the decision does not rest with him, but with the other provinces.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs even admits that he has trouble interpreting the text written by the no side in the brochure. This is quite something.

The fact is that Daniel Johnson and the Prime Minister only agree on one thing: make all those who seek changes in Quebec pay dearly. This is their common goal. As for the rest, they only propose to wait until 1997, when the constitutional tango will start all over again.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today to debate Motion M-425 brought forward by the member for Comox-Alberni. In this motion, my colleague proposes that the water we use be treated at the primary level instead of being discharged directly into the environment, as is the case today.

In developed and industrialized regions, pollution has altered the natural quality of this valuable resource. Because of growing urbanization and because of the obvious inadequacy of our sewage treatment facilities, we have to worry about the quality of the large quantity of water we consume daily.

Not only is water a necessity of life, but it also contributes to our quality of life. I am very aware of this fact when I look at my riding, the riding of Manicouagan, that borders the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Water is the principal driving force in my region. This natural resource has attracted several industries employing a large number of workers to this area.

Unlike many other vital resources, water has no substitute in most of the activities and processes where it is required, both in industry and in nature. Yet, despite its increasing scarcity and despite the fact that, over the last few years, we have become aware of the seriousness of the water pollution problem, we have not taken the necessary measures to deal with it.

Everyone agrees that our current sewage treatment systems will have to be modernized. I support the motion brought forward by the member for Comox-Alberni because it is clear that our waste water needs a minimum amount of treatment. We cannot go on thinking that we can discharge sewage directly into our lakes and rivers without harming the environment.

Sewage treatment systems are essential to the social and economic functioning of modern communities. The major part of polluted waste found in water comes from sewage and municipal sewage treatment installations and from numerous industries which use those installations to dispose of their waste.

In the last ten years or so, the growing awareness of environmental issues has sparked considerable interest for the protection of waterways. Provinces and municipalities have therefore been spending tremendous amounts of money to develop protection programs for those resources. Motion M-425 proposes a national program. Yet, it has always been clear that municipalities are responsible for providing drinking water, sewage treatment and waste disposal services.

The motion proposes federal interference in a provincial jurisdiction, which is of course totally unacceptable for the Bloc Quebecois. I wonder if the author of this motion is aware of the danger of allowing the federal government to impose its own standards on municipalities.

Motion M-425 proposes that the federal government establish a nationwide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to the point of meeting a minimum national standard. In the area of environment, the federal government has always had a tendency to centralize power in Ottawa, supposedly because of the national interest the need to modernize environmental programs.

Yet, under the constitution, environment is not explicitly the jurisdiction of one level of government more than another.

The courts have declared it what is termed an ancillary power, derived from the areas of jurisdiction allocated to each government. Even before the mid-eighties the government of Quebec, which has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of a local or territorial nature, played a lead role in environmental matters, an area over which it was for the most part responsible.

The federal government was satisfied at that time, as set out in the constitution, with intervening in complementary areas. It was only in later years that it began to interfere in environmental matters. As soon as that happened, duplication and overlap began to crop up increasingly, moreover. This has been perpetuated and

aggravated since the election of the present Liberal government, which is attempting to centralize decision making in Ottawa, with all due deference to my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The truth is not always easy to hear, but there you are.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the present government, regardless of what it says, is seeking to centralize and concentrate power in Ottawa still further. Under a federal regime, there must of necessity be a division of areas of jurisdiction. In Canada, however, such a division often leads to inefficiency. At this very moment, there is a need for the federal government to enter into administrative agreements with the provinces. The current situation simply clouds the issue and makes it extremely difficult to identify who is really responsible if a policy does not bring results. Are we to blame the federal government, the author of the standards, or the provincial government, which may have been remiss in implementing those standards?

Since Canada maintains that it has jurisdiction over some areas of the environment because of the so-called national interest, this means it is in a position to enter into international agreements and to find global solutions along with its partners. Why then could the provinces not do the same with each other and with a sovereign Quebec?

The inefficiency of a system in which responsibility is not clearly identified lies in wasted energy due to duplication and is certainly not any guarantee of sustainable development. In fact, under the current federal system it would be unthinkable to guarantee any kind of sustainable development, since the government in Ottawa seems to have an abiding tendency to centralize powers and to interfere with matters that are the sole responsibility of the provinces.

Although Quebec recognizes the very real concern we should have for the environment, it is not prepared to let the federal government once again intrude in an area over which it has no jurisdiction. Responsibility for municipal sewage lies clearly with the provinces and the municipalities.

The Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion, not because it is against protecting the environment, and I would like to say that we appreciate the good intentions of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. As I said, the Bloc would vote against the motion, and it will do so not because it is against protecting the environment but rather because it believes that the environment is better protected when each government deals with the problems for which it is responsible, so that it can set priorities that make sense and as a result be truly effective.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made yesterday by the Prime Minister in his speech before the greater Quebec City chamber of commerce are unequivocal and they clear up any misunderstanding. The federal system will not be changed in light of Quebec's legitimate aspirations.

The Prime Minister just abandoned all Quebec federalists who still believed that it would be possible to reform federalism and guarantee the respect and development of Quebec's distinctiveness. Indeed, the Prime Minister just slammed the door on those who still thought that federalism would take into account Quebec's distinct and specific character.

It is now clear that the Prime Minister has nothing to offer to Quebecers. The side which is promoting change is the only one providing a vision that will allow Quebec to develop to its full potential. Vote yes, it is the only logical choice.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We go to the trouble of introducing bills because we sincerely believe that the House serves some purpose, and I still believe it does. However, when I see the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do what he just did for ten minutes, I begin to seriously question the true role of this House.