House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.
Bilingualism April 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the President of the Treasury Board again said that 32% of federal public service managers were still not bilingual, that they had one year left to become bilingual, and that some of them would not succeed in doing so.
Will the President of the Treasury Board tell us what she plans on doing with managers who do not meet the linguistic requirements of their position by the March 31 deadline?
International Day of La Francophonie March 20th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of la Francophonie, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to underscore the vital contribution made by all those who work day in and day out to promote the French language and the importance of the links uniting the various communities with this language in common.
There are 170 million people throughout the world, but mainly in the 55 countries of the Francophonie, using and sharing this important cultural trait, the French language.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to remind hon. members that, when Quebec becomes a member state of the Francophonie, it will maintain its connections with the various francophone communities and increase its role as key promoter of the Francophonie in America.
In this same vein, I should point out that the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie will today be awarding the Ordre de la Pléiade to Premier Bernard Landry of Quebec, as well as Janette Bertrand, Marie Laberge, Guy Laliberté, Zachary Richard and Bruny Surin.
Our congratulations to them all, and happy International Day of la Francophonie, everyone.
Rendez-vous de la Francophonie March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie began on Monday and will continue until March 24. This event, which was created four years ago is a celebration of the French language and culture through more than one thousand activities across Quebec and Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois is taking this opportunity to salute all the stakeholders who are contributing to the development and preservation of the ties between the various players in the Francophonie.
It is important to remember that French is used in every part of the cultural spectrum, often with original accents, and that the use of this language by the various communities not only helps promote French, but also the communities themselves.
Interparliamentary Delegations March 14th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, and the financial report relating to it.
The report refers to the meeting of the APF's Commission de l'éducation, de la communication et des affaires culturelles, which took place in Alexandria, Egypt, from February 10-13, 2002.
I would like to thank Guyanne Desforges for her professional work in preparation for this mission, and her significant contribution in preparing this report.
Supply March 12th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have been referring to members of her own party or coalition, since they did not manage a quorum.
Supply March 12th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Edmonton North is a long-standing member, and she should know better than to refer to the absence of members from the House. I believe she should withdraw the remarks she made earlier about members not being in the House.
Species at Risk Act February 25th, 2002
moved:
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Species at Risk Act February 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to allow me to move Motion No. 79.
Species at Risk Act February 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the members who spoke before me on Bill C-5. I find the silence of the government members interesting. Perhaps they can find little to defend about the bill before us today. Their silence is suspicious to say the least.
Before looking at Bill C-5 more specifically, I would like to try to address the issues raised by this bill or the problems it is supposed to solve with respect to protecting biodiversity.
I believe that all members of this House agree fully on the increase in the rate of disappearance and on the seriousness of the situation concerning biodiversity, and the disappearance or the threat of disappearance of certain species.
We must ask ourselves some questions. Does Bill C-5 really provide additional protection that can be enforced? Will the bill really contribute to enhancing the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that make up these ecosystems? These are the two basic things that Bill C-5 should do: protect ecosystems and protect endangered species.
Since this third version of the bill was introduced, what we have heard leaves us with the impression that, strange as it may seem, the Minister of the Environment did not ask himself these two simple questions before introducing his bill.
Why is the Minister of the Environment introducing Bill C-5 on biodiversity? Not because the current Minister of the Environment woke up one morning and said to himself “It will do my image and my reputation good to introduce a bill on biodiversity and the protection of species at risk”. Rather, he was trying to pick up on a job started by his predecessors, Mr. Marchi and the current Minister of Canadian Heritage who had already, on two occasions, tried to make good a promise. The first one was made by the federal government at the Rio summit in 1992. At the time, the Progressive Conservatives were in power. It will be recalled that Mr. Mulroney was in Rio de Janeiro.
We can understand that some electors are skeptical about the role of members of parliament, the role of elected people, the role of ministers and premiers when we see these men and women—a nice family picture, arm in arm, a big smile of their face—telling us “Starting today, following the Rio summit, we will take biodiversity into consideration. Do not worry, we are considering this situation to be a priority”. I would be curious to identify the number of situations or concerns that the various governments have put forward. At a given time, everything was a priority during their mandate, depending on the community they were addressing.
At the Rio summit in 1992, presidents, first ministers, statesmen and stateswomen, arm in arm, with a big smile on their face, signed the Rio convention on biodiversity.
There is a problem. Once this has been signed, once the convention has been ratified, the respective states must pass some legislation. That was not done yet, but the conservatives said “We are going to do it”. Less than a year later, they were threatened. They were completely extinct, or almost.
I think they will support this bill on species at risk, but their situation has prevented them from being able to introduce legislative measures to meet their commitment.
That was not too serious, because the Liberals had made a promise in their 1993 red book to introduce a biodiversity bill. Indeed, in 1995, a little less than two years after the election, the present Minister of Heritage introduced an endangered species bill. At that time, it was the bill which led up to Bill C-65. The main thing that made the present heritage minister back up was that the bill addressed only zones protected by the federal government.
An unbelievable number of protests and criticisms ensued, particularly from environmental groups and others who closely monitor environmental problems. The criticism of that bill was that it was restricted solely to federal lands. Critics pointed out that only four provinces at that time, Quebec being one, had endangered species legislation.
According to the environmentalists and the opposition parties, this bill, which applied only to federal lands, was an unsatisfactory and incomplete response to the great promise of Rio de Janeiro.
So the bill introduced by the present heritage minister was just take one for the federal government; it was shelved around 1995.
In 1996, the present Canadian ambassador to the WHO in Geneva—whom I can name—Sergio Marchi, then Minister of the Environment, introduced Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, which is in a way the ancestor of this bill being debated today.
The government was again criticized by the various stakeholder groups and, this time, the criticism was not merely from Quebec or the sovereignists, or the opposition parties, but also from the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and the Yukon and Northwest Territories, all of which voiced major concerns about the concept of transborder species and the powers defined by the act. Many criticisms were directed at the Minister of the Environment of the day, and the bill was again judged unsatisfactory.
What did the Liberals do? In 1996, four years after the Rio summit and three years after being elected, they let Bill C-65, which they have now reintroduced, die on the order paper.
This bill on species at risk that we are discussing today is not the current Minister of the Environment's idea, nor is it an idea or a promise from the 2000 election campaign, it is something that Canadians have been waiting for more than 10 years.
When we see our heads of government strutting about New York talking about the rights of children or the status of women throughout the world, when there are big summits with heads of state and government leaders from around the world who sign agreements, then return to their own countries, try to introduce the necessary legislation and, ten years later, are still talking about this same legislation, it is no wonder that people are skeptical about provincial and federal politicians.
It seems to me that given the outcries in 1995 and 1996 that led to the two previous bills, a modicum of good faith and imagination would have encouraged the minister at that time, or the current Minister of the Environment, to meet with his provincial counterparts and put the issues out on the table, the fact that four provinces already had bills, including Quebec, to protect threatened or endangered species and their ecosystems.
In order to take into consideration this reality and the fact that the federal government already has legislation on threatened species with the Fisheries Act and other acts of Environment Canada and others, they could have looked at the areas that the different stakeholders in this area agreed on. They could also have invited environmental groups to discuss Bill C-5, and taken into consideration the main criticisms that would have provided for real and adequate environmental protection in the first, second, and let us hope that there will not be a third attempt at the legislation—this has still not been a part of discussions.
But the main problem with Bill C-5 is the fact that it does not answer the two simple and fundamental questions that it should answer, and the fact that the decisions to determine what is a threatened species and what is not will not be made by scientists. These decisions on the designation of species will be made by the minister and by cabinet, rather than by scientists themselves.
We are convinced that the minister will not wake up one morning and say “Now, in my opinion this species is becoming an endangered species”. He will take into consideration the research and the analyses done by scientists. But what we question, along with environmental groups and elected provincial representatives, is the very broad power the Minister of the Environment and cabinet are appropriating, when it comes to designating threatened species.
I will conclude by saying that, with a minimum of goodwill, openness and transparency, we should be able to co-operate and arrive at a good solution for everyone. We could fulfill a commitment made ten years ago, during the summit in Rio de Janeiro, where everyone unanimously agreed that the biodiversity of threatened species should be monitored by effective agreements and legislation in our respective countries.
Supply February 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. As interesting as it was, I think it was made during the wrong debate. The motion before the House deals with the government withdrawing from health care funding, but I think the member deliberately chose not to address this issue.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the member is probably more knowledgeable than many others. So, I would like to put to him some more pointed questions, which he should be able to answer.
The motion brought forward by my hon. colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve condemns the government for withdrawing from health care funding. It condemns the government—rightly or wrongly, that would be up to the parliamentary secretary to tell us—for no longer shouldering more than 14% of the costs of health care. It reminds the House that, in 1993-94, when the Liberal Party took over, the federal contribution stood at 22.4%. So, this represents a drop of around 10%.
I have a question for the parliamentary secretary, who will probably vote against the motion, about the government no longer shouldering more than 14% of health care funding. If my colleague does not agree with this figure, could he tell the House what percentage of health care funding his government is shouldering? As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, could he answer this question?