Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. I congratulate him on his motion, because it makes a lot of sense.

Today, as the Prime Minister is meeting with President George Bush, we must make it clear to the Prime Minister that all parliamentarians in this House are saying the same thing and share the same view on this issue. We are saying that the softwood lumber issue must be settled.

As the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, parliamentarians must give their unanimous support to this motion. It is important and urgent that members from all parties in the House who will address this motion today stress the importance of settling this issue, for the future of Canada and also the future of our regions.

I am the Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development. I want to tell people from all regions of Quebec who are affected by this situation that the Bloc Quebecois has a very firm position on the softwood lumber issue. We have always been in favour of a complete return to free trade for softwood lumber, as set out in NAFTA.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the continuing uncertainty regarding the Canadian position in the negotiations is adversely affecting these negotiations. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to go ahead with the support plan announced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.

The Bloc Quebecois is again asking that the employment insurance benefit period be extended by an additional 10 weeks. As we know, most of the workers affected by this issue, whether they work in the bush or in plants, are seasonal workers.

This dispute with the United States has caused huge job losses in Quebec and in all the regions faced with this problem. We are asking for a 10 week extension, so that these workers do not wind up in the gap twice. We are talking about the spring gap. This is the result of the restrictions imposed by the employment insurance reform. Under this reform, the number of weeks that people have to work to qualify for employment insurance has been increased, while the number of weeks during which they can collect benefits has been reduced. It is important that the government put this position on the table.

In Quebec, we have 250 plants creating jobs in this industry. Over 35,000 jobs in plants and in the bush are attributable to softwood lumber; 250 municipalities in Quebec are developing around the wood processing industry. It accounts for 100% of manufacturing jobs in 135 cities and towns. Softwood lumber brings $4 billion to the regional economy. Quebec is the second largest producer of softwood lumber in Canada and is responsible for 25% of Canadian production. Forests cover 446,000 square miles in Quebec. Softwood lumber production in Quebec in 2000 was 17,077,000 board feet.

In Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, where my riding is located, 6,300 jobs have been created in the bush and in plants. The present dispute leaves these 6,300 jobs hanging in the balance. According to the Association des manufacturiers de bois d'oeuvre de sciage du Québec, 6,800 workers have lost their jobs since the dispute first began. There are approximately 40,000 jobs associated with this industry in Quebec.

I think that this opposition day is extremely important. I do not know whether the Prime Minister of Canada will be more convincing in his meeting with the President of the U.S. today because of our arguments. But I have not found him very convincing recently.

I am not questioning the position they took and what they did, but the Americans are going to have to understand that they cannot, after five years have gone by, revisit clauses on which entire sectors of our natural resources depend, which affect our plants and our workers. We cannot allow jobs in this country to be jeopardized.

The U.S. government, the global “elephant”, must understand that it has to come to the table and negotiate a return to free trade. In my opinion, it is imperative that this dispute be resolved.

Early this week, Statistics Canada released figures showing that more and more Canadians are moving to cities. As we can see, all the jobs associated directly or indirectly with plants and sawmills are rural jobs. This is one more argument in favour of keeping these jobs in rural communities, so that these communities can grow and so that we can stop the exodus of young people.

As well the ministers of Industry and International Trade will also have to be concerned—as they said during the last campaign—with the distant parts of Quebec. This is one more argument that could be added to the Prime Minister's tool kit. He needs to tell them that it is important, he needs to stand up and, with conviction, tell the Americans “That is enough. What we have on the table needs to be respected”.

In the past, there have been other verdicts by the WTO supporting Canada's position. Let the Prime Minister base his position on this, then. Let the Americans stop their strong arm tactics all over the place. Let them respect the exchanges we want to have with them, so that in future we can all be on a level playing field and can work together in order to make some progress.

I wish to reiterate my position and that of the Bloc Quebecois, and to call upon all members of this House to vote unanimously in favour of the motion of the member for Vancouver Island North in order to throw some more weight behind the Prime Minister of Canada, so that he can make the U.S. president listen to reason. He must not limit his discussions to golf and sports, but must tell him “I have the unanimous support of the members of the House of Commons, and of all stakeholders, and I want you to understand this”. This is what we want to see happen.

This is the position of the people in the regions, particularly those working in this field, the plant workers, the forest workers. They want to work and they do not want to depend on inconsistent arguments that no longer hold water. This concerns the jobs of people in our area and people in all the provinces of Canada. We want to deal with the Americans and we want to provide them with softwood lumber, but it must be done via an exchange like this. We want to move ahead with firm negotiations that will have long term results.

[Strategic Infrastructure Fund, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a backgrounder from the Department of Finance dated February 5 states that moneys for the strategic infrastructure fund will be made available thanks to interest saved by paying down the debt.

In other words, the total amount will not be available for seven years, a fact confirmed by officials from the Department of Finance.

Why then does the Deputy Prime Minister not ask that the sum of $2 billion be made available before the end of the fiscal year, March 31, to enable him to sign the five memoranda of understanding submitted by Quebec right away?

[Strategic Infrastructure Fund, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, by not releasing all the money promised by his colleagues during the last election campaign for Quebec's highways, some $3.4 billion, the Deputy Prime Minister is showing that he too thinks nothing of promises made to the public.

The money is available until March 31. Will he finally release the money promised for highways 175, 185, 30, 20 and 50? The memoranda of agreement are there. Will he sign them? For promises and hopes will not build a road; that takes money.

[Strategic Infrastructure Fund, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the Supplementary Estimates tabled yesterday, no amount appeared for the Strategic Infrastructure Fund. But we know that the government will be announcing surpluses in the billions. Until March 31, this money remains available. After that deadline, the money will be used to pay down the debt.

Since there are only 31 days left till the end of the fiscal year, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to ask for part of the surplus in order to implement the Strategic Infrastructure Fund immediately, since the money is now on the table?

[Economic development, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to thank our colleague, the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, for his initiative. I very much appreciated the fact that he read letters he received from some his eminent constituents.

His motion is extremely vague and seems useless, given the poor results of the federal government in the area of regional development.

Socioeconomic stakeholders in the various Quebec regions know quite well that the federal government's regional development policies are not effective. In fact, I would like to remind the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik that the federal government plans around four global regions in the country: the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the Prairies and western Canada.

Therefore, the criteria for the policies of Canada Economic Development for the Quebec Regions are chosen as if Quebec were an homogeneous region and the situation were the same for the workers of the Gaspé peninsula and those of Montreal. Let us be serious. The situation in the Gaspé peninsula is extremely different from the situation in the Lower St. Lawrence, even though that also is an outlying region.

The Quebec government knows what is going on in every region of Quebec, it is the one in charge, it is close to the people, it understands the dynamics of the different regions and it has created the Local Development Centres and the regional consultation and development councils, which interact directly with the stakeholders in order to establish programs that are really tailored to the specific situations of each region.

Furthermore, the federal government invests very little in the Quebec regions. Let me quote some figures. I would like to mention how much income tax Quebec taxpayers have to pay in the six regions where my colleague would want us to invest in a new system, and how much the federal government invested in fixed assets in 1999.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, people paid $298,398,000 in personal income taxes to Ottawa; federal spending in that region amounted to $964,000. In the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé region, taxpayers paid $297,810,000 in personal income taxes to Ottawa; the federal government spent only $9,000 in capital expenditures. The North Shore taxpayers paid the federal government $223,576,000 in personal income taxes in 1998; they got $8 million in investments. Taxpayers from the Gaspé and Îles de la Madeleine region paid to Ottawa $143,277,000 in personal income taxes; they got $389,000 in capital expenditures from the federal government in 1999. Northern Quebec paid Ottawa $56,199,000 in personal income taxes in 1998; it got $2 million. Taxpayers of the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region, which I represent, gave $508,474,000 and got $763,000 in federal investments in 1999.

Given those figures, allow me to tell my colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik that he is proposing to duplicate the Quebec government mandate with regard to regional development. I think he should tell that to his government.

I listened carefully as he read from all those letters; most of the stakeholders who wrote to him said the same thing I am telling him. It is up to the regions to say what they want. The Quebec government invested money in the regions. It is also up to the Government of Canada to give back roughly one-quarter of the income taxes owed to each region of Quebec.

Last year, I took part in the Congrès des régions which took place in North Montreal. For the three days the conference took place, all of the participants spoke about the type of development they wished to see in their regions. They recognized the legitimacy of only one government, the Government of Quebec. They also said that the federal government should return their money, their taxes, to the province so that it could distribute it to the regions concerned for regional development.

This goes to show the extent to which the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik is going in the opposite direction to what the regional stakeholders want.

I would also like to provide other examples of measures taken by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions that have harmed the regions. In 2000, Ottawa cut $51 million from regional development in Quebec, $35 million of which was done under the Small Business Loans Act.

If the member is truly concerned about the importance of regional development, he should realize that it is his own government's policies that are killing Quebec's regions. We need only think of the unacceptable measures contained in the EI system.

The government robbed $43 billion from the EI fund. It implemented measures that penalize seasonal workers who live in regions. Who is responsible for our regions losing out even more? It is this government, with its drastic changes to the EI fund and measures made to modify the fund and EI benefits.

Every week I receive calls and letters asking the government to amend the current Employment Insurance Act to help them out. The Liberal government's response to these people is no.

The same can be said for air travel in the regions. The federal government is unable to ensure quality service to the regions, and companies like Air Canada and its subsidiaries call all the shots. Air transportation is an area of responsibility that comes under the federal government, but it is not even able to assume this responsibility.

Air Canada and its subsidiaries are increasing their fares and reducing their services; in short, they do not care about the regions, and the federal government is doing nothing to stop this sad situation. It is a real farce. Air Nova has dropped its services between Baie-Comeau and Quebec City. At Bagotville airport, one flight was dropped at the end of last year. Moreover, the government has the nerve to impose a surtax on air fares and to state that Canadians and Quebecers agree with that.

I would also like to talk about the cuts made by this government since 1994 in health transfers. At least $1 billion was cut in the health sector in Quebec. For my region alone, it is a cut of $38 million. Just imagine how many jobs could be created in my region with $38 million. It is more or less the budget of the Jonquiere hospital.

But no. The government, of which our colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik is a member, is depriving Quebec of that money. If the member really wants to promote regional development in Quebec, he should wake the finance minister up to ask him to give us our money back. He should then say the same thing to the intergovernmental affairs minister.

For the last three weeks, we have talked a lot in the House about the promises made in the last federal election. As the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik pointed out, lots of promises were made. They promised $3.4 billions for the highways in Quebec alone. Unfortunately, there is only $108 million on the table. What a farce.

This government is not working for the regions, nor is it working for Quebec. This government is working for itself and for its own image. When this government starts to respect the people from the regions and tell them “it is up to you to decide” I might begin to believe it. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen tomorrow.

[Highway Infrastructure, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, by adding the $200 million that may be granted to Quebec for highway infrastructure to the $108 million set aside for roads, we come up with an envelope of $308 million.

Will the Minister of Transport admit that the total of these two amounts is still insufficient to cover the official commitments made by the federal government for highway 30, which total $357 million, not including the commitments made with respect to highways 175, 185 and 50?

[Highway Infrastructure, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being very careful to avoid answering our questions regarding the amount of money available to fulfill its commitments with respect to highways.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the portion of the $2 billion infrastructure fund allocated for highways may reach 40%—or $800 million—for all of Canada, and that Quebec can realistically count on one quarter of this amount, or $200 million?

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was reading the motion and her name is on it.

I would like to quote Motion No. 2 of the hon. member for Mercier, which reads “the protection of habitats and species on provincial lands is entirely under provincial jurisdiction”.

The refusal by the government to support the motion moved by my colleague proves that it wants to usurp a shared jurisdiction. Whatever it says or does, it is clear that this government is constantly usurping rights.

In a speech made on June 2, 2000, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis said he was very disappointed with this government. He spoke about listing, saying it would be decided by a committee. At present, we have a list of 339 species at risk established by the COSEWIC. In this bill, however, the government ignores this list. It will be up to the governor in council to decide what species are to be added to the list. This decision will be taken by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry.

Some ministers may prefer a particular specie while others will make a different choice. It will be a tower of Babel where everyone speaks a different language. Instead of using the list of 339 species established over a 20-year period by scientists who deal specifically with species at risk, the government has decided to establish a different list.

Why not use the existing list? What we are being told is “We in cabinet are the specialists”. The Minister of Defence may inform cabinet that he prefers one specie over another. Ministers will fight among themselves, and everyone will be able to do whatever they want in the field; there will no longer be an established list to go by.

As we can see, there are major irritants in this bill. The provinces and the federal government have made progress in terms of species at risk, but they now appear to be rejecting out of hand years of effort made by scientists and environmentalists.

The government claims to be in sole possession of the truth and says that we need it to lead the battle to protect species at risk. Personally, I do not think that the government is serious with this bill. It does not want to make progress. It simply wants to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction. It wants to negotiate directly with landowners on the issue of habitats, which is rather strange, since habitats are under provincial jurisdiction.

We can see just how pernicious the government's interference is. It perniciously grabs powers beyond its jurisdiction. It says that it has respect for us, but it is always the same thing. I have been here since 1997; some of my colleagues have been here since 1993. We often talk about it; the government always does things the same way.

“We are the sole possessors of the truth, so follow us, otherwise you are not part of the gang”. I have not heard this in a long time. I believe that nobody is the sole possessor of the truth.

With this bill, the government should have shown its willingness to respect species at risk and to do something to protect them. Protecting species at risk is important. Some may think that history needs to be rewritten all the time, but no. It is possible to use documents that were produced by serious people who have already identified species at risk.

COSEWIC has already come up with a list. The government should say, “We are starting from there and moving forward”. Even the ecologists are saying this. I am not an ecologist, but I am someone for whom the environment is very important. We must leave a healthy environment for our children and for those who come after us. We hope that we will finally be able to leave them a planet that they can develop as they see fit. The way we have started out, the heritage we are leaving them is going to be a mediocre one. What we are telling them is, “We are going to pollute to the hilt, sow discord everywhere, and you can sort it all out”. I say no.

This bill could have given our people hope regarding species at risk. A species at risk did not start out that way. It is because we have polluted the atmosphere that it is becoming a species at risk. This would have been the time to take action and listen to everyone.

It is a funny thing but, when we make speeches, when we speak in committee, when we oppose a clause and say with considerable common sense that “that is not what we should do”, we think that they are listening to us. But when we see the final version of the bill at third reading in the House, we realize that they had their ears open but they were not listening. It is always the same.

It is annoying for all the members and for all those who want to go forward. We must learn to know the species at risk better so that the provinces and the federal government can work together to find the best ways to protect them.

However, this bill is not doing that at all. It is not what it aims to do, and I find that very sad. We have spent hours on this bill and we have not accomplished a lot. We have merely talked for the sake of talking.

There was once a television program entitled Parler pour parler , or “Let's talk for the sake of talking“. I have not come here to talk for the sake of talking. I have come here to move things forward. People from my riding think that it is important. They tell me “Go to Ottawa to defend us because you know the priorities in our area”. However, I note that the Liberals do not see or hear anything. The only thing they say is “no, no, no”.

This is why the Bloc will be unable to support this bill. It is sad, but if the government had done its homework we would have been glad to say that we are finally going in the right direction.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act.

We are speaking today to the amendments in Group No. 2. Some of these amendments were tabled by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Mercier.

I listened very carefully to the remarks by the Canadian Alliance member and I really appreciated the first part of his speech. The Canadian Alliance members are opening their minds and finally realizing that the environment is a shared under the Canadian constitution. This is the first time I hear that. Congratulations. You have moved forward, you have developed in the area of the Canadian constitution.

But beyond the remarks made by the Canadian Alliance member on the environment, I would say that it is more than a matter of shared jurisdiction, because habitat is also involved. Amendment No. 2, put forward by my colleague Mrs. Lalonde, states—

[Highway Infrastructure, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said in the House that there would be no interprovincial cost-sharing of the funds available in the infrastructure program, implying that this would allow the government to fulfill its promises made in Quebec during the election campaign.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the comments made by the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, to the effect that there would be no interprovincial cost-sharing in connection with the infrastructure fund?