Odina Desrochers

[John Humphrey Freedom Award, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Godeliève Mukasarasi, the recipient of the prestigious John Humphrey Freedom Award.

This African woman, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, has been working to promote the rights of women in her country for many years.

She has shown exceptional commitment in working with women who were victims of rape and sexual violence during the 1994 genocide.

She played a key role in breaking the silence and documenting crimes of sexual violence for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Thanks to her contribution, for the first time, on October 2, 1998, an international court convicted an individual of a crime of sexual violence perpetrated during a civil war and rape was recognized as an act of genocide and torture.

The Bloc Québécois salutes the exceptional courage of Godeliève Mukasarasi in her struggle to obtain justice and reparations for the women of her country.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

In other words, it means that from now on Canadian parks will come under the Department of the Environment. Our parks have been neglected and abandoned for too long. Human and financial resources are insufficient. The Government of Canada has now decided to bring national parks back into the Department of the Environment.

I will say right away that we support the bill in principle, but that we have some concerns. Usually when a piece of legislation like this one brings about such an important change, one would expect improvements. One would expect the Canadian government to take advantage of this opportunity and give more resources, directly and indirectly, to national parks. However, it did not.

I have visited many national parks across Canada and have noticed that they were always short of resources, be it at the reception desk or the information booth. Often when one is looking for more information than what is available in the parks, one is given literature which is three or four years old and has not been updated for a while. This is the way visitors to our national parks are welcomed. I would have hoped that these flaws would have been corrected, but they have not.

As I said two weeks ago, it looks like only names are being changed under the present government. Two weeks ago I made a speech saying that the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec would now come under a different department and I did not see that as an improvement. Again today we see that moving Parks Canada to the Department of the Environment adds nothing more.

We must still keep one thing in mind. I hope that the minister who will eventually deal with the management of the national parks will not be tempted, as was the former heritage minister, Ms. Sheila Copps, to make petty politics. We were at the point, with the former prime minister, Mr. Jean Chrétien, where parks were named not for people who had made history, but instead for people who had dealings with the Liberal Party of Canada. Liberals even wanted to change the name of an important mountain, which raised considerable uproar in English Canada. This shows once again how much the federal Liberal government respects traditions in the history of our national parks.

I am still concerned that the minister responsible for the Department of the Environment is also tempted to use the national parks in Canada as an instrument of propaganda. I hope that the Minister of the Environment will want to show that he is responsible, and not do what he did earlier in oral question period, when he raised both arms in the air to try to get some applause. I can tell you that he could have gestured all he wanted in the House of Commons, there would not be many members of the Bloc Québécois who would applaud him.

I hope that the Minister of the Environment will take the time to see what is involved in the national parks, namely wildlife, trees, in fact, all ecological issues.

A major survey published recently in La Presse showed clearly that the environment had become the public's main choice. When we see today that the responsibility for national parks in Canada is being transferred to the Department of the Environment, we want a change in the way management is perceived and, mostly, respect for wildlife, birds and everything that we find in the parks.

Nowadays, the future is of great concern to the young people of Quebec and Canada, who are also concerned about the environment. Often, we hear people go on at great length about globalization in terms of millions and billions of dollars. But when we listen to our young people, we learn that they are concerned about having safe drinking water for years to come, about being able to breathe fresh air and particularly to eat good fruit and vegetables grown in the ground. These are important issues, and our young people are showing great interest in them. Just think of the number of young people registering at events relating to the environment. They are there to support these events promoting a stable and sustainable environment.

I hope that, when the current Minister of the Environment has been handed over the responsibility for the management and maintenance of Canada's national parks, he will pay attention and be very sensitive to these important issues for the 21st century. The idea is to stop playing petty politics and, instead, develop a policy for the environment and sustainable development.

Five years ago, there was not much talk about sustainable development, but now everyone talks about it, and not necessarily only on Sunday night. Everyone talks about it anytime, anywhere, on a regular basis, when we meet with young people.

This is why I caution the Minister of the Environment that he must be sensitive to the expectations of our young people, because they will remember when there is an election.

I said at the beginning that I wished significant changes had been made to Bill C-7 concerning the management of Canada's national parks. All we are hearing about today is changing responsibility, department and minister.

I hope that the federal Liberals in this House will finally grasp the important issues relating to the environment, namely the Kyoto protocol, and having a policy that is fair to Quebec, and not profitable for the great petrochemical polluters in western Canada.

As we know, there are many national parks in western Canada, and these parks are often affected by this dust and pollution from the big oil companies. I hope that the Minister of the Environment will be sensitive to the maintenance of these national parks.

We support the bill in principle, but have great reservations about who will be entrusted with the responsibility of administering Canada's national parks and ensuring they are the big winners, in the coming years, in terms of both conservation and sustainable development.

[Question No. 8, November 15th, 2004]

What projects have been funded by the Canada Fund for Africa (CFA) since its creation in 2002, and for each of these projects what is: ( a ) the name of the project’s promoter(s); ( b ) the amount of funding awarded; ( c ) the date the funding was awarded; and ( d ) the project’s objectives?

(Return tabled)

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the answer will be very short.

It is because I do not trust the Liberal government.

The member accuses me of not being in contact with stakeholders in that area. The hon. member will know that during election campaign, I went to the regional ATR and I was told that the government in dragging its feet. Today, it is trying to portray itself as a saviour. Those people had financial problems. I hope they will receive their $300,000.

However, it was not the case when I met them during the election campaign. The ATR said: “You know, if a Liberal member is elected, you may get your money.” This is what I call political blackmail.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Bill C-9 is like a good number of bills that have been introduced, by the Chrétien government as well as by the current one, and like the throne speech. All of them are commitments involving Quebec's home turf. Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised to see that the usual intrusion into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in this bill.

Personally, I do not believe that this government will cooperate with the Government of Quebec. It will go above its head. It will try to pose as a saviour in regions it itself destroyed with previous policies

In this respect, the Bloc Québecois will keep an eye on them. If Bill C-9 turns out to be a change of course in the behaviour of the Liberal government, democracy will be the winner. Unfortunately, after what I have seen in the throne speech, and what I have heard since 10 o'clock this morning, I am still under the impression that we will end up with duplication; therefore, people will not know what doors to knock on. Often, those people will say: “If you knock on the door of CLD, don't expect anything from us”. This type of blackmail does exist. If you encourage the little Canadian flag, you won't need the little government of Quebec. This often happens.

It is for this reason that every time the government introduces a bill to deal with the regions of Quebec, it is always the nice Canadian flag that we see in the background.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the gall to say that he spends his money well and that he delivers the goods. I hope the minister is following the work of the Gomery Commission and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' deliberations. If the regions had received the money that was funneled instead into the agencies and into small projects all planned by Liberal members, I could stand here and tell you that Quebec regions are in good shape. I do not think the minister has any right to comment on the way we manage our money in Quebec.

Never before have we been faced with such a scandal that tarnishes Canada's history. I was just saying a few minutes ago that I hope the Liberal government will be held responsible, whether it be before Gomery, before the public accounts committee or before the House of Commons. I hope that there will be legal, maybe even criminal sanctions and, more importantly, that the government will legislate to ensure that it is the last time in Canadian history that such a shameful financial scandal ever occurs. That is what responsible people would do.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

You know it is not the first time that these things get on their nerves. There is a storm brewing. A few inches of snow are being forecast and, when that happens, there is turbulence in the House of Commons. Liberals often behave like children.

The same goes for teachers or professors who see students demonstrating become unruly in such cases. It is like that every time there is a storm of criticism in this Parliament. They become unruly, they do not listen and they revert back to Jean Chrétien's good old method: arrogance.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that, at long last, ATR will receive the money, which does not come from the government, but from our pockets. So, it is only fair to have that money go back to our regions from time to time.

I have spoken with Mr. Moreau and the people of ATR. They were asking me why that was taking so long. I told them it was the federal government's trademark. They let organizations run out of breath so that, in the end, they can appear as a saviour.

I know Mr. Moreau well, we have an excellent relationship, but when EDC comes bragging in the riding to announce its financial assistance, let the local elected official be recognized. I will understand then that this party is not partisan, but that it understands that in a community, the most important person is the elected member.

When I am told that the only reason I want to be there is to be in the photo, that—

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

There is also David Price from Compton—Stanstead. These people use taxpayers' money, Canada Economic Development, or any other arrangement set up by this government, to promote themselves and get re-elected.

One thing is certain: we are 54 members and these 54 members—maybe more—intend to keep coming back to denounce this government's actions since it came back to this House on October 4.

Since I have only seven minutes left, I will not have enough time to get into how far removed this bill is from Quebec reality. However, I will take the time to talk about—in the hopes that the Liberals will understand—how the people of the regions of Quebec take care of their own responsibilities.

We have CLDs—I mentioned this earlier. We have regional structures. We increasingly try to hold our municipal representatives accountable. We give businesspeople their space. We pay particular attention to the community groups. In Quebec, un like in the rest of Canada, we take a much more social democratic approach than the Conservative or the Liberal approach taken in Ontario and the rest of Canada.

I hope that all our arguments today will help the minister and the Liberal team recognize the serious mistake they made in introducing Bill C-9. I also hope that during the work on possible amendments to this bill, the federal government will be open and honest enough to recognize that, once again, it has created an organization while ignoring Quebec.

At that point, we will recognize that this government has specific plans for Quebec.

As I was saying, I have been listening all day to the Liberal Party members. I only heard the name “Quebec” when I was being told that this bill is about a law to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Beyond that, Quebec was never mentioned in the speeches of these members. On the other hand, we understand from what the Liberal government has said is that they intend to intrude in the regions, to take control of our regions, while ignoring what these regions really expect.

The Quebec government, that of Mr. Landry or of Mr. Charest, regularly consults the regions to discover their expectations. Did the minister take the time to review these people's work? Did he take the time to get more familiar with Quebec's expectations?

Earlier, I was listening to the member for Beauce enumerating the numerous projects in which his government had been involved. I wondered whether the member for Beauce thought we were going into an election tomorrow. That was not very helpful in terms of preserving jobs. Usually, any politician, wherever he came from, especially when he is in office, holds a press conference to report his accomplishments. This is when the quality of the government and its accomplishments are praised.

Just a moment ago, the member for Beauce was saying that his government did a lot for softwood lumber. Only one phase of the assistance program has been implemented. We're still waiting for phases two and three. We're still waiting for this government to listen to industry and to give it support. This crisis has been going on for three years but the government does not budge.

What great programs, what a great philosophy and what small projects. I was listening earlier. The member had all that he needed to go on a tour of Quebec. He said he spread all the federal money over the regions and that that is how the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec will be strong. Only small amounts were negotiated and they were announced in the absence of elected representatives. They keep the members of the Bloc away from the action. We run our own show. And then these people have the gall to tell us that they are working with the local stakeholders.

I believe that the first stakeholder of a riding is the member of Parliament who was democratically elected by the people. Speaking of the democratic deficit, I would have liked, at least, for them to try to work on a cooperative basis rather than on a partisan one. As I was saying, there are many examples of what the Prime Minister boasted about before the election. The fight against the democratic deficit, just like the issue of asymmetry, lasted only the duration of a conference. We talked about asymmetry, and English Canada got angry. The Ontario caucus said: “Wait a minute, Mr. Prime Minister, do not give too much to Quebec. You were not able to get many members elected in Quebec. If you are Prime Minister of a minority government, it is because of Ontario.” The Prime Minister then came up with another approach for the fiscal imbalance. He did not listen, he just imposed his views, the same way Jean Chrétien used to.

Nothing has changed. The only change in this Parliament is that, through a democratic effort, we, the opposition parties, are now at least able to adopt motions to push some issues forward. Members will recall the many times, under the 1997 and 2000 governments, that proposals from opposition members were systematically turned down by the Liberal government. Any motion, amendment or idea from the opposition was simply voted down.

Since I have only a minute left, let me say that all 54 Bloc Québécois members, all CLDs, all regional bodies in Quebec, as well as the Quebec government are saying to the federal government: “No to Bill C-9”.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-9. I would like to take this opportunity to rectify a few things that have been said earlier in this debate which started at 10 a.m., particularly with respect to statements that were made by government members.

When we look at the strategy behind the creation of this department, we see that this is a duplication. I want to go back to what the member for Beauce and the minister responsible for the agency said earlier, when they stated that this government would work with the various levels, the people in the field. I have a hard time understanding why Quebec's government was never mentioned. All that was said was that the agency bypasses Quebec's decision makers and attempts to solve a problem.

This approach requires a significant amount of energy. A lot of time is being wasted, between this agency and the Government of Quebec, establishing priorities. If this government were serious, it would announce today that, with the creation of this department, it intends to include the Government of Quebec in order to better define the priorities of the regions.

Personally, I consider that the Government of Quebec, with the CLD structure, has a model local and regional development tool. This model includes people from municipalities, decision-makers, business people and also people from the communities. It was first promoted by former minister Guy Chevrette, then by Louise Harel, when she took over the municipal affairs and regions. It is a model that really meets the expectations in Quebec.

Talking about CFDC, some of them work very well with the CLD, but not within the guidelines given by the federal government to CFDC. There are men and women working in these regional organizations who really care about regional development and go beyond partisanship and the presence of the Canadian flag. They work with people from the community and often, they establish exceptional cooperation links with people from the CLD.

There are structures in Quebec. What Quebec needs is money. We have denounced the tax imbalance over and over. Before establishing again a Department of Regional Development, the Government of Canada should consult the Government of Quebec to identify its needs. All we hear today is how this department will work with people in the community, neglecting, of course, to consult the Government of Quebec, bypassing the people who manage the local and regional infrastructures in Quebec.

Some people are trying to make me say that there is no new duplication, and I don't understand why the supporters of Bill C-9 today can't see the duplication. Personally, I have a hard time understanding that the federal government has responsibilities in this field.

The responsibilities of a federal government are to intervene in its own jurisdictions. Currently, there is a whole lot that the federal government could do in its own jurisdictions.

There are some economic issues in Quebec, including in my riding, that are the result of situations with the Americans, the Chinese or other nations. The federal government should deal with these issues.

Why is the federal government still dragging its feet regarding the mad cow issue? Imagine: a single cow has brought a whole economic sector to a standstill, a sector that is critical for Quebec, namely the dairy production. This problem has been going on since May 2003. And they are telling me that this government is taking action? Yet, this issue comes under its jurisdiction. It is up to the federal government to deal with border disputes.

As we know, and the hon. member for Beauce should know that, the textile industry is currently going through a crisis. Again, this is a crisis triggered by the Liberal government's lack of responsibility. It is that same government which decided that, on December 31, 2004, quotas would be lifted to further promote trade. This government did not do anything to prepare our local and regional industries to meet these new challenges.

A number of industries in small towns are closing. When this happens, for example in a town of 2,000 or 3,000—and there are several ones in my riding—when a plant that employs 125 or 150 people stops operating, it is almost the end for that town.

Earlier, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said that he did his best to resolve the textile crisis. He announced some programs, but budgets were non existent. There is no money left. We are confronted with these issues on a daily basis. There are no transition measures. This government failed to do its duty by not preparing the industry to face these new global challenges.

Today, this government wants to establish a department to try to save our regions. This is not acceptable. The main reason why people had to leave our regions is because the employment insurance fund was robbed. Just imagine a young person in a region who wants to replace a seasonal worker ready to retire. Up to now, this person needed 450 or 500 working hours to be entitled to benefits. Employment insurance is there for a reason. In all its geographic diversity, Quebec needs a program to support its seasonal workers. A young person willing to replace a retiring worker who was ready to show him or her the ropes will now have to work 900 hours to be entitled to the same benefits. What do these young people do? They get discouraged. They leave the regions for the big centres. As a result , a poverty belt is forming in Quebec's central regions, in the main cities. Once again, it is the Canadian government that created this poverty belt by ignoring the needs of the unemployed.

And they want to convince us today that Bill C-9 will solve regional problems.

There is no way that the Bloc Québécois will accept another partisan tactic. Let me explain how Economic Development Canada works, how it respects elected officials and how regional directors are given instructions.

More and more, we are seeing the 54 democratically elected members of the Bloc Québécois being shut out of decisions made by regional directors. And they are telling us that they want to fix the democratic deficit. This is a good example of the democratic deficit.

The Centre-du-Québec region, which is very familiar to me, has been without a director for three years. This is an economically powerful region. Every time the social and economic stakeholders ask Economic Development Canada for help, there is a lot of foot-dragging. Everything has been centralized in Trois-Rivières by an individual who completely ignored the needs of the Centre-du-Québec region. And passing Bill C-9 is supposed to solve all these problems?

We have noticed as well that Canada Economic Development has become a promotional tool for Liberal partisanship. It is crazy how much partisan work former MPs get. Just look at the former member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Gérard Binet. He is busy because every time Canada Economic Development has something to do, he is there. Christian Jobin is another former Liberal member. He was defeated and has a special mandate to set up some sort of summit on municipalities, another action that once again interferes in Quebec's business. I could name others.