Richard Marceau

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with your decision, because when a point of order is raised by a government member, like the government House leader for example, representatives from the other parties who want to speak to it must be given an opportunity to do so. If a point of order was raised by a Liberal member, I think an opposition member should have the right to respond.

I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order to indicate that I have the right to discuss the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, to respond to this point of order, I do not want that time to be taken away from my allotted time. In a take note debate—

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, today's take note debate seeks, among other objectives, to convey the views of parliamentarians to the leaders of the Canadian negotiating team that is headed for Doha, in Qatar.

First, I can only deplore the minister's absence this evening. He will leave for Doha on Wednesday and it would have been important for him to be here during this whole take note debate to get to know the sensitivities and views of all the members of parliament, who took the time to prepare texts and present their views in the House.

The world is changing and getting smaller at an incredible speed. The world in 2001 is completely different from the world in 1995, if we only take one significant date in Quebec's history. Today, and this tendency will become increasingly more prevalent, the rules affecting what we eat, watch, read and consume, in other words the rules affecting all of us, are increasingly defined at international tables, whether it is at meetings such as the Quebec City summit, the Seattle ministerial conference, which I attended, or the upcoming one, which will take place in Qatar.

Contrary to what some theorists believe, and I would count Canada's Minister for International Trade among them, the nation state is becoming increasingly important in the new world order.

The nation state is the main actor in this new world order. The minister would never let another country negotiate for Canada, and with good reason. Which begs the question: Why would a country, a people, such as Quebec, let another people negotiate on its behalf?

The rules of globalization, which affect people in their everyday lives, are decided around international tables where only sovereign countries sit.

Obviously, the European Union is an exception, because the European commission negotiates on behalf of the members of the European Union, but the commission's mandate is conferred by the 15 members of the European Union. The commission is then required to report to member countries to ratify several clauses and international trade treaties.

Without this sovereignty, without independence, a people can never hope to influence in any way these rules of globalization that affect people in their everyday lives. This is one of the main reasons why I hope that Quebec will become a country as soon as possible, in order to benefit from the globalization movement, to share with the world its values of solidarity, sharing and cultural diversity.

The ministerial meeting I will be attending in Qatar is especially important. Last spring the Bloc Quebecois expressed its position on international trade on many occasions, as evidenced by the number of questions that the Bloc Quebecois raised in the House. The position that we put forward, that we explained, and I even toured all of Quebec to dialogue with Quebecers, is the same position that we held at the Quebec summit.

First, transparency must be assured. People will not agree to negotiations on subjects that will affect their everyday life being carried on behind closed doors, and rightly so.

It is true that most of the governments negotiating are elected, but no people has ever given these governments the option of deciding the rules affecting us in our everyday lives in secret. Here in parliament we vote on laws that affect Canadians and Quebecers. We do so openly. It is telecast. The public can see the various bills, appear before a committee, and discuss and meet with the various MPS and caucuses to express their viewpoint.

Unfortunately, internationally, within the framework of the WTO, individuals and various groups, rightly concerned by the various discussions, cannot express their viewpoint as clearly as they can within their country.

It is also important to establish much closer ties between parliament and the various parliaments involved in these discussions. I mentioned this at the very start of my speech. It is unfortunate that Canada's principal negotiator at the conference in Doha is not with us to discuss with the various speakers the issues that will concern us and that will be raised at the ministerial conference in Doha. It gives an idea of how little the government and the minister care about what the parliamentarians in this House think.

[Yukon Act, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-39 on the revision of the Yukon Act. I am particularly pleased because my duties as the Bloc Quebecois critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development have increased since the recent introduction of two other legislative measures by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In fact, since I was appointed to this position by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, I have had very little opportunity to comment on matters under the jurisdiction of the minister in question, since he has done virtually nothing since his appointment to Cabinet.

I am not aware of the causes of his recent motivation to raise his profile, but I must congratulate him nevertheless. It is good to finally see a minister putting forward some concrete legislative proposals that will, for once, lead to greater transparency and, particularly, to a degree of decentralization of the federal government's powers.

I am all the more pleased to take part in this debate because it also gives me an opportunity to really perform my primary duties as Bloc Quebecois intergovernmental affairs critic. In fact, were it not for the continued extreme paternalism of the federal government with respect to aboriginal communities and the people in Canadian territories such as Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, this bill might very well have been sponsored by the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs rather than the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I could discourse on this for hours, but far be it from me to subject the House to an endless recital of the exponential disaster of the Liberals' handling of aboriginal affairs. The department was left to its own devices for decades, for lack of decent political leadership, leadership which, oddly enough, began with the appointment of the current Prime Minister as minister of that department thirty or so years ago. In fact, one could even see in that leadership the considerable legacy of the Prime Minister throughout his impressive career.

Fortunately for the first nations and for all aboriginal communities, the Prime Minister did not, in those days, have to play the same role and exercise the same influence as minister of Indian affairs as he did as minister of justice in the early 1980s.

I would be remiss if I let this day, November 5, go by without acknowledging the sad and sombre 20th anniversary of the famous “night of the long knives”, when the Prime Minister, mandated by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, plotted in the back kitchen of a hotel with his good friend Roy Romanow, to isolate Quebec and make his mentor's dream to patriate the constitution from Great Britain to Canada come true, despite fierce opposition from all political parties in Quebec. That is another subject I could discuss for a long time, this dark episode of Canadian history, and more importantly, of Quebec's history. Since I will have the opportunity to do so in different circumstances, let us focus on the bill that is now before the House.

Bill C-39 will essentially modernize the political and democratic institutions of the Yukon territory. Also, this bill will implement certain provisions of the Yukon northern affairs program devolution transfer agreement, which came under the authority of northern affairs until now. Numerous other acts will also be amended consequently.

The will replace the current Yukon Act, principally by reflecting responsible government in Yukon. As such, the bill renames a number of public institutions to reflect current practice, and to provide the legislature of Yukon with new powers over public real property for instance.

The bill renames the “Council”, which designates the legislative branch of the Yukon, as the “Legislative Assembly of Yukon”, the “Commissioner in Council” as the “Legislature of Yukon” and “ordinances” as “laws of the Legislature”. While the Yukon government will be able to appoint its own independent auditor at a future date to be fixed by the governor in council, the Auditor General of Canada will remain the auditor of the Yukon government, as set forth in the Yukon Act.

The bill also contains a preamble which states that Yukon is a territory that has a system of responsible government that is similar in principle to that of Canada. Establishing this fact specifies the relationship between the commissioner and the executive council of Yukon.

As Yukon does not enjoy the same constitutional status as the provinces, a musty holdover in Canada, the commissioner of the Yukon, appointed by the federal government, will retain his executive duties as representative, consistent with the current conventions of government.

In addition, Bill C-39 will amend no fewer than 90 statutes of Canada, affect seven bills currently before either the Commons or the Senate and repeal six statutes pertaining to the government of Yukon.

The statutory provisions giving the legislature new powers will ensure the implementation of certain articles of the Yukon northern affairs program devolution transfer agreement. Among other things, it will transfer the administration and control of public real property.

The minister's desire to modernize the institutions of Yukon is a good thing. And so we consider it a step in the right direction in order to decentralize the powers of the federal government in the day to day administration of communities so far removed from Ottawa and whose political aspirations are at the mercy of the declining political leadership at the head of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In closing, as the government of Yukon, whose premier I had the pleasure of meeting recently, wants this bill passed and since it has no effect on the constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois will not oppose its quick passage.

[Délégation Générale du Québec in Paris, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to draw to your attention the 40th anniversary of the Délégation générale du Québec in Paris.

Quebec's representation in the city of light bears witness to the special relationship between Quebecers and their French cousins. In matters of culture, business, education or tourism, the Délégation générale du Québec in Paris promotes and spreads Quebec culture in France.

Such is its importance that the members of the delegation were the first representatives of a non sovereign state to enjoy the privileges and diplomatic immunity normally reserved for sovereign countries. This points to the importance of our mutually beneficial relationship.

Be it through the Office franco-québécois pour la jeunesse, the Association Québec-France, the thousands of French students who have studied in Quebec and the thousands of Quebecers, myself included, who have completed their education in France or the annual summits of our first ministers, to give but a few examples, our two peoples are showing the entire world the special place we hold in each other's heart.

[Constitution of Canada, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it my duty and pleasure to join in the debate concerning a constitutional amendment on the legal designation of the province of Newfoundland, which would become the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Normally, as history regularly reminds us, amendments to the Canadian constitution become historic highlights, important national milestones or even historic benchmarks, but the debate in the House today is less important because of the rather minor nature of this amendment.

The amendment introduced by the federal government and sponsored by the Minister of Industry reflects a diluted version of the previous position of the government of Newfoundland, and that is good. If it had been any different, the Bloc Quebecois would not have been able to support the motion, but more on that later. It should be noted that the very essence of this constitutional amendment has long been a touchy issue in the relations between the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland.

The dispute that still keeps these two governments on opposite sides concerning the recognition of the territory belonging to Labrador did not start just the other day. In fact, Canada and Newfoundland filed an appeal in 1927 with the judiciary committee of the Privy Council in London for a ruling on the delineation of the border between the two on the Labrador Peninsula. It should be pointed out that at the time Newfoundland was only a colony of the British crown, as was Canada moreover, and the Privy Council in London was the highest level of the judiciary for all colonies.

The tribunal was therefore asked to interpret the meaning of the expression “coast of Labrador”, a territory assigned to the colony of Newfoundland by certain of the colonial laws. The Government of Canada of the day, defending the territorial interests of Quebec, claimed that this meant only a narrow strip of land along the water's edge. Newfoundland, on the other hand, argued that the Newfoundland portion of Labrador extended to the entire watershed draining into the Atlantic, an area very likely far larger than any agreement could have been reached on.

The judges found in favour of Newfoundland. In addition to the entire watershed draining into the Atlantic Ocean, Newfoundland was awarded a portion of the territory to the north of the 52nd parallel, including the watershed area of the rivers draining into the St. Lawrence, thus going beyond the watershed line.

A number of commentators contested the reasons for the decision. First, it seemed that the broad definition given the expression “coast of Labrador” gave Newfoundland too much of territory Quebec considered its own. It was later alleged that the delineation of the southern border along the 52nd parallel gave Newfoundland more than it had asked for. It was noted too that the government of Quebec was not present at the hearings of the tribunal.

It is again important to point out that serious doubts were expressed about the federal government's real interest in defending the integrity of Quebec territory, since Newfoundland was already considered to be a future province in the Canadian federation. Finally, doubt was often cast on the impartiality of the judges on the judiciary committee, because the judges belonged to a government whose members had economic interests in Labrador.

We understand better today, with this historical background, the scope of the sometimes troubled relationship between Quebec and Newfoundland. However, the problem remains undiminished, and, had it not been for some softening in the traditional stand taken by Newfoundland, it would be a good bet that even the federal government would not have wanted to get involved in any debate on the matter.

At the time, the governments of Newfoundland and Canada accepted the 1927 opinion of the judicial committee of the Privy Council setting the border between these two states, or at least between these two territorial entities of the empire. In 1949, when Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation, the border defined by the 1927 decision was confirmed under the heading “Terms of Union”, enacted under the Newfoundland Act. In the schedule, the second term reads as follows:

The Province of Newfoundland shall comprise the same territory as at the date of Union, that is to say, the island of Newfoundland and the islands adjacent thereto, the Coast of Labrador as delimited in the report delivered by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on the first day of March, 1927...and the islands adjacent to the said Coast of Labrador.

Never, and I insist on that word, did a Quebec government officially recognize the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland government over Labrador, as delineated by the 1927 decision. For over 70 years now, Liberal, PQ and Union nationale MNAs have always shared the same view on this issue.

In spite of this imbroglio, over the years there have been many bilateral development and co-operation agreements between Quebec and Newfoundland. Moreover, relations between the two governments greatly improved under the leadership of Premier Bouchard and of the current Minister of Industry when he was premier of Newfoundland.

However, given the relative fragility of these relations and the scope of future projects to be negotiated, Premier Bouchard warned his Newfoundland counterpart against the negative interpretation that could have been generated in Quebec by presenting a motion to officialize the name of Newfoundland and Labrador, thus legalizing and officializing the 1927 judicial decision.

In this regard, Montreal's Gazette reported in February 1997 Premier Bouchard's comments that presenting a resolution as proposed by the Newfoundland government would revive a deep emotional debate in Quebec and could be perceived as a form of provocation.

At the time, intense negotiations were taking place to conclude an agreement of $10 billion or so to jointly develop Churchill Falls' hydro electric potential.

Moreover, some semantic changes occurred in Newfoundland's position, reaching a peak on December 6, 1999, when the premier of that province, now the Minister of Industry said, and I quote:

The resolution passed by the House of Assembly and now being considered by the federal government would simply legalize what has been the boundary of this province as confirmed by the British Privy Council decision of 1927.

It went on to say that the region of the province should be acknowledged in the official name.

I insist on the word legalize, used by the then premier of Newfoundland. This gives us a better understanding of the reaction of Premier Bouchard, who considered this as an insult to the constant position of Quebec on the border issue.

Again, I remind the House that no government in Quebec, whatever its political stripe, has ever recognized the legal status of the border drawn pursuant under the judiciary decision of 1927.

Obviously, Newfoundland's position as presented and defended by the Minister of Industry, is not the same today, if we compare it to the position he had when he was a member of parliament in St. John's.

Things have evolved considerably, since the Minister of Industry has softened his position by making clear in a letter to Premier Bernard Landry, and I quote:

That the amendment proposal aiming at changing the name of Newfoundland will have no impact on the present border between Quebec and Newfoundland.

Replacing the name of Newfoundland by Newfoundland and Labrador in the Terms of Union is a symbolic measure which acknowledges in a significant way that Labrador is an essential and full partner of the province, with its own geography, history and culture.

The Minister of Industry reaffirmed this commitment today when he brought forward his motion, just half an hour ago.

In a letter to Premier Landry dated October 23rd, Mr. Grimes, the successor of the Minister of Industry and current premier of Newfoundland, took a similar position.

He wrote, and I quote:

I wish to reiterate that this is only a change of name, which in no way changes our position regarding our common border or our position on the issue.

Essentially, it is to be understood from those words that the government of Newfoundland explicitly acknowledges that nothing in the terms of the motion of the government will have any impact on the delimitation of the border between Quebec and Newfoundland.

Incidentally, this guarantee was required as a sine qua non condition for the approval by Quebec of the constitutional initiative of Newfoundland, as stated in the letter of October 18 signed by Mr. Facal and Mr. Brassard, both ministers in the government of Quebec.

The fact that some wish to amend the constitution to facilitate the recognition of Quebec as a nation appears to me to be correct, desirable, but also very unlikely, if not impossible. Unfortunately Quebecers have too often been disappointed by the endless constitutional rounds to rejoice about it, as the populations of Newfoundland and Labrador can today.

This is particularly true, given the disconcerting ease with which this historic amendment to the constitution that we are debating today will be enacted. It would appear, once again, as though the federal government is biased toward Newfoundland and the other provinces of Canada, to the exclusion, of course, of Quebec.

A few days before the 1998 Quebec elections, the Prime Minister of Canada stated, in response to comments made by Jean Charest, that the Canadian constitution was not a general store, and the Government of Canada had no intention of reopening the issue; that there should be no expectations of the federal government changing the constitution; and that everything was coming up roses.

Last spring, the Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs even took pains to explain why Quebec's nationhood would not be recognized in the constitution, ridiculing Quebecers' constitutional demands by stating in an open letter to La Presse , on May 1, and I quote:

We simply refuse to make the mistake of believing that we have to put everything that is important in the constitution.

The minister continued with a highly questionable example, which now contradicts the government, by writing, and I quote again:

A great many things that are important are not found in the constitution. The most important of values, love, is not recognized...The fact that our constitution makes no mention of it does not mean that love does not exist...but I believe this to be fundamental: a constitution is not meant to contain everything that is important, but rather everything for which there are legal consequences.

Yet, according to the federal government and the government of Newfoundland, the constitutional amendment designating the “Province of Newfoundland” as the “Province of Newfoundland and Labrador” will have no impact on the borders of Labrador. Why, then, should such a request even be considered? The question remains to be answered, but the debate is pointless, according to the federal government's interpretation.

I already anticipate the triumphalist and trite remarks of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who will brag, even before the ink from the Governor General's pen has dried, that the Canadian federation is flexible and that everyone stands to gain. At the point where we are now, I hope at least that the Labrador people will be able to find love for their province. In any case, this is practically the only thing that they will be able to hope to get from the Minister of Industry.

The Quebec government has noted the change in direction or goal of the Newfoundland government on this sensitive issue and agrees with it, in light of the details of the text of the motion. However, it is important to specify that Quebec's current position remains unchanged: it does not recognize the definitive nature of the 1927 border between Quebec and Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula. Indeed, Quebec's official maps reflect this position very accurately, while indicating the watershed divide north of the 52th parallel.

The Bloc Quebecois will not oppose the motion and wishes that the openness of the federal government may be able to affect the whole of its rather deficient interpretation, must we remind the House, of its own constitution.

Let us remember, of course, that this is a minor change to the constitution. In fact, it is a cosmetic change to Canada's primary statute, which would have no impact, except perhaps for a stronger feeling of belonging for the 30,000 inhabitants of Labrador in the province of Newfoundland.

Finally, before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the House's attention to something which was pointed out to me and which is of paramount importance. According to the Dictionnaire illustré des noms et lieux du Québec of the Commission de toponymie du Québec, the geographic name “Labrador” can designate the “entire peninsula between Hudson Bay and the axis of the St. Lawrence River”. In other words, regardless of where the interprovincial boundary lies, there is a Quebec Labrador bounded on the west by Hudson Bay and on the east by the Quebec-Newfoundland border, wherever that border lies.

The 1927 arbitration seems to reflect this geographic reality, because its purpose was to decide on the border separating the province of Quebec and the colony of Newfoundland “in the Labrador peninsula”, according to the wording of the compromise submitted to the judges. In addition, the Privy Council was asked to rule on the legal and geographic meaning of “coast of Labrador” in certain crown documents giving the government of Newfoundland rights over this “coast”.

Newfoundland's use of the geographic name “Labrador” could be viewed as incorrect from a constitutional point of view. In fact, article 2 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada uses the expression coast of Labrador to designate the continental portion of the territory of the new province. Newfoundland therefore cannot claim to take in all of Labrador in the geographic sense.

Finally, and very briefly, for all the reasons given earlier by the Bloc Quebecois, we will not be opposing this motion.

[Quebec-Cree Agreement, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is delighted to highlight today the historic agreement reached between the government of Quebec and the Cree. This agreement establishes a new relationship, nation to nation.

The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses, said “With this agreement, a new relationship will be established between Quebec and the Cree. This relationship will be built on trust and mutual respect. Some may think that this relationship is impossible. We will prove them wrong”.

Through this agreement, based on dialogue, all legal proceedings instituted by the Cree against the government of Quebec are dropped. Those involving the federal government, however, remain in effect.

This strengthening of the Cree's economic control over their future, this enhanced dialogue, obvious mutual respect and more modern partnership between the Cree nation and the Quebec nation point the way to the future.

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak in this debate. Bill C-37, the claim settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) implementation act, which the House is currently considering, is, as its name indicates, intended to facilitate the implementation of territorial agreements reached between the federal government and the first nations.

The bill is very technical and does not bear the usual characteristics of the initiatives of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which tend to be rather controversial or at least to cause some flurry. In fact, the minister appears to want to assume his responsibilities fully and demonstrate the leadership needed to ensure the full development of the first nations.

I have a hard time understanding why the Bloc Quebecois would oppose quick passage of this bill, since the minister is finally proposing constructive action in support of the first nations. The position the Bloc Quebecois has taken on the bill is very much in keeping with the party's line on the first nations' right to self-government.

I, in fact, recognize the minister's, or rather the department's, openness. It seems now to be giving greater consideration to the real needs and deep aspirations of the first nations.

As such, Bill C-37 facilitates the implementation of land claim settlements, which we know are the result of long and difficult negotiations designed to bring about greater self-government and increased accountability for first nations.

It is important to point out that the legislative measure being discussed today is limited exclusively to the results of the negotiations in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Incidentally, similar legislation was adopted one year ago concerning Manitoba.

Bill C-37 will considerably reduce the time required to grant the lands negotiated real reserve status. Aboriginal people in these areas would be able to use the legislation to accelerate the land transfer process. This is a key element of the notion of self-government, as it would allow first nations to benefit sooner from the natural resources on their lands. Their economic space would be strengthened and everything seems to indicate that the legislation would have a positive effect on these communities.

In closing, while supporting this bill and hoping to see it adopted speedily and efficiently, I would like to express my desire to see the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault report, made public in 1996 at a cost of $50 million, adopted as quickly as possible to deal with the problems plaguing the first nations in a comprehensive manner, as opposed to limiting ourselves to a piecemeal approach.

The government must not limit itself to bills such as this one, which deals with a specific part of the problem, but it must develop a comprehensive policy and a clear direction to ensure that the recommendations made by the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission be implemented as quickly as possible.

[Member for Louis-Hébert, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the words of one of my colleagues, expressing her delight over municipal amalgamations in the Quebec City area. She said “This will get people going. It will force them to play a new role”. The words of a die-hard péquiste? Think again.

These comments were made by the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert. And people are right to be astonished; after all, was this not the same person who rode around with anti-amalgamation posters on her campaign trailer in November 2000?

Quebec City voters are entitled to wonder why today's member no longer stands behind what she said as a candidate. Is she, like many Liberals, trying to have it both ways? Someone should ask her.

Faced with such inconsistency, it is hardly surprising that our fellow citizens are cynical about politics.