Richard Marceau

[Yukon Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise at third reading of Bill C-39 on the revision of the Yukon Act.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the work done by the member for Yukon, who has always co-operated and listened to what we have to say. He truly is an advocate for the people of his riding, his territory. I think he deserves to be commended by the members of the House. He also deserves congratulations from his constituents when he returns to his riding next weekend.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources had the opportunity to hear from a number of witnesses during its hearings on Bill C-39. We had the privilege of hearing from the Hon. Pat Duncan, the premier of Yukon, who made a special trip from Whitehorse to share with us the positive impact this bill would have on the administration of her territory.

The Bloc Quebecois and I believe that this legislation could loosen the grip that this paternalist federal government has on aboriginal communities and the people of Canada's territories: Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

The main focus of Bill C-39 is to modernize the political and democratic institutions of the Yukon Territory. However, the bill does not make Yukon a province, as its constitutional status will in no way be changed with the passage of Bill C-39.

The bill replaces the current Yukon Act, by, among other things, recognizing the existence of a system of responsible government in Yukon. The bill goes on to change the name of certain public institutions in keeping with current usage and also gives the legislature of Yukon additional legislative jurisdiction over public real property and waters.

Thus the bill changes the word council and calls the legislative branch of Yukon the legislative assembly of Yukon. The commissioner in council becomes the legislature of Yukon and the ordinances become the laws of the legislature.

However, as the current Yukon Act provides, the Auditor General of Canada will remain the auditor of the Yukon government, although the Yukon government will be able to appoint its own independent auditor.

The enactment also includes a preamble stating that Yukon has a system of responsible government that is similar to that of Canada. It also establishes and clarifies the relationship between the commissioner and the executive council. As Yukon does not enjoy the same constitutional status as the provinces, a musty holdover in Canada, the commissioner of Yukon, appointed by the federal government, will retain his executive duties as representative, consistent with the current conventions of government.

As I mentioned at the start of my remarks, this bill will permit the modernization of the deplorable regime, which might be called colonial, of the Canadian territories not enjoying provincial status. We consider it a step in the right direction in decentralizing the powers of the federal government in the day to day administration of communities that are so distant from Ottawa and whose legitimate aspirations are at the mercy of the failing political leadership of the federal government.

Finally, as this bill appears to reflect the desire and wishes of the government and people of Yukon, the Bloc Quebecois will not oppose its passage at third reading.

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address Bill C-37 in the spirit of co-operation that the Bloc Quebecois always displays when the bills proposed are good measures and, more importantly, in a spirit of friendship, since Quebec sovereignists are allies of the various aboriginal nations.

It is in a spirit of help, support and friendship that the Bloc Quebecois takes a stand on all aboriginal issues. We often offer our assistance to them, always in a spirit of co-operation between nations.

Bill C-37 before us today is intended to facilitate the implementation of territorial agreements reached between the federal government and the first nations.

As we saw in committee with the speeches that were made, the bill is very technical. In fact, this is in stark contrast with the approach which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development seemed to have adopted and which generated controversy every time he wanted to introduce a new government measure, as was the case, for instance, with the governance bill.

Incidentally, it is unfortunate for the minister that this attitude impacts negatively on the federal government's relations with first nations. One example is, of course, the rather drastic and unacceptable cuts imposed on the Assembly of First Nations by the federal government.

Such decisions and actions will not help improve relations between the federal government and first nations, and this is very unfortunate for all Quebecers, Canadians and first nations.

In fact, there are even rumours on the other side of the House and in the newspapers that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may lose his job during the next cabinet shuffle. It sure must be difficult to work with this dangling over one's head.

But let us not get distracted by the internal problems of the Liberal Party. Let us get back to Bill C-37.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud to contribute to the quick passage of this legislation since it includes constructive measures for first nations.

The Bloc Quebecois' position on the study of this bill is entirely consistent with our party's position on the right of first nations to self-government.

Incidentally, I am sorry that the federal government left aside the political framework suggested in the Erasmus-Dussault Commission report and that it is using different mechanisms, a piecemeal approach, when a clearly defined path has been laid out, a path that we as well as a majority of stakeholders in the aboriginal community and others support.

The Bloc Quebecois has demonstrated that we are open to first nations and we have also demonstrated our sincere concern for them on numerous occasions.

Bill C-37 implements land claims agreements which are the result of long and often difficult negotiations for increased self-government and accountability for first nations.

It is important to remember that this legislative measure applies exclusively to the result of negotiations in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Similar legislation was passed approximately one year ago for Manitoba.

Bill C-37 will considerably reduce the time required to grant the lands negotiated real reserve status. Aboriginal people in these areas will be able to use this legislation to accelerate the land transfer process.

This is a key element of the notion of self-government, as it will allow first nations to benefit sooner from the natural resources on their lands. Their economic space will be strengthened, and everything seems to indicate that the legislation will have a positive effect on these communities.

I could go on for much longer, but in order to be brief, in conclusion, I reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-37. We invite our colleagues from all political parties to do likewise.

[Competition Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the word you claim I said I did not use at all. I never said that.

[Competition Act, December 3rd, 2001]

I did not say that.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this important debate on the motions in Group No. 1.

The events of September 11 have, as has been said many times, created an exceptional situation requiring an exceptional response. That exceptional response is the legislation we are looking at today.

In this House, only the NDP had not realized, or at least not officially as their party position, that international geopolitics had changed.

As the result of numerous questions on our part, particularly by the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm, whose exceptional efforts in connection with Bill C-36 I must commend, the Minister of Justice kept repeating “We are open to changes in the bill. We are going to hear the witnesses in committee. Our minds are not closed. We shall see how things develop”.

The Bloc Quebecois said “OK, we will play along”. We heard the witnesses, we questioned them, we spoke with them. The outcome of all this feverish exchange of ideas was our tabling of 66 amendments in committee. Still believing that we were playing along, and that the Liberal government was too, we proposed these amendments in good faith.

But the minister rejected them all, except for one. This should have been an indication—but we are getting used to this—of the Liberals' idea of the work of parliamentarians, which is “Do not worry. We the Liberal government are the embodiment of truth. We know what is best and to heck with what witnesses said”.

This is very unfortunate, because Bill C-36 changes the balance between security and individual freedoms. Whenever we change that balance, we must do so carefully and thoughtfully. Unfortunately, it seems that the Liberal government was content with its own way of seeing things and not open to other people's views.

Let us now turn to the various motions before us. Motion No. 1, presented by the Canadian Alliance member, does not change things very much. There are still problems with the very broad definition of the expression terrorist activity.

We agree with the second motion dealing with transparency and we will support it. We will also support Motion No. 3 dealing with having one's name on the list as a person or organization.

I want to go back to Motion No. 2 on transparency, because it is essential. The various amendments that the Bloc Quebecois presented in committee were intended, in part, to give greater transparency to the bill, to the government's activities.

Again, we must be very careful when we attempt to change the balance between individual rights and security. We must take every possible measure to ensure greater transparency, so that all Quebecers and Canadians will know what to expect, particularly since this bill is a fundamental philosophical change in the Canadian legislation. Therefore, we support Motion No. 2.

As for Motion No. 3, as I was saying earlier, it is very serious business to be on a list of individuals or organizations that promote terrorism. Asking the minister to make a quick decision as to whether a person or organization is to be deleted from this list is the least of our worries. If the minister is not able to do so within 60 days, it seems to me that, based on our legal philosophy of presumed innocence, it is obvious that the name of the individual or organization would have to be deleted if there were no ministerial decision within those 60 days.

As for Motion No. 4, the Bloc Quebecois moved numerous amendments in committee to ensure that the right to counsel, one of the fundamental elements of our legal system in Quebec and in Canada, was respected and, more than that, guaranteed. Once again, let me repeat, the government decided to spurn all amendments by the Bloc Quebecois, including the ones on this.

We are therefore going to be supporting the motion by the right honourable leader of the Conservative Party to ensure that the right to counsel is respected. I know that the right hon. leader of the Conservative Party has far more experience than I.

I do not, however, have any doubts as to the desire of this government to vote against these amendments, even the ones that make sense and should be adopted. The Liberal government has decided it knows more than everyone else and so it is thumbing its nose, not just at the opinions of parliamentarians, whether this involves the amendment by the Alliance members, those by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition, or those by the Bloc Quebecois, but also at the proposals made by the various witnesses in committee.

For this reason, I believe this whole thing is going to give our institution even more of a black eye as far as public opinion is concerned. The expert witnesses were not heeded, those wonderful people who came before committee to present their views and who deserved to be listened to.

[Amateur Sport, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk indeed about the circumstances. Oddly enough, the announcement and the promises were made by the secretary of state just before the election campaign. Athletes from Lac Beauport and the Quebec City region are still waiting for the promised money.

What is the government waiting to come up with that money?

[Amateur Sport, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on October 13, 2000, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport announced with great fanfare that $1 million would be invested over a five year period to develop national training centres, including $500,000 for the freestyle skiing centre of Lac Beauport. The Quebec government has already made its contribution. However, despite the commitments of the secretary of state, Ottawa has yet to make its contribution and it is unduly delaying the completion of the Lac Beauport project.

I am asking the Minister of National Revenue what the government is waiting to make its contribution, which still has not been paid one year after the announcement?

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer an intelligent and thoughtful question. To be honest, it makes a bit of a change from the previous one.

The objective mentioned by the member for Windsor--St. Clair is most laudable. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois agree on a number of points, but perhaps not on the route to take.

I think that an international trade agreement can be negotiated concurrently, with environmental and social protection clauses and clauses protecting workers, which he mentioned.

Instead of being scrapped, I think that these big international trade negotiations should include discussions about the clauses mentioned, which would also have force of law and be justifiable before international dispute settlement panels.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member opposite spent half of his time describing how great the minister was for having set out Canada's position before the House. My goodness, is this not his job, as minister, to be here and to explain the government's position?

I do not understand, unless he is on the defensive and needs to justify the presence of a minister in the House. I do not understand his point of view and why he talked about it for so long.

As regards the nation state, first I would like the hon. member to tell me whether he would let another nation negotiate on behalf of Canada. If the concept of sovereignty is so “19th century”, would he let another country negotiate on behalf of Canada? Perhaps he should answer this question.

There is another issue. The Canadian federation, which is itself a product of the 19th century, is obsolete. The plan advocated by Quebec sovereignists, whether from the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois, would transform this aging 19th century federation into a new partnership between sovereign countries, based on the European Union model to which the hon. member himself referred.

We said many times, and the Premier of Quebec also said “Let us put together a Canada-Quebec agreement patterned on the European Union model, and we will sign it immediately”. This is a model agreement, a model partnership. This is a 21st century agreement compared to the Canadian federation, which dates back to the 19th century.

As for the third point concerning the free trade agreement, the Bloc Quebecois voted against, we realized that NAFTA's chapter 11 had some very unfortunate effects on international trade and on various federal or provincial statutes.

Not to realize this is to stick one's head in the sand. Despite the lobbying of numerous right and left wing groups, of employer and union groups, which said that chapter 11 must not be lifted as is and inserted into free trade agreements with other countries, the fact that the federal government has not realized the dangers inherent in chapter 11 shows its lack of vision.

This is the main reason that the Bloc Quebecois voted against the free trade agreement last week.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the parliamentary delegation that will be going to Doha, I find it deplorable that the chief negotiator of the Canadian delegation will not listen to the arguments raised by a number of hon. members of this House, no doubt because of a supposedly overloaded agenda, whereas what we are debating is of fundamental importance for the future of Canadians.

A number of us have raised the point here in the House that there must be a human face to globalization, that is the international treaties must include social, environmental and worker protection clauses. These must have equal legal weight with the purely international trade related clauses.

Particularly since the events of September 11 in the United States, the trade objectives of Canada and of the entire need to be reviewed within a far broader perspective, taking into consideration a number of the concerns of the developing countries.

We are convinced that freer trade can lead to democratization, if the right means of attaining our objectives are selected.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of greater openness for international trade. We have said this over and over. We are, however, of the opinion that this openness must not be achieved at just any price and just any old way.

The principles that I have just outlined are the same principles that the Bloc Quebecois put forward before the Seattle conference and the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. They need to be put forward in a much clearer, stronger and more dynamic manner by the federal government, which unfortunately views these international trade negotiations as an opportunity to liberalize trade, obviously, while leaving behind the poorest of the poor, who are unfortunately forgotten on the road toward increased world wealth.

For a population that exports 44% of its gross domestic product, Canada and Quebec cannot oppose greater international trade. However, it must not be done any old way and it must take into consideration the different social aspects of globalization.