House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 50% of the vote.
Health November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the federal government is toying with the idea of making any of its future investments in health contingent on its public servants' approval of any projects the provinces might wish to carry out.
When the government tells us that health is one of its priorities, are we to understand that what it is primarily interested in is maximum control and maximum visibility, with a minimum outlay of funds?
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform member for his very relevant question which we take seriously.
Yes, we are concerned, because we fear that these consultations will be a sham. Under clause 9, the minister can consult whoever she wants whenever she wants. She transfers these duties to her staff without consulting, informing or bothering to get input from the public in general or even its elected representatives.
We are democratically elected to this House to represent our constituents and we have to inform them. As legislators, we should also be able to represent them well.
We are shown this bill and then told: “The minister will carry out some consultations.”
We are very concerned about this type of consultation, because, as we know, by and large these consultations always turn out in favour of the government or of the minister introducing the bill. This is why we think these consultations are a sham.
This is truly a tragic situation, because the government is trying to hoodwink us and would have us believe that the people have been consulted, when it is not so. It is also tragic because, once again, it is trying to impinge upon provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, and the amendment moved by the Reform Party.
Before getting into my presentation, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a legal framework for the establishment and future development of 28 marine conservation areas, including eight in Quebec, representing each of the ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and Canada.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill because it is covered by ad hoc legislation both in Canada and in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment. I want to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support the government when it suggested passing mirror legislation to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park and to establish a legal framework to ensure it would be jointly managed by the two levels of government.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor.
The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation or in partnership with the federal government on any project designed to ensure or promote the protection of the environment, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-48 for a number of reasons. First, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas irrespective of Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to the protection of its territory and environment.
Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas.
The federal government, which proclaims from the rooftops that it has met all of Quebec's demands, and states in its Speech from the Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one way or another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established. Bill C-48 does not, therefore, respect the territorial integrity of Quebec and the other provinces. What is more, Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. What a setup!
Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has already created marine protected areas. Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves.
It should be carefully noted that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category. The Department of Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine conservation areas in the preamble to the bill.
Heritage Canada is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; to establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; to ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a world-wide network of representative marine areas; to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and to provide opportunities within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities. As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it proposes the establishment of marine protected areas.
A discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January 1997, entitled “The Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act” indicates that the areas are created to protect fishery resources, commercial and others, including marine mammals and their habitats, endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats, unique habitats, marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity and any other marine resource.
As the result of discussions held in Quebec in June 1998 by Fisheries and Oceans on marine protection areas, the report prepared by public officials states, and I quote: “There remains a lot of confusion among stakeholders about the various federal programs on marine protected areas,”—these are not our words, but the words of government officials—“marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas, marine fauna reserves, and so forth. The departments involved should get together and collaborate in establishing marine protected areas”.
Now, Environment Canada is proposing to establish marine conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine reserves, expanding the notion of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 mile limit within the exclusive economic zone under the Canada Oceans Act. These zones are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but require a different set of regulations.
In short, let us summarize, because the triple federal overlap at the federal level—setting aside its overlap with provincial jurisdictions—becomes almost a federal maze where people can get lost.
Therefore, under the various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection zones and natural marine reserves. According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the same territory could find itself with several different zonings under different regulations that could confuse the user.
Yet, an initiative such as the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park could have been a model to follow. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed to pass legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area.
That legislation established the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any transfer of territory. Both governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities.
The federal government should have used this first partnership initiative as a model for the creation of other marine conservation areas. Instead of using a policy of openness and co-operation, the federal government has used arrogance, aggression, invasion and overlap, everything we need to make us want to leave at the next opportunity.
In conclusion, unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against the amendment moved by the Reform Party, because it did not identify some points that we consider really important. Our interpretation of the bill leads us to believe that the reasons it gives are unacceptable.
This bill invades the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces involved, and Quebec cannot and will not operate within this system. We showed the Canadian government great openness when it came to managing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and we regret that the government has not learned its lesson.
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf for such a good speech showing how complex this bill is.
This is like shooting one's self in the foot. The member clearly showed the overlap between three departments that want to be sure to intrude into an area that is outside their jurisdiction.
The Liberals' federal government has been shouting from the rafters it has met all of Quebec's demands. In its speech from the throne it claimed it was putting an end to overlap and intrusion into areas under provincial jurisdiction. However, it has now found a way to divide itself into three components and to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle in our affairs and invade an area that comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
I would like our colleague to demonstrate how three departments overlap to be sure, in a roundabout way, to interfere in our affairs.
Health November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, cuts re-occur every year.
Why is the health minister trying to make us believe that cuts in health care are hurting only Quebec when the provincial ministers meeting in Saskatoon all unanimously agreed that the federal government must re-invest in health care as a priority.
Health November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, every government in Canada is having serious trouble as the result of the cuts made by the federal government, which created its budget surplus by cutting health care transfers.
Why is the federal government not facing up to its responsibilities when its cuts to Quebec amount every year to half the salaries of all the nurses in the Quebec health care system?
Datura Stramonium October 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, a potentially deadly hallucinogenic fruit was recently introduced on the black market. In the past month, Quebec's poison control centre recorded about 45 cases where people had to be hospitalized.
Will the Minister of Health act quickly to prohibit the sale of datura stramonium?
Health October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he needs a consensus before he will take action.
All of Canada is asking him to take a portion of the budget surpluses and return it to the provinces for use in the health sector, because that is the priority everywhere.
If he is serious, why is he doing nothing?
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Quebec for her very interesting comments and for her work on this issue.
I would like her to remind us of the adverse effects that the EI reform has had on women. I would like her to repeat the example she gave a few moments ago and explain to us how pregnant women have been adversely affected by the reform.
I would also like her to tell us what the Bloc Quebecois thinks should be done with the EI fund surplus, why that money, which does not belong to the government, should be returned to the workers and the employers.
This situation has been strongly criticized throughout Quebec and Canada. By amending the Employment Insurance Act in order to use the EI fund surplus for other purposes instead of reinvesting it to lighten the workers' heavy financial burden, the government is practically stealing that money.
I would like my colleague to comment on that so we can better understand the situation.
Health Care October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said he would fight the policies of Ontario's Premier Mike Harris.
How will he justify his support for Jean Charest, whose policies largely mirror those of Mike Harris?