Mr. Speaker, with the exception of my colleague from Burin—St. George's, who will be voting no, members of the Progressive-Conservative Party present will vote yea on this motion.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 29% of the vote.
Division No. 328 March 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, with the exception of my colleague from Burin—St. George's, who will be voting no, members of the Progressive-Conservative Party present will vote yea on this motion.
Supply February 11th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleagues from Shefford and Madawaska—Restigouche.
For the past two years, my colleague has shown concern about the situation of the poor and the disadvantaged, and I think that this is a very important matter. I was smiling, because my colleague from the Liberal Party was talking about the situation in 1984, when the Liberals had just increased the debt eleven fold, from $18 billion to $200 billion. We doubled it in nine years, for reasons he is familiar with, namely debt service.
I would ask my colleague, given that the fight against poverty concerns taxation, if there might not be one time measures to be taken. One of the greatest growth sectors of the economy are the soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless. Right now, there is no program to help these two types of agencies, which need funding urgently.
I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks the upcoming budget could contain a specific program to support these two types of agencies, which are helping the most disadvantaged.
Supply February 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic, who always has highly pertinent questions, and whom I have the pleasure of seeing in the House on a daily basis.
Concerning this question, yes indeed, I see that as inevitable, since this matter, in the framework of negotiations, while honouring the respective jurisdictions of the various levels of government, calls upon common sense as well as upon a concept very dear to the heart of my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois, the concept of partnership for attaining objectives of importance to our people.
This is the spirit in which all governments must pool their efforts in order to find a global solution. This affects not only the riding of Chicoutimi, but the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic as well, not only just Quebec or Ontario, but all Canadians, and all the people who live on this planet.
We must, therefore, speak to each other. There is nothing on this earth that brings out interdependency more than anything to do with the environment. I believe that a healthy dose of common sense is needed if we are to come up with any worthwhile results.
Supply February 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement was signed; the North American free trade agreement was signed. There is a tribunal to provide dispute arbitration. As far as I know, the trade agreement exists. In the past ten years, as far as I know, James Bay and the Great Lakes have not been moved to Las Vegas.
We must look to the future. We had legal guarantees in the agreement. Now, in the spirit of the motion, it is vital Canada do everything possible to create an effective plan to manage freshwater. It is a finite resource.
We must not forget it represents 3% of all the planet's reserves. That means that we have about one quarter of one per cent of these reserves. It warrants effective management, but it must be management in consultation with local governments, both municipal and provincial, and the federal government, which has the vital job of co-ordinator.
Nothing moves like water. It transcends jurisdictions and we call on the goodwill of all involved.
Supply February 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that our party will be supporting this motion, not because we find it a rigorous or well defined motion but rather because we find it a motion that sounds a sort of alarm with regard to freshwater.
The main point of the motion is simply to act to ensure that throughout Canada there is an effective freshwater management plan.
What is a little hard to accept is the fact that the NDP motion gives us the impression that life starts today only. I would point out to my NDP colleagues that considerable effort has been made in recent decades—not 100 years ago, but in recent decades—because that is a fact. Parliamentarians, like their fellow citizens, evolve at a normal rate. Problems arise, we become aware of them and we develop ways to resolve them.
The current government and the previous governments acted to protect flora and fauna, for example with the acid rain treaty. We realized that massive destruction was going on. The agreement was signed by the previous government, and I think it was effective. Sometimes we forget too easily.
In the area of the St. Lawrence action plan, I can tell members that tens of millions of dollars have been invested to protect our waterways, particularly the Saguenay fjord, where whole pockets of shrimp have been flooded with industrial waste. Some changes take place slowly, but at an acceptable rate.
I do not think we should address this motion as one that is dogmatic and that will make everything better. No, indeed. The issue requires realistic treatment. Things were done in the past.
Our NDP colleagues put everything in terms of the free trade agreement. People have spoken today confirming that the agreement protects this aspect, protects our country against massive exports of freshwater.
I will quote later from the speech that was made at the time on the protection afforded freshwater by the FTA and NAFTA.
This proposal is also somewhat petty and lacking in solidarity. Freshwater is Canadian property and international property as well. My colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic referred earlier to the whole commercial aspect of renewable resources. I think we must devise a work plan for efficient management, “in co-operation with the provinces”, as the motion states, I might add.
It is important that commercialization not be excluded from the word go. We can never tell what the future holds. At present, there are situations which we feel could potentially take on dramatic proportions around the world. In the early stages of developing a management plan, one cannot say “We are closing the door completely on providing any support to countries where there is a clear lack of other resources”.
Will the technology ever be developed to take salt out of seawater? Maybe, maybe not.
We must put in place an efficient management plan. That is what makes me say that there can be no jurisdiction. This is an objective we must set for ourselves as a nation, in fact as a continent. Nothing more clearly transcends municipal, provincial, national and continental jurisdictions than the introduction of a plan that will help us improve management of our resources on a large scale.
Large-scale plans are fine but, as a general rule, this calls for effective municipal action. I remember the water purification program of the 1980s. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, many municipalities in Quebec were denied the benefits of the national water purification program, but there is no doubt about the importance of having such a plan in our municipalities, however costly or technically challenging. Furthermore, it has not yet been completed.
We must approve this motion for its very laudable goal of having all levels of government work together to implement something sensible and intelligent, without closing the door to continental or international exchanges of assistance, because one never knows what the future holds in store.
It is also important that the government be able to react positively to this issue, because major changes are under way. Right now, we are not in a position to forecast future climatic changes. These changes are apparently happening faster than anticipated. This is therefore one more reason to urge the government to take rapid action in a sector that we feel is vital to our future.
It is my hope that, as was the case for the St. Lawrence action plan and the creation of a marine national park in my region, among other initiatives, the development of a national, provincial and even continental plan can take place without any bickering, since this would only make us waste time. I have often seen a lot of time being wasted during federal-provincial negotiations. In the end, the losers are our fellow citizens.
I was pleased to see government members confirm that both the FTA and NAFTA guarantee total protection against bulk exports of freshwater. Indeed, I was pleased to see this confirmation from government members, since they voted against free trade at the time.
The 1988 election campaign was run on that issue. The Liberals claimed that the Americans would come and take all the water from our lakes. It was going to be terrible. Yet, at the time, we had confirmation that freshwater exports in very small containers were the only thing that had been agreed to during the negotiations.
This shows that demagoguery often rules in politics. We must live with that reality. Over the middle and the long term, history eventually vindicated those who negotiated that agreement in good faith.
I have a quote that shows the position taken at that time. It is from Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister of Foreign Trade, who said “Permit me to repeat what the free trade agreement expressly provides, and which will also go for the North American free trade agreement as well. It is clearly understood that neither this nor the agreement applies to water, meaning surface and underground water”.
He continued “What I said in my initial response describes the position and the policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the export of water. Water may be exported in bottles. Bulk export of water, especially the diversion of waterways, is not”. It was clear at the time.
In short, we will support this motion, which is a motion of principle sounding an alarm on the importance of having a management plan, in co-operation with all other levels of government, and I thank my colleagues for putting it to the House.
Supply February 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate our colleague, whom I had the pleasure of working with on the national marine park bill. His contribution was a constructive one.
I would like some clarification from him with respect to municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions. As I see it, there is no issue more important to the province, the nation, or the continent than the issue of freshwater.
Would he comment on the issue of respecting jurisdictions? This is an issue that should lead to a very close partnership.
Manpower Training February 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, there are jobs in the Montreal area that are subsidized to the tune of $25,000 each.
I want to know whether this approach is part of the framework agreement and whether the funds can be applied to the same sectors or to different sectors to create jobs.
Manpower Training February 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I would like to ask him why he agreed to sign the manpower training agreement when it is obvious that all the regions in Quebec are concerned about the total lack of programming.
Given that he was aware in his book that most of the people in the regions of Quebec preferred dealing with the federal government, why did he sign an agreement that seems to put us at a disadvantage?
Supply February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, which I had the opportunity to do on several occasions today. Since the hon. member gave such a well thought out speech, I would like to convey my concerns to her.
Unless one is extremely doctrinaire, it is always possible to agree on a question of principle. The member just said that the Bloc Quebecois will defend the interests of Quebec. I am beginning to make a distinction between defending the interests of the Government of Quebec and defending the interests of citizens, in particular those I represent and the interests of outlying areas of Quebec, which an overwhelming majority of Bloc Quebecois members, people of quality, do defend.
My concern is that when there are requests for transfers for health, for instance, my past experiences in other areas make me wonder a little. For instance, in areas like employment where there have been massive transfers, the effects are still not felt in various regions in Quebec. There is almost no programming left relating to employment activities.
The problem we deal with in our region is also present elsewhere. If health funds are transferred to the Government of Quebec, I would like assurance from the hon. member that those funds will be distributed equitably among the various regions of Quebec. Based on the statistics, the region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, among others, has a very serious deficit compared to other regions in Quebec, namely central regions like the Montreal area. The accumulated deficit is about $75 million. That explains why we face such serious problems.
In my region, we are no longer able to provide good quality health care to our citizens. There is cause for major concern when the population of a region can no longer obtain health care. Health care is a priority. We have to defend our fellow citizens on practical issues.
I agree with transfers to Quebec, but what concerns me is the way the Government of Quebec will transfer the money to regions. This is the concern I wanted to raise during this debate. I am grateful to my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for having introduced this motion in the House and I hope that this will contribute to improving the way Quebec transfers funds to regions.
Supply February 4th, 1999
We are indeed on the right track.
Our colleague just spoke of the obsession with visibility. Reference was also made to absolute truth. Here we have the President of the Treasury Board. With respect to visibility, I do not think that the PQ can point the finger at anyone in Quebec in that respect.
Think back to the floods, and the ice storm. This obsession with visibility was such that one wondered if the federal government had any involvement, yet it was footing 90% of the bill. Objectivity is required in a debate.
I have a concern. Support is expressed for the Bloc Quebecois motion, but there is all this squabbling on principle. For the most part, members of the Bloc represent outlying areas of Quebec. I do too. While squabbling on principle may have its merits, reality is catching up to us.
This morning is a case in point. An editorialist from my region, Rénald Boily, wrote “It is demonstrated on a daily basis in our region that the Bouchard government's move toward ambulatory care is becoming a move toward confusion.”
Richard Brantford, another editorialist, said “Ours is a region with a moribund economy.” That is the result of 25 years of PQ government in my region. That is what we have to show for it.
I have no objection to squabbling on principle, here in Ottawa, with the Bloc Quebecois. Let us transfer the funding for employment, regional development and health. But is my colleague not concerned about his region?
The problem is that, when funds are transferred to Quebec, they do not get to the regions. There are statistics to back this up.