Pauline Picard

[Textile Industry, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec there are nearly 40,000 jobs in the textile industry. With quotas to be removed in less than three months, the industry is threatened, especially by imports, and the government's action is ineffective. The rules of origin are ill-defined. The tariffs are mis-targeted.

Is the government waiting for the textile industry to disappear from Quebec's landscape before taking any properly targeted measures to save it and prevent having the few fabrics still produced here from being swept away by imports?

[Rail Transportation, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I learned that as of Saturday, Canadian National will begin work to extend a siding into the city limits of Drummondville.

The line will be 12,000 feet long, will cross Notre-Dame street near downtown, and will make it possible for a train capable of carrying dangerous goods to remain there for a period of 30 to 60 minutes, and disrupt traffic.

CN's own representatives admit that Drummondville will be the only city expected to live with such a situation in a highly urbanized area.

The people of Drummond remember the rail accidents at Saint-Basile-le-Grand and Saint-Hilaire and fear for their safety and their environment.

For these reasons, I call on the Minister of Transport to intervene and have the authority already granted to Canadian Nation suspended, in order to force the company to rethink this project.

I am in favour of improved rail service, but not at the expense of the quality of life of the people of Drummond and their environment.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his most pertinent comments.

I think the initiative taken by Quebec's sovereignist government in recent years is to the credit of the sovereignists and all the people of Quebec, the entire Quebec nation. It signed an historical agreement with the Cree: the peace of the braves. This is an agreement which respects the nation-to-nation approach.

I agree there should no longer be any department of Indian affairs in Canada. There ought to be representatives of the first nations. The first step is to recognize them as nations. Discussions need to be held with them that fully respect the distribution of wealth, as must be done, and is in fact done, with all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

I think this would be a major step forward. I know the Prime Minister referred to this yesterday, but he indicated this would not happen overnight. It may take some time. Perhaps we will not see this approach, which I consider humane, because the first nations have been demanding their rights for a long time. They were put on reserves, and it is high time they were recognized as peoples, just as we designate ourselves as the Quebec people and the Canadian people.

They must be respected and provided with the proper tools to improve their quality of life. The fact that the first nations were the first ones here must be taken into consideration. It is through their way of living, and our own, in mutual respect, that we can succeed in improving the quality of life of the entire Quebec nation, the first nations, and the nation of Canada.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. I think that he is completely right. This morning, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources convened. This meeting was attended by the chief of the first nations and other chiefs, representing Inuit communities and communities in the Northwest Territories, who came to tell us about the problems they face, particularly with regard to social housing.

I reminded the committee chair that, in 1993-94, when I was the Bloc health critic, we had considered a report on the health and well-being of aboriginal children. At the time, we reached the same conclusions as the representatives of these nations who came to share their concerns with us. Eleven years later, they are facing the same problems. Nothing has been resolved.

I remember that, at the time, some nations came to tell us that they were really fed up. In fact, each time there was a new government, a study was done; like the Erasmus-Dussault report, it was widely publicized in the media, many promises were made and, one year later, the report wound up on the shelf.

I agree with my colleague that yesterday was another big production by this government. In reality, if it truly wanted to put things right, it would have done so a long time ago.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member of the government party.

As I indicated during oral question period yesterday, the Government of Quebec, which at the time was the sovereignist Parti Quebecois, signed an historic agreement with the Cree people, known as the peace of the braves. This agreement respects the nation-to-nation approach.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-31, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In order to help our constituents understand this bill, we must explain who the Tlicho are.

The Tlicho are a people native to Canada whose ancestral lands are in the Northwest Territories. There are 3,000 members of the Tlicho First Nation, which was previously known as the Dogrib. The grand chief of the Tlicho is Joe Rabesca.

Under the three-party agreement of August 2003, involving Ottawa, the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho people, the Tlicho First Nation obtains administrative control over a territory of about 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake.

This region has the only two diamond reserves in Canada. In addition to ownership of natural resources and significant control over their development, the agreement includes a new self-government system for the Tlicho.

What about the bill? The enactment gives effect to the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement and the Tlicho Tax Treatment Agreement. It includes related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and consequential amendments to a number of other acts.

Representatives of the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council and representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada signed the Tlicho Agreement on August 25, 2003.

This is the first combined land claim and self-government agreement of its kind in the Northwest Territories. The agreement will create the largest single block of first nation owned land in Canada, and provide new systems of self-government for the Tlicho First Nation, who were previously known as the Dogrib, as I mentioned earlier.

Treaty 11 is the last of the numbered treaties and covers most of the Mackenzie District. The land in the area was deemed unsuitable for agriculture, so the federal government was reluctant to conclude treaties. Immediately following the discovery of oil at Fort Norman in 1920, however, the government moved to begin treaty negotiations.

The agreement gives the Tlicho the tools for becoming financially self-sufficient. The agreement also gives them more power to protect their way of life, to further economic growth, and to increase community well being.

Under the agreement, the Tlicho Government will be created, and through it the Tlicho people will own a 39,000 square kilometre block of land, the Tlicho lands, including the subsurface resources. Tlicho lands will surround the four Tlicho communities of Behcho Ko or Rae-Edzo, Wha Ti or Lac la Martre, Gameti or Rae Lakes, and Wekweti or Snare Lakes.

In the years to come, the government of the Tlicho will receive a sum of money in compensation for non-compliance with Treaty 11 of 1920, along with a portion of the annual royalties collected by the government on resource operations in the Mackenzie valley.

The Tlicho will gain fee simple ownership of approximately 3% of the land of the Northwest Territories, which represents approximately half the area of New Brunswick.

Implementation of the Tlicho agreement ought to enhance the certainty and clarity of the ownership and management of lands and resources in the North Slave region, which covers about 20% of the NWT. The agreement's clarification of Crown ownership of the land claim will put an end to the legal uncertainties.

The Tlicho agreement was ratified by Tlicho eligible voters on June 26 and 27, 2003. A total of 93% of the Tlicho participated in the vote, and over 84% of Tlicho voters were in favour of the Tlicho agreement. If the agreement is to become reality, federal and territorial enabling legislation must be passed, which is the reason for Bill C-31.

Now, what is the Bloc Quebecois position on this? The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the bill to implement the Tlicho agreement. There are three main reasons for our position. First, the Bloc Quebecois wholly subscribes to the concept of aboriginal self-government, and this agreement puts their right to self-government in concrete form. We support the underlying principle behind that treaty, if only for that reason.

Second, the Tlicho have come out in favour of this agreement in a majority referendum vote of 84%. This is totally democratic.

Third, the agreement constitutes an excellent example of self-government.

More generally speaking, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about aboriginal claims for self-government. It acknowledges the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with a right to their own cultures, languages, customs and traditions, as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

Bill C-31 is the last stepping stone in giving effect to the tripartite agreement between the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.

Given the nature of the bill to implement the Tlicho final agreement, we think the role of Parliament should be to debate, accept or reject this bill. It is not our place to amend the bill. It has been duly signed by the three parties who negotiated it. Amending the bill would be paternalistic, and we refuse to adopt that attitude.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois has supported most of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That commission's approach to the concept of self-government was based on the recognition of native governments as a type of government with jurisdiction over issues concerning the good governance and well-being of their people. In addition, the entire report was based on the recognition of indigenous peoples as autonomous nations occupying a unique place within Canada.

In closing, I would like to say, to the members present in this House and the public following this debate, that the signing of the peace of the braves initiated by the Parti Quebecois was an eloquent example of the way a sovereign Quebec would treat the first nations, a respectful agreement based on a nation-to-nation approach.

[Canada National Parks Act, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of Bill C-28. There is no other choice but to agree with the amendments on reserve 61A of the Ojibway Keeseekoowenin First Nation in Riding Mountain National Park, because the federal government is just correcting an unintentional mistake made in the past.

Amendments in the bill recognize a long-standing need in the area of Pacific Rim National Park and correct a mistake concerning Riding Mountain National Park. This will help the first nations involved to better meet the needs of their communities.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is still interested in the self-government and land claims of first nations. It recognizes first nations as distinct nations with a right to their own culture, language, customs and traditions, and a right to make their own decisions about how to develop their identity.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in this debate, since it gives me another opportunity to express the concerns of the people in my riding.

This eight-part bill would amend a number of existing statutes, such as the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Act. Many of these measures are particularly bad, and my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have already pointed them out to the House.

Today I would like to voice the concerns of the agricultural producers in my riding, the riding of Drummond, located in the Centre-du-Québec region.

Last week in my office, I received a delegation of cash crop farmers from the Centre-du-Québec. During that meeting, they told me about the unfair trading practices they are currently suffering and the impact on them of the federal government's withdrawal. And yet in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister boasted, and I quote:

The Government is dedicated to Canada’s farm economy and to taking the steps necessary to safeguard access to international markets and to ensure that farmers are not left to bear alone the consequences of circumstances beyond their control.

The government is a long way from making its words reality. There was nothing in the budget to support this intention and, consequently, nothing concrete in Bill C-30.

When I met with farmers from my region they reiterated that grain producers in Quebec and Canada are in a very difficult, not to say impossible situation. Why? Because the price of grain remains ridiculously low. They are unable to cover their production costs, which continue to increase. Add to that the interventions by the U.S. and European governments, which have been subsidizing their farmers for several years.

How has Canada reacted? During the past 10 years that the Liberals have been in power, during which the current Prime Minister was finance minister, Canada has increasingly failed to stand behind its farmers. That is the case for grain producers. Hon. members might be surprised to learn that funding for the agri-food sector in the federal budget went from 3.9% in 1991-92 to 1.6% in 2001-02, while Quebec grain producers posted negative net incomes.

The Liberals will probably respond by saying that transitional measures were implemented, but these are clearly inadequate.

The reality is that the federal government, and this Liberal government in particular—whether that of the former prime minister or the current Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard—has abandoned farmers.

The transitional measures totalled some $600 million in 2001-02 but no more than $250 million in 2003. Grain producers in Canada and Quebec expected the government to provide its share of support: $1.3 billion for the grain sector alone. The budget implementation bill falls short of their expectations because it offers nothing.

Meanwhile, the United States and Europe heavily subsidize their farmers. Here, it is frightening how our farmers are being abandoned by the federal government.

I can already hear the reaction from the Liberals and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who will brag about their farm income stabilization program. Allow me to say that in a letter dated April 15, 2004, Mr. Werner Schur, president of the Syndicat des producteurs de grandes cultures commerciales du Centre-du-Québec, which is my region, said that the latest program created to support farmers will instead impoverish large-scale farms in Quebec and Canada.

The budget and its implementation bill could have provided an opportunity to meet the needs of the cash crop producers. The grain and oilseed producers wanted to see some leadership from the federal government. This was a missed opportunity.

Every year, may I remind you, foreign subsidies result in a drop of more than $1.3 billion in income for Quebec and Canadian grain and oilseed producers. When will we see some policies to lessen the impact of this foreign interference on world markets?

I hope the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, have taken proper notice of this situation. The producers, like myself, are waiting not just for answers but for concrete actions to remedy this situation.

In recent years, the Liberal government has been asking the public to help put public finances in order. The federal government, with its current Prime MInister, formerly finance minister, made huge slashes to the funding of a number of sectors, health among them. This disengagement was solely responsible for the strangulation of the finances of Quebec and the provinces. The present Prime Minister, none other than the father of fiscal imbalance, has but one objective: to create a single government in Ottawa, with administrative branch offices in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Yet, at the very same time, the Liberals were shamelessly wasting taxpayer dollars on what we have brought to light: the sponsorship scandal. Not only the $100 million lost in the sponsorship scandal, but also the billion lost in the Human Resources Development scandal, and another $2 billion for the firearms registry. Over the past ten years, the Liberals have made it patently clear that they are incompetent to handle public funds properly and effectively.

The present Prime Minister can repeat all he wants that he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, but he cannot contradict the facts. He was there, sharing the responsibility for the poor Liberal administration, and we will keep reminding him of that all through the coming election campaign, if there is such a campaign of course. What is the Liberal leader afraid of? What are the Quebec Liberals afraid of? Does their track record embarrass them?

The Liberals have always used the same tactic: over-estimating government expenditures and under-estimating surpluses. The present Prime Minister would have done well to consult the Bloc Quebecois critics, the members for Joliette and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whose forecast figures have been far closer to reality.

As a result, billions of dollars went to paying down the debt while funding to Quebec and the provinces was cut. We must not forget all the intrusions by the federal government in areas outside its jurisdiction, which complicated the job of finance ministers across Canada. These intrusions and all the ad hoc interventions, through foundations set up by the Liberals, made financial planning for Quebec and the provinces extremely difficult. This cannot go on.

These are the results of ten years under the Liberals. Confirmation of this is provided by the budget implementation bill. The Liberals are unconcerned by what our constituents are experiencing. They are out of touch with the reality facing the unemployed, older workers losing their jobs, seniors who are often the most vulnerable members of our society, low income families who are unable to find appropriate housing because they lack the means, farmers abandoned to their fate who must show extraordinary creativity to weather the storm.

Since the federal government is no longer of any assistance, since it has the finance ministers of Quebec and the provinces by the throat, since it is withdrawing and running from its responsibilities, there is only one solution to ensure a sustainable future; Quebec must become a sovereign nation.

[Indian Affairs, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, according to Ted Moses, relations between the federal government and the Cree Nation are at an all-time low. The government of Quebec has settled its disputes with the Cree, and today Hydro-Quebec has come to an agreement with them as well.

Why does the Prime Minister not follow the Quebec government's example and negotiate a final agreement with the Cree, based on a nation-to-nation approach?

[Indian Affairs, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec and the Cree Nation signed the peace of the braves, an agreement to settle outstanding disputes once and for all. Now the Cree are ready to sign a similar agreement with Ottawa, but are unhappy with the fact that the federal government is negotiating in bad faith.

What is the minister waiting for to enter into this agreement with the Cree, while respecting the nation-to-nation approach as Quebec has done?

[National Security, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois estimates that there are two reasons for this committee.

In her report tabled in the House of Commons yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada spoke out about serious flaws with regard to the management of security measures and programs, although in its 2001 budget, the federal government announced $7.7 billion for this sector.

Among these flaws, we note: inability to share information between government departments and agencies; information about 25,000 lost and stolen passports that is not readily available to frontline officials; incomplete watch lists at the border, and the need to have names removed from the database. An estimated 4,500 individuals, or 5.5%, holding restricted area clearances at five major airports had criminal associations worth investigating further.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois has on many occasions condemned this government's inability to achieve a fair balance between security and freedom in its legislation on safety measures. Both the Anti-Terrorism Act, rushed through in 2001, and the public safety bill failed the test.

Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois will take part in the consultation process to ensure that the formula retained by the committee will allow it to continue to do its job effectively as an opposition party.