Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Highway Infrastructure February 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, among other commitments, the Liberals promised to build highway 175 in the Saguenay region, highway 30 in the Montérégie, and highway 185 in the Lower St. Lawrence. These three projects would cost $1.4 billion.
How can the government seriously claim that it is being honest with Quebecers when these highway projects alone would require three times the amount in the infrastructure budget?
Highway Infrastructure February 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, before, during and after the election campaign, Liberal ministers and members of parliament strutted about making all kinds of promises regarding infrastructure in the regions of Quebec.
They made commitments totalling $3.5 billion, while the new infrastructure budget for Quebec is $500 million.
How will the Deputy Prime Minister fulfill the commitments made by his colleagues for expenditures seven times higher than the money actually available?
Species at Risk Act February 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation.
Before commenting on the group of amendments being considered, it is important to ask the following question: is this legislation really required right now with respect to species at risk in Canada and in the provinces? Does this bill not duplicate—how I like this word, because the government does not understand what the word duplicate means—what is being done with respect to the environment?
Is this government reducing duplication with respect to the environment? Does habitat come under federal or provincial jurisdiction? Will this bill do any good in terms of protecting species at risk? Does this legislation have any vision? Will it allow species that are currently at risk in Canada to survive? Will it allow us to proceed quickly to reduce the number of species at risk? I have all kinds of other questions to ask, but my answer to all of them is no. This bill will not help.
When it comes to environmental matters, the people who live in my region deal with the level of government closest to them, namely the provincial government. For them, anything related to the environment has to do with the province in some way or another. So, they call on the provincial government, which is able to respond, “Yes, in 1989 we introduced legislation dealing with species at risk”. True, it is not perfect and it needs to be improved, but that is why a bill has been introduced that will allow us to progress.
With its bill before us now, the federal government is thumbing its nose at the bill that has already been introduced by the Quebec government, and it is saying, “We will consult with you, but we reserve the right to tell you what to do”. Allow me to get out my dictionary to find out what the word “consultation” means. When you consult someone, it is because you have a question and you want several viewpoints on an issue. The federal government is saying, “We will consult with you, but it is a bogus consultation. You can say whatever you want, we will decide for you”.
If this is the true meaning of the word consultation, we need to do some rethinking. I think I will demote the federal government to grade one, where children are taught “Consultation is a process used to determine what consensus has arisen from the reflection triggered by this process”. That is not what this government is doing. It consults to suit itself, as my colleague from Joliette has just said, in asking the Minister of the Environment during oral question period what Canada's position is concerning ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
I would remind hon. members that I was the environment critic for the Bloc Quebecois for two years. Ever since the last parliament, I have been hearing constantly that the Canadian government is going to ratify the Kyoto protocol.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois questioned the Minister of the Environment again. We are forced to admit that what I had been hearing for several years is definitely no longer the case. I believe that the Minister of the Environment, for whom I have the greatest respect, having worked with him and prepared some fine documents relating to environmental questions, has been set adrift by his government. He has been told “You are on your own on this issue, because that is not our position”.
What they are doing is to say “We cannot ratify it because consultations are required”. When they do not want to listen, that is when they consult. That is how things are with this government. I can see that a Tower of Babel situation is developing here. It is always the same. When things are going along fine, no consultation is needed. When they are not, then they consult.
Habitat protection is a provincial responsibility and it is not up to the federal government to tell the provinces how they must act together to protect species at risk and their habitat. When we think about it, Bloc Quebecois members are the only ones here who defend the Canadian constitution. This is quite something.
We say “Canada is a beautiful country, but we want to build a country to be on an equal footing”. They do not know their constitution. Habitat and species at risk are provincial jurisdictions. It is not with amendments to a useless and short-sighted bill that the government will help species at risk.
COSEWIC prepared a list of species at risk. That list was made by scientists. The bill says that this list is useless and that we must start all over again. We cannot reject out of hand a list that is the result of studies conducted by scientists over a number of years. Neither the Minister of the Environment nor cabinet is an expert on species at risk in Canada.
Anything that does not reflect their thinking is rejected. They will have to understand that we in Quebec want to protect species at risk, that the habitat is a provincial jurisdiction and that it is up to us to deal with people who have land on which species at risk have their habitat. We must negotiate with these landowners and agree on compensation.
Let us stop putting the cart before the horse. Let us give credit where credit is due. Species at risk, the habitat and the related legislation all come under the Quebec government. I would ask this government to come up with policies on issues that really are under its jurisdiction, such as the Canadian armed forces—the Minister of National Defence is here—trains and airports, because these are all areas under its responsibility. The government must stop interfering and getting involved in areas in which it has no business.
Things would be much better if the federal government spent public money wisely.
It is for all these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill.
Infrastructure February 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, under Quebec's legislation, municipalities may not conclude agreements with the federal government.
But the Deputy Prime Minister's bill establishing the strategic infrastructure fund will allow him to conclude such agreements with Quebec's municipalities.
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister adopting the sort of confrontational approach typical of the ministers of finance and transport? Why is he riding roughshod over Quebec's legislation with respect to this funding for Quebec's municipalities?
Infrastructure February 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in the last budget brought down by Pauline Marois, the Quebec government invested an additional $750 million for highways and infrastructure work in Quebec. That money will allow Quebec to provide work for thousands of workers.
Why does the minister not follow Quebec's example by making money from the fund available immediately, while respecting each others' jurisdictions?
Infrastructure February 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, as regards infrastructures, there is a consensus in Quebec on how things ought to be done. All the stakeholders in Quebec, including the Mayor of Longueuil and the Conseil du patronat, recognize that Quebec is already in control of this program.
I would like to know why the federal government is now challenging the operating rules of the infrastructure program, on which all the Quebec stakeholders agree.
Infrastructure February 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal ministers and MPs have been traipsing all over Quebec, telling people that the federal government is prepared to invest in the projects but Quebec is holding things up.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile the statements by his colleagues with his statement of yesterday that we had to wait for the bill to be passed before discussing whether or not the funds were available?
Infrastructure February 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Act reads as follows, and I quote “The Minister may enter into an agreement with an eligible recipient—” These eligible recipients include the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the government justify that it is, once again, giving itself permission to deal directly with municipalities, whereas these fall not under federal jurisdiction, but provincial jurisdiction?
Infrastructure February 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of the—
Budget Implementation Act, 2001 February 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say what I think of the speech of my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
Like my friend from the Liberal Party, I come from regions and I stand for the regions of Quebec. The area I live in is next to my colleague's. It is true that this bill implementing the December 2001 budget will squeeze the regions more than ever.
I do not know if the government is aware of what is going on in the regions. For Canada, regions are comprised of Quebec, the maritimes and Ontario. I would like to talk about sub-regions, and in particular those in Quebec, the area where my colleague lives, my own region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Abitibi, where I had the privilege of living for three years. Therefore, I am very well aware of the situation in the Abitibi.
I believe my colleague has identified the problems. However, I deplore the fact that the hon. member is not taking his argument to its logical conclusion. When one is against three quarters of a bill introduced by the Minister of Finance, one should be logical and say “There might be something good in it, but all the rest is bad; therefore, I will vote against it”.
I call upon my colleague to say “I am part of your government, but I will vote against this bill, because it penalizes the regions. This bill implements measures that are detrimental to the regions”.