A change to an amendment-
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
A change to an amendment-
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and emotion that I present this amendment to an amendment, because the way it was originally worded, proscribing-
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, I have the unanimous consent of this House to move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake:
That Motion No. 9 be amended by deleting the words:
"by children under the age of 16" and replacing these words by the following: "in contravention to International Law Association conventions Nos. 79, 90 and 138 concerning children's law".
Global Climate Change November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Davenport. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Through our numerous meetings, I have come to know the hon. member, who is a former environment minister and also a man dedicated to promoting a sound environment.
However, I am surprised that, given his professionalism, he would table a motion which, albeit positive, is excessively vague and non directive.
Motion M-168 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in anticipation of global climate change, consider the advisability of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, as well as placing greater reliance on renewable sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.
With all due respect, I submit that this motion does not have any substance.
"The government should- consider the advisability of promoting-" I have often seen laws and regulations designed to monitor stakeholders more closely. I am referring to the opposite of what is called a toothless piece of legislation. The motion says: "The government should". Does this mean "should" or "should really"?
At the rate Liberals are examining, consulting and discussing, they will consider the issue for a long time. Let me give you an example. The health sector: Four years and $12 million later the government suddenly realizes that this field falls under provincial jurisdiction. It was a mistake. Not to worry. We just start all over again.
Why this vague wording? Maybe the hon. member knows that the government is not able or does not have the will to implement its laws. Canada's environmental act is one of the most comprehensive and complex. We are in the process of reviewing it.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives the Canadian government several powers to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. However, the act regarding political party financing allows oil companies to make substantial contributions to the party in power. There may not be a link, at least, this is not what I meant.
As I was saying, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government could have promoted the reduction of energy consumption. It is easy to say, less easy to prove. I will anyway.
The preamble of the act states "Whereas the government of Canada in demonstrating national leadership should establish national environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes of practice-"
I am not saying I agree with this, but it is in the preamble.
Further in the preamble, it says: "And whereas Canada must be able to fulfil its international obligations in respect of the environment-". I will speak later about the failure to meet the commitments made by Canada in Rio to reduce at the source the emission of greenhouse gases. A lack of will, probably.
In section 2 of the same act, we are told that we can take both preventative and remedial measures in protecting the environment. Preventative and remedial. However in a 1994 catalogue
about human activity and the environment, Statistics Canada shows that between 1985 and 1991, the net production of coal rose from 60,000 kilotonnes to 71,000 kilotonnes.
Statistics Canada lists in this report environmental considerations relating to coal production, including idle land, land cave-in, surface erosion and inorganic detrital matter.
According to the same report, with respect to carbon dioxide emissions caused by the use of fossil fuel, CO2 levels have increased from 387 megatonnes in 1982 to 436 megatonnes in 1992. What we are talking about here is a greenhouse gas. Given these figures, I do not know what to think of the advisability of promotion, as the hon. member for Davenport puts it. At any rate, let us see what else the Canadian Environmental Protection Act says.
In Part II, Clause 47 reads: "The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing, with respect to any fuel or fuel used for any purpose, the concentration or quantity of any element, component or additive that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, if exceeded, would, on the combustion of the fuel in ordinary circumstances, result in a significant contribution to air pollution".
Under the new gasoline regulations made in March 1991, Environment Canada carried out 1,141 inspections, but conducted only two inquiries and issued five warnings. Considering that, based on Statistics Canada figures, between five and ten tons of oil are spilled every year in oil-producing provinces, one can wonder if this government really has any will to act.
Before putting forth such a motion, we should check whether or not legislation has already been enacted regarding energy efficiency, fossil fuels and nuclear power. As it turns out in this case, several acts already deal with these subjects.
The Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, a federal act, the National Energy Board Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act are already in place to control this type of energy.
As I just tried to explain, Canada has extensive legislation dealing with an area that, I may recall, falls under provincial jurisdiction. Consider Hydro-Québec, which for many years has promoted the cause of saving energy, for instance, through its 1-800-ÉNERGIE line, which is more readily available and accessible than proposals coming from the federal government.
Furthermore, as the Minister of the Environment said herself in Bathurst, if reducing gas emissions is a provincial responsibility, then saving energy should also be a provincial matter. In concluding, as the hon. member for Davenport may have noticed, I felt that his motion lacked consistency and tended to ignore the many jurisdictions around us.
International Tribunal For Children's Rights November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the International Tribunal for Children's Rights was inaugurated in Paris yesterday. The headquarters of this tribunal will be in Montreal. The promoters of this extraordinary initiative were inspired by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in New York in 1990, where several promises were made on behalf of children. Today we still find children who are drug addicts, prostitutes, conscripted, enslaved and even victims of traffic in body organs.
In this International Year of the Family, I urge members of this House to support this initiative and I encourage and congratulate those who will sit on this tribunal. Bravo!
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is out of great concern for the promotion and preservation of Quebec culture that I participate today in this debate on Bill C-53 to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
It is unthinkable, in my view, that a department be established to promote, as indicated in clause 4, Canadian culture and heritage. Once again, the federal government is proving to the people of Quebec that it does not understand the first thing about Quebec culture. How indeed can one seriously claim that there is such a thing as a Canadian culture? Perhaps government members should be reminded that the French language is alive and commonly used in Quebec and in many regions of Canada in spite of sustained efforts on the part of the federal government to trivialize the spoilsports it views francophones as.
Not only is Quebec culture alive and well in Quebec but it also radiates worldwide. Just think of the success of Quebec talent abroad. French Canadians are also successful abroad. Such a vibrant cultural environment can legitimately claim and gain complete independence at the cultural level. On that subject, the former Liberal culture minister in Quebec rightly indicated that she intended to reaffirm the need for Quebec to assume control over cultural matters on its territory. Culture is of paramount importance to Quebec; therefore, it is important that the government of Quebec be recognized the exclusive powers required to discharge its responsibilities.
As you can see, there is nothing new or partisan about us, Quebecers, wanting to manage our cultural matters ourselves. History and the evolution of Quebec over the years show this deep-seated will of dealing with Quebec culture, and to do so from Quebec. Let us look for example at the demands made by Premiers Johnson and Bertrand in the 1960s, Bourassa and Lévesque in the 1970s and 1980s, who despite their many differences of opinion all demanded that Quebec's cultural affairs be administered by Quebec.
In addition to promoting Canadian culture, Bill C-53 shows an intention of managing this so-called culture. I think that this bill amounts to an outright refusal to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness.
Let us now look at constitutional responsibilities in cultural matters. Section 92(16) of the 1867 Constitution Act recognizes provincial jurisdiction over all matters of a merely local or private nature. Is Quebec culture not a local or private matter?
Furthermore, the 1867 act gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice in civil matters, which is, as my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata so eloquently said, a fundamental characteristic of our distinct society.
Since provincial jurisdiction over education is closely linked to culture, it would be ridiculous and even totally inconsistent to deal with them separately. This demonstration clearly shows that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the whole area of culture.
Quebec is fed up with the federal government's meddling in provincial matters! Justifying cultural interference by invoking the existence of a single Canadian culture is taking comedy, which is turning into drama, a little too far. It also ignores the history of the two founding nations, need I remind you.
Let us look for a few moments at your definition of nation. Since when is Canada a single nation? We live in a country that was created from scratch. Are you denying the existence of one of the founding nations of this country you are supposedly so proud of? Have you forgotten that there is a large francophone community in your great country and that they are in the majority in Quebec?
True, your daily actions show how little interest you have in issues affecting francophones. We only have to think about Kingston, Long Lac, the military college in Saint-Jean. But is flatly denying the very existence of a francophone culture in Canada not going a little too far?
It would be extremely dangerous to leave the administration of Quebec culture in the hands of a federal minister like the one now in place, working with a law which does not even recognize the existence of Quebec's distinct culture. Especially since the federal government was never too keen on investing as much money in francophone culture as in anglophone culture.
Take the example of the French and English networks of the CBC. The difference in the funding of these two is growing all the time; in April, the difference in the programming budget was $76.4 million. At the same time, we learned that the two networks had about the same size of audience.
We cannot fail to mention the many instances of duplication and overlap in the cultural field. Almost every federal cultural institution has a counterpart in Quebec. For example, there are Radio-Canada and Radio-Québec, the Canada Council and the Conseil des arts et lettres du Québec, the National Archives of Canada and the Quebec archives, to name only these.
Many hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted every year with such unnecessary duplication and overlap. Can we afford it? Everyone knows that we cannot. Is it really asking too much to want to administer one's own culture? For too long, the federal government has shown its intention to assimilate and wipe out Quebec culture. The people of Quebec have enough of being laughed at for wanting to have all they need to develop and preserve their cultural identity.
Fortunately, Quebecers have understood that negotiations with the federal government lead nowhere and they will show that by expressing their desire to become a sovereign people. That is the only way to ensure our survival in America. Until that day, as the representatives here in Ottawa of most Quebec voters, we will strive to have the existence of this francophone culture recognized, for it shall never cease to exist.
Francophones pay taxes like all other citizens and as such they are entitled to all the benefits that anglophones have in this country and to the historical recognition that is their due. Finally, as Malraux said, culture is not inherited-it is won.
Marine Transportation November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, considering that the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence River is not the responsibility of Americans, who have a real interest in cutting the costs of navigating in Canadian waters, how can the minister expect a binational agency to apply the same safety standards as the current pilotage authorities?
Marine Transportation November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Sub-Committee on the St. Lawrence Seaway is proposing that the Pilotage Act of 1972 be repealed, that the four pilotage authorities be disbanded, and that a Canada-United States agency be responsible for pilotage on the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.
In order to maintain the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence River, will the Minister of Transport pledge to reject the sub-committee's recommendation to repeal the Pilotage Act?
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act October 31st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer my two colleagues for the second time. I believe there are national standards, uniform standards for the whole country. Mr. Parizeau was saying during the election campaign that it would be very difficult to have uniform standards in Quebec, in forestry for example, so imagine what it would be like for the whole country.
First, as I said before, under the Constitution Act of 1867, forestry is strictly a provincial matter. Then, there is no problem. Second, a solution applicable in Vancouver might not work in Quebec, not to mention Prince Edward Island. If a standard applies to British Columbia-your area I believe-I do not think we can conclude that it would automatically apply to Quebec where the climate is different, the soil is different, many conditions are different. How would the standard apply?
If you were to ask me about fisheries, I would give you the same answer. I do not think that a national standard could apply to conditions in Quebec, or in Alberta, or in your riding, differences are too large.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act October 31st, 1994
Provincial standards are generally higher than federal standards. The highest standard would then apply.