Odina Desrochers

[Canada Shipping Act, October 15th, 2004]

There are only incredible risks to the fauna, the environment and the St. Lawrence River.

Experts are addressing increasingly the very important question of the beauty of the St. Lawrence River. We know that the St. Lawrence is the pride of Quebec and is associated with Quebec. It is an incredible gem, a place where business is conducted. It is a shipping channel. Nonetheless, with everything we hear about the intentions of the Liberal government, and in particular to dredge the St. Lawrence Seaway, and everything being presented in Bill C-3 today, I understand why the residents of the municipalities I mentioned earlier are worried. I am sure that the residents of both sides of the St. Lawrence, from the Gaspé to Montreal, including the regions of Montérégie, Centre-du-Québec, Quebec City and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, have the same concerns as the people I represent. Like all my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I oppose the principle of Bill C-3.

Let me come back to the long title. Note the great expectations they have with a title like: act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is a long title. One would expect major changes with such a title, but they are empty words.

The purpose of this bill is to amend four acts. First, it mentions the Canada Shipping Act. Do we have a Canada Shipping Act? We have the semblance of an act. Look at what happened with the shipyards. There was a shipyard in Sorel and one in Lévis, but we know what happened. Now, they would have me believe that with Bill C-3 we are going to change the Canada Shipping Act? What act? If it exists, is it solid? I do not think so.

There is also the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. As with the former act, are they trying to convince us that they are going to change an act from 2001 that did not satisfy anyone in this House?

Of course, let us not forget shipowners and the Martin family. These people are very influential when the time comes to make decisions. Here is a good one: I do not know if this is always the case but, apparently, the Martin children must go through the ethics counsellor to speak to their father, who is the Prime Minister. This is how the government would have us believe that the Prime Minister has no say whatsoever in the administrative decisions made by his children. Come on, give me a break on this Friday afternoon. Who is going to believe this? Who finds Howard Wilson credible? What credibility was there in Jean Chrétien meeting with Mr. Wilson to indicate to him, whenever there was a problem, what to say, or else be fired? This is how they tried to sell us the idea that the government was acting objectively and ethically.

The more things change in this Parliament—and we have only been here since October 4—the more they stay the same. The Prime Minister has changed, as have a number of ministers, but nothing has really changed. We do not see any improvement, and this is particularly true with Bill C-3.

The Liberals have a thing about respecting, or rather not respecting, unanimous reports. Think about the one on employment insurance, which was also not respected. Here we are dealing with the recommendations of another unanimous report tabled in March 2004. Either this government has trouble remembering things, or it has trouble reading the documents available to it.

If a different party were in power, someone other than the Liberals, we could understand some little hitches as files were transferred. But no, it is the same gang, still the Liberals. When it comes time for action, they have big gaps in their memories. I would say they have a selective memory, which tends to favour those who support the Liberal Party and to ignore the interests of Quebec. Selective memory is what it is.

Could you indicate how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker? You will understand that I want to respect your authority.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for at last giving me the chance to speak. I know you are still getting used to the position and I know you are making quite an effort to understand our language. I congratulate you on that. You can probably understand that some of us on this side of the House also sometimes have a bit of trouble pronouncing the names of certain western ridings, so we are even on that score.

Like my colleagues from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Alfred-Pellan, I am concerned about this most vital question of Bill C-3. It is even more vital to Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière than to most ridings. I do not want to launch into a travelogue here, but there are five lovely villages along the shores of the St. Lawrence: Saint-Nicolas, Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, Sainte-Croix, Saint-Louis-de-Lotbinière and Leclercville.

Those five parishes represent the roots of French colonization.They have been in place for two or three hundred years. Generations of their inhabitants have taken pride in living on the shores of the majestic St. Lawrence. I shudder at the thought of Fisheries and Oceans' responsibilities being handed over to Transport Canada. It is scary to think about what will happen when the Department of Transport steps in to slow down the huge ships that ply the St. Lawrence, particularly the Martin family ships.

We have had such a hard time figuring out all the red tape that ensued from the federal government's cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We eventually managed to cut through it all to get information, to find out who in the department has which responsibility and who will give us straight answers. Now, in order to improve the system, those responsibilities are going to be transferred to Transport.

Who at Transport will provide answers on important issues, like Fisheries and Oceans did? We know what reorganizing the work means. Will Transport employees be equipped to provide the same service that the Fisheries and Oceans people did? These are questions that need to be asked.

I have some experience and I have seen many departmental reorganizations on the other side of the House; so, we shall see.

Still, usually when the ministers are shuffled, and often when a new prime minister comes in, the names are all changed, and then we MPs must explain to the public how it works.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada looks after fauna, protects against pollution, and also is responsible for ice breaking on the St. Lawrence River. The department's experts have done their best, even though they have been faced with savage cuts since 1993 by the former finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada.

How are we to understand the logic behind this transfer? How are we to understand this government, which prides itself on being pro-environment and yet does such things as this?

When these responsibilities are transferred to the Department of Transport—and I hope they never are—will that department give as much attention as Fisheries and Oceans did to the issues, jurisdictions, and decisions that DFO officials had to make respecting an area as important as fisheries and oceans?

I will not be giving a course in semantics this afternoon, but in order for the people to understand, usually the department bears the name of the resource to which it is attached. For everyone, it was simple: Fisheries and Oceans meant that they looked after fisheries and oceans. Now we will have to convince the public that the Department of Transport is looking after fisheries and oceans, although the Department of Transport is identified with aviation, highways, and everything to do with roads. Now, with Bill C-3, we will attempt to convince the public that the Department of Transport can do this work. It is impossible.

Moreover, in proposing this game of musical chairs, if the Liberal government had said that such and such a responsibility was being assumed, that it was being moved to a particular sector, if improvements had been proposed, such as enhancing the services provided by Fisheries and Oceans, if it had added more money and resources to enhance the security of people who deal with the DFO, perhaps I might have accepted Bill C-3.

But only responsibilities are being transferred. There are no improvements, no additional funds, no additional resources.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 15th, 2004]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague was allotted 20 minutes to speak, but indicated at the beginning of his remarks that he would be sharing 10 minutes of his speaking time with me. I would like to know if that is still his intention. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine clearly indicated he was sharing his time with me. I just want to know if that is still his intention, Mr. Speaker, before you recognize the hon. member across the way.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want the new Liberal member for Ottawa—Orleans—I wonder if there has been an amalgamation in this sector, in any event, Ottawa and Orleans were amalgamated in the case of the name of my colleague's riding—to tell me whether he is taking into account the recommendations in the unanimous report tabled in March 2004.

Is he aware of this situation and does he approve of the recommendations?

[Canada Shipping Act, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, one of the boundaries of the riding of Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is the magnificent St. Lawrence River. During the second term, we took part in an important press conference about the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. At that time, ice-breaking and dredging services were mentioned. As far as I can see in this bill, there is still very little improvement regarding the Coast Guard.

I would like to ask my colleague to remind the House what recommendations the Bloc Quebecois made in March 2004, when this important issue was discussed at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the list of troubling facts surrounding the construction and commissioning of the submarines purchased in Great Britain is growing. The papers reported again this morning that the problems with the Chicoutimi appear to date back as far as 1988.

Does the government agree that these daily revelations on the misadventures of these submarines are proof that an independent investigation is needed more than ever?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin I would like to offer my congratulations on the important position you now occupy and I shall also take a few seconds to thank the people of Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, a riding that has undergone profound changes. Some 65% of my constituents are new and they have placed their confidence in me. I am very happy to represent them. Today, I am very proud to speak about Bill C-11, which revives the former Bill C-25.

During my second term of office, and particularly between February and the election call, I spent hundreds of hours on the sponsorship scandal. The report of the Auditor General came out as our committee was beginning its work. The President of the Treasury Board was eager to tell us about legislation, measures, provisions that would protect public servants who might have been involved or who could have given us clarifications with regard to the work we were doing. And then we never saw him again. He disappeared. He became complicit in all we later heard about the Department of Public Works, that is, a good obedient Liberal who was trying all the time to hide the truth.

Here again, the President of the Treasury Board, reintroducing Bill C-25 as new Bill C-11, is offering the House just half a solution. Once again he is showing this House his lack of transparency. A step has been taken, but just one small step. There is still one giant step to take so that these things do not happen again. In this bill, we do not find the provisions that the Bloc Québécois was hoping for, such as what exactly disclosure is. Could disclosure not be a form of political pressure?

I sat on the public accounts committee. I sat on that committee in camera and I saw dozens of public servants tell us with embarrassment that they had been forced by the Gagliano gang to do things that led to the sponsorship scandal. In Bill C-11 there is nothing to define exactly what a disclosure is.

The bill uses the word serious. I would say that the situation is very serious. In fact, this government must understand that it is now in a minority and that its trademark arrogance will not work any more, because now, the opposition has the majority. This Liberal government must demonstrate that it is taking steps to ensure that public servants are protected for some of the actions they had to take during the Jean Chrétien administration, during the Alfonso Gagliano administration.

I do hope that this bill introduced by the President of the Treasury Board will protect people from political pressure. We all remember the Liberal big wigs who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. One after the other, Alfonso Gagliano, Canada Post president André Ouellet, Via Rail CEO Jean Pelletier, Marc Lefrançois and many others lied to the committee, and the Liberals tried to put the blame on civil servants. This is shameful! It does not reflect what really happened.

Bill C-11 does not do enough to protect civil servants, who are often under political pressure. They often have to answer to a small time manager appointed by the big Liberal machine. They are afraid to act, to tell the truth. Bill C-11 should do something about that.

Let us not forget about labour relations mechanisms. Civil servants are represented by unions. Whatever measures are stipulated in Bill C-11 must be taken in cooperation with the unions.

The civil servants who have the fortitude to disclose partisan decisions and cover-ups will need the support of their unions. That has not been provided for in Bill C-11.

Yes, we in the Bloc Québécois support Bill C-11 in principle, but we also happen to believe that major changes need to be made to this piece of legislation.

I would like to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board. We do have something called the Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace. We rarely hear about it, but it does exist. What does Bill C-11 introduced by the President of the Treasury Board add to this famous internal policy concerning wrongdoing in the workplace?

The Liberal government must realize that, with this scandal, which made the headlines not only at home but also abroad, Canada has been discredited. The image of our parliamentarians—not Bloc members but those of the ruling party—has been discredited throughout Canada. During the election campaign, people were asking me what would happen after the work of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Gomery commission was completed, whether any actions would be taken against those found guilty, at fault or otherwise involved in the sponsorship scandal. The first action taken by the Liberal government is once again only half a solution. The efforts made by parliamentarians, witnesses, the Gomery commission and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts must not be wasted. With no follow-up, the Parliament of Canada will lose its credibility, and our image as parliamentarians will again be tarnished because of the Liberals' past.

The meaning of disclosure needs to be clarified. The people across the way also need to get through their heads what the word “transparent” means. The proposed process is not a transparent one. Once again, the plan is to appoint someone who will be both judge and jury. The president of the Public Service Commission runs the whole public service. Is this the right person to be the judge, receive disclosures, perhaps have to criticize his right-hand, or left-hand man? The most credible person right now is the Auditor General. Through her work, she revealed the sponsorship scandal. If this shortcoming of the bill is to be remedied, the person would have to be independent and accountable to Parliament.

It is time for an end to cover-up and secrecy among the friends of the government. It is absolutely essential that this minority Liberal government understand that things must change, as they said in the 1960s. And it has to show that there is a change. We in the Bloc Quebecois pledge to work hard on the committee to bring about changes that will meet the public's expectations.

[Shipbuilding, May 13th, 2004]

The Minister of National Defence says that contracts will be awarded on a competitive basis. Under NAFTA and the WTO, however, the minister may have ships built wherever he pleases, and competition does not enter into it.

Since international treaties allow these ships to be built in Canada, why does the minister not commit here and now to have them built in Quebec?

[Shipbuilding, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime minister will be travelling to Lévis tomorrow. One of the problems that has been affecting that area for many years is that of the shipyard, which is in difficulty because Canadian shipowners, such as Canada Steamship Lines, have their ships built in China.

Given that the Canadian Forces have plans for three new supply ships, could the Prime Minister, who will be in Lévis tomorrow, assure the workers that these ships will be built in Quebec and that having them built abroad is out of the question?

[National Unity Fund, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is justifying the government's slowness to account for the use of the secret funds for national unity by saying that they have to examine numerous programs and activities, over a period of a number of years, thus suggesting that the Privy Council had no record in connection with this fund.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Since this issue comes under his responsibility, does he agree with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that no record exists regarding the use made of the national unity reserve?