Richard Marceau

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, September 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am one those who believe that “what is conceived well is expressed clearly” to which I would add “and briefly”. I shall, therefore, be brief on Bill C-33.

Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and nunavut surface rights tribunal Act, represents no more and no less than the implementation of certain elements of the land claims agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Government of Canada.

The bill currently before the House is therefore complementary to that historical agreement. The agreement, the treaty per se, was ratified and implemented on July 9, 1993 through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.

Since its creation, the Bloc Quebecois has strongly supported aboriginal land claims. It sees itself as the ally of the first nations of Quebec and of Canada. The favourable position of the Bloc on Bill C-33, which we are discussing today, is part of that positive attitude, one I would describe as reaching out to the first nations--since the Bloc Quebecois favours maximum self management and accountability for the various aboriginal communities.

I think it unwarranted for us to oppose the quick passage of this bill, because it is consistent with the expectations and objectives of the nations and communities involved, which is, everyone will agree, what matters most.

In 1996, a similar version of the bill was introduced, the House will recall. It was strongly opposed by the Inuit of Nunavut-Tungavik, because it respected neither the letter nor the spirit of the treaty signed in 1993. The present version of the bill seems, however, to have been corrected and better reflects the aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

It is important to point out at this time that I have certain reservations, which could, however, be addressed more exhaustively at committee stage so as to clarify certain elements of the bill which do not, at least upon initial examination, appear to be fully consistent with the real aspirations of the Inuit.

Similarly, I am convinced that, with other committee members, we will find common ground regarding the power of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appoint members to the Nunavut Water Board.

Knowing the Liberal government's almost pathological propensity for appointing to key positions individuals closely linked to power, we will need to be on the lookout in order to protect the interests of Nunavut's inhabitants.

I repeat, it will be possible for us to consider the bill in depth and to hear the observations of the groups concerned at committee hearings which, I hope, will begin soon, be constructive and, I also hope, will take place in an atmosphere of co-operation among the various parties represented in the House of Commons, and with the communities that appear before us.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to work with the government and move quickly to meet the entirely legitimate governance aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavut.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is the very question put to me by Nancy Wood, a CBC radio host in Montreal, just before I entered the House to take part in the debate.

I am not sure whether it is a good or a bad thing but I still have an ounce of idealism left in me and I dare to hope that the proper position, which the Liberals held in opposition in 1990, is the one held by the Liberal government in 2001.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the motion is to ask that the House not limit itself to take note debates, but to hold votes.

I would like to appeal one more time to our Liberal colleagues. I can see that the member for Scarborough is listening to me attentively. I had the opportunity to travel with him in Israel, where democracy is under attack. While we were there, there were terrorist attacks. We were able to observe the vitality of Israeli democracy.

I appeal to his sense of democracy. I have had the opportunity to discuss different subjects with him for many hours, including how democracies should react to such attacks. I appeal to him and to his colleagues to pressure the government to allow them to vote too. I know that they would like to vote on this. I know that Liberal members would like the opportunity to give their perspective. I know that they are as concerned and as worried as other members of the House. Before sending the finest young people of Quebec and Canada off to battlefields located thousands of kilometres away, I know that they will want to have their say.

So I hope that they are pressuring the government. I hope that they are pressuring their colleagues to have a chance to have their say. After all, they are members too. They are just as concerned as we are on this side.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 14 days ago today some barbarians, some crackpots undertook and carried out the biggest terrorist attack in history. The shock is past, but the pain is still present. The shock is past, but the anger is still present. The shock is past, but emotions are still present.

When a close friend, a neighbour, a fellow member of the great family of western civilization is affected in this way, we cannot remain indifferent. No one here in this House is indifferent. All of us who have been democratically elected to represent the people of Quebec and Canada have a duty to speak our minds on the matter placed on the order paper by the Bloc Quebecois today.

As has been said many times, it is not just the U.S. that has been affected, but all of the so-called liberal democracies, liberal in the philosophical meaning of the word of course, have been attacked. The first response to this murderous attack, as democracies, is to show the strength of the democratic system, the power of the democratic system and the attraction of living within democratic societies because of their intrinsic values.

In the past certain people have thought they could take advantage of what they perceived to be the weakness of democracies. They saw them as weak and ready to crumble. They have paid dearly for this.

Now, we must not only make use of this crisis to continue our democratic practices but, I respectfully submit, we must also make use of the situation, of these troubled times, to improve our democratic institutions, to make them better, to ensure that the public, the nations of Quebec and Canada and their citizens may feel that they are involved in every decision that has to be taken.

One way of doing so is the one proposed today by the Bloc Quebecois, which is to ensure that parliament is even more closely associated with important decisions, with the fundamental and crucial decisions that will have to be reached here.

In the event of military action by the Canadian forces, the lives of young men and women from Quebec and Canada will be affected. Each of us in this House will have to carefully ponder the consequences of such a decision. There is no decision more important for an elected assembly in any country than the decision to send or not to send its young people to face the rigours and the dangers of a military conflict. That is the main reason it is necessary, essential and fundamental to involve the elected members of this House in such a decision.

What will and must be decided concerns not only the future of Quebec and Canada but also the future of the whole planet. Therefore, every member of this House ought to be involved in it. That is not only for the philosophical reasons I stated earlier but also for reasons of realpolitik .

The Prime Minister would have tremendous clout if, when he goes to meet with the leaders of the Commonwealth and those of the Francophonie, he had the support not only of cabinet and the Liberal Party, the government party in Canada, but also of this House.

Such support would give him much greater clout in the positions he would be called on to defend internationally. It would ensure that Canada is listened to even more than it is now, and God knows that it is not always listened to as much as some would claim.

By doing so, Canada would not be a leader, unfortunately, but it would only be following the normal and necessary course in a democratic society and institution. There are several examples.

There is the case of Argentina. There is also the case of France, where the prime minister, Lionel Jospin, stated that should it become necessary to make commitments on France's behalf, the executive could not make them without consulting the national assembly and the Senate.

In England, Tony Blair recalled parliament a few hours after the deadly attacks. After meeting with U.S. president George W. Bush, he travelled to Brussels to report to his colleagues, heads of state and heads of government, within the European Union. Upon returning to London, he asked to meet not only with members of the labour party, the governing party, but also with the leaders of the opposition parties.

This motion is based on the kind of common sense shown by the Liberals on this issue when they were in opposition. My colleague, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel said it well. At that time, the current Deputy Prime Minister, then leader of the Liberal opposition in the House of Commons, insisted that the House vote before troops were sent to take part in the gulf war.

I urge all my colleagues in the House, particularly my Liberal colleagues with whom I have had the opportunity to exchange views and who are very concerned with the present situation, and rightly so, to support this motion.

This motion rises above any partisan considerations and is aimed at ensuring the broadest consensus possible with regard to Canada's response, that is the response of Quebecers and Canadians, to the murderous attacks in Washington and New York. We must show the whole world that a democracy such as the one we have in Quebec and in Canada is the strongest system of government and that it will resist the deadly attacks perpetrated against all democracies on September 11.

[Access To Information, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, documents the Bloc Quebecois tries to obtain under the Access to Information Act are censored so heavily by the government that the ones we have received more often resemble some sort of game of guess the word than complete texts.

How can the government disregard its own Access to Information Act and hand over to the Liberal Party of Quebec documents it refuses to make available to parliamentarians in this parliament?

[Access To Information, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for two years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for legal analyses of the supreme court ruling, but the government is defying its own Access to Information Act and depriving our members of documents of interest.

Is this not a very conclusive illustration of the unacceptable behaviour of the federal government, which has been criticized by the information commissioner?

[Dr. Stanley Vollant, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and all members of the House, I wish to congratulate Dr. Stanley Vollant on his recent appointment as president of the Quebec Medical Association. Dr. Vollant is the first aboriginal to hold this prestigious position.

The Quebec Medical Association represents some 6,000 of the 17,000 doctors in Quebec and offers its members various training seminars, as well as useful advice on a wide range of topics.

Originally from Betsiamites, on Quebec's North Shore, Dr. Vollant was headed for a brilliant career in law when he finally decided on medicine. Whatever Dr. Vollant's career choices, it was clear that what he wanted to do was to look after the well-being of his community.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates Dr. Vollant and wishes him much success in his new position.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the document given us had been censured in several places, and it took us six months to get it. There must be someone in the government who censured it. It is certainly not the academic who censured his own work.

Given the federal government's strategy, should we expect, in the next four years when the surpluses will vary between $70 billion and $90 billion, to have a multitude of federal programs put in place that have no relation to Quebec's priorities and that serve only to heighten federal government visibility?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of parental leave, the federal government is refusing to co-operate with the Government of Quebec to implement a program really suited to the needs of young families.

Is the federal government's inexplicable obstinacy not the most convincing proof of its belligerent, warring, strategy, which the Bloc Quebecois revealed yesterday and which makes federal visibility a priority over the needs of the public?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there has been $500 million worth of propaganda since 1995. Page 12 of the document identifies the three problems the federal government has in Quebec: transfer payments, provincial autonomy and Canada-Quebec agreements.

Does this description of the federal government's problems in Quebec not explain the rigid federal attitude when it comes to having to negotiate with Quebec?

Does it not explain certain behaviours seen on the other side of this House when the time comes to discuss Quebec and its needs?