Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. His question and his answer covered the matter well.

By not consulting those who have a true interest in these issues, this government can only antagonize them by saying: “You do not wish to work with me, too bad, I will act unilaterally”.

For the time being, the government is simply telling Quebecers and Canadians from other provinces: “No, we decide. You obey”. I think Quebecers can see that tonight. I do not need to say so since it is obvious the government is opposed to dialogue, no matter with whom.

I urge Quebecers to take this bill as an example. They will see for themselves that the government does not want to co-operate. All it wants is to interfere and meddle in other people's affairs.

The only solution left is to finally make Quebec a sovereign nation.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the issue of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

Before I begin, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for Québec, who has spent a lot of energy trying to make the government understand the importance of consultation about this bill. I congratulate her and I say “Well done and continue your efforts. Sooner or later, our position may prevail.” I believe that is a positive way to work and improve bills.

Again, it is unfortunate. Members will recall that I was, for three years, the Bloc Quebecois' environment critic. A similar bill had been introduced during a previous parliament, but it died on the order paper.

During all that time, I thought that the government would have the decency to take into consideration the work done by the committee, in order to see what suggestions we might make regarding a new bill, and thus ensure progress across Canada.

We must admit, however, that this government has not listened to members of parliament, not even its own members. We had very good discussions at the time. We truly were, as is usually said, for the environment, and I believe it is important to be. We were all acting in good faith.

Yet, when I saw the new bill, I said to myself “They have changed nothing. They have changed absolutely nothing from the previous two bills, either Bill C-8 or Bill C-44”. In other words, they have learned nothing.

Consequently, I wish to say to Quebecers and Canadians that this bill, introduced by this government, does not contribute, as my colleague from the New Democratic Party said, to creating harmony favourable to the environmental agenda, namely marine conservation areas. The Liberals are not acting at all, but they are trying, through fine words, to interfere in jurisdictions that do not belong to them.

We must remember that, under the Constitutional Act of 1867, the seabed comes under provincial jurisdiction. That cannot be denied, it is in the Canadian Constitution. With this bill, however, the government wants to take over areas where it should act in harmony with the provinces and talk with them as it did in the case of the agreement it signed with the Quebec government concerning the Saguenay—Saint-Lawrence Marine Park. That was a model to follow.

It is too bad. I was rereading this agreement the other day and I wished the Liberal member had it in his hands. This agreement was made years ago. It has evolved and has now reached phase three. Each government put money in a concerted fashion to advance an issue.

Madam Speaker, I do not know if you have been to my neck of the woods to visit this marine park. I invite you to do so because it is an example to follow. I have always cheered at the fact that we had finally an example of co-operation, of mutual respect, in order to promote very important issues for present and future generations. Instead of taking this agreement as a model, the government is now trying to reinvent the wheel.

This semblance of willingness to do things for the advancement of a society saddens me. As my colleague was saying, I think they are deceiving the population and are deceiving each other. With this bill, not only are they invading areas that are not under their jurisdiction, they are not agreeing with each other.

All the departments concerned with this bill, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Parks Canada, have specific jurisdiction and their areas of responsibility clash.

I do not know whether members have read the Auditor General of Canada's report. I read it with interest myself. Nothing has changed, so the 1996 report still applies. The Auditor General of Canada published chapter 31 on the management of national parks by Parks Canada. I would like to highlight what he said in this chapter. It is very important, because Canadian Heritage is the department introducing this bill.

He said:

—in the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete except for La Mauricie.

This is the auditor general. He also said:

—that, on average, the management plans for the 18 national parks were 12 years old, when they should have been reviewed every five years.

He added that:

The park management plans provide the strategic direction chosen for the protection of park ecosystems.

The auditor general also added:

Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks.

I could go on reading quotes by the Auditor General of Canada about Parks Canada all night. I will quote another passage from his report:

We are concerned that Parks Canada's ability to preserve ecological integrity in national parks and ensure sustainable park use will be seriously challenged.

This was the auditor general's conclusion.

There is another reason, which Quebecers and Canadians should know about, with regard to why we in the opposition are opposed to this bill, and that is that there was no consultation. The minister said they sent 3,000 consultation documents to groups in Canada. That is quite something. I was really happy when I heard that.

Sixty-two people replied. Most of them did not comment on the bill; they gave their address so that they could be reached in future. That being the case, on what grounds can the Canadian government say that there was consultation? They will have to try again. Is this consultation?

Nowadays, there is great interest in the environment and ecology. I think that, right now, there are several groups in society interested in really being consulted on issues that will affect future generations. But if this is the kind of consultation they do, I can only say that it falls far short.

When young children fail in school, what do they do? They open up their notebooks again, they open up their textbooks and they start studying again. The Government of Canada should have said, "You are right, we failed. We are going to do our homework over again. We are going to look into why our consultations did not provide us with the results we were looking for. The answer we put down was incomplete for such an important question". But the government did not do this. They continued. They moved forward and said that they consulted.

What is important to say about this bill is that it has nothing to do with partnerships, nothing at all; it does not involve governments; it does not consult with the population as a whole.

Back home, people use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. People go to see it. This opportunity to create a park came from the grassroots.

I would like everyone to come and see it. We are talking about extraordinary spaces. It is a wondrous area. It is like being in another world. There are valleys and mountains that connect with the St. Lawrence; it is incredibly beautiful. We have no reason to envy other countries given what we have.

This came from the needs of the grassroots. People got together and called on governments and the governments sat down with them, which led to a phenomenal success.

Why not do the same thing with this bill? If the government wanted to draft another bill, why did it not use this model? This was a success. I am sure that for the 28 marine conservation areas that the government wants to create, there would surely be 28 local groups that would have sat down with them to keep their identity. That is important. We managed to maintain the identity of our beautiful little piece of country in Quebec. That is what we managed to do. But this bill works against any real consultation.

Today, November 19, is my colleague's birthday, the member for Châteauguay I wanted to take this opportunity to wish him happy birthday.

Today, we realize that what this government is doing is inappropriate. Sometimes, I ask myself if it is there to fulfill its election promises, to bring about progress in society or simply to reintroduce old bills and to ease its conscience.

It is not true that we should ease our conscience on environmental issues, particularly it they concern marine conservation areas. I do not go into the forest, I am not a fanatic, but I have an only daughter, and it is important to her. Madam Speaker, I am sure it is important for your children to preserve our natural sites, to develop them in their natural environment that evolved during many generations.

That is not what this bill is doing. I have seen and heard so many things. My colleague, the member for Québec, told me what happened in committee. What did the people who appeared before the committee say? That it is impossible that three departments can say that they have the same job to do.

Heritage Canada wants to look after marine areas. Environment Canada is also in charge of ecosystems, and DFO is involved in this as well. The fishing industry is now in a state of great turmoil in Canada. DFO and HRDC have a project that creates an uproar over the nationalization issue, a project that is ill adapted to the real needs of the industry.

With all this going on in the fishing industry, they would like to do the same for conservation areas. The government will have to do its homework, as the Canadian Alliance member is asking in his amendment, which provides that the government should withdraw this bill, and send it to committee so that it can do its homework. I do not agree with this amendment because I support their position, but because the government should do its homework.

Ministers keep talking about September 11. Every time they are asked a question in the House, they talk about September 11 and say that everything has changed since then. It is true everything has changed. So maybe this bill should be approached differently, in a different light.

Let us have discussions to come to an agreement so that all members end up saying more or less the same thing. The Canadian Alliance is defending a certain position. The Bloc Quebecois cares about the environment and wants to protect the exclusive provincial jurisdiction over submerged lands. The New Democratic Party agrees with our views to a large extent. That is our position.

So, how is it that all of a sudden the truth is in the hands of the Liberal members? I do not think anyone knows the truth after what we experienced on September 11. No one knows the truth anymore. I think we have work to do in the communal sense, for the people and we must make it known to this government, not because we do not want marine areas.

It is not that I do not agree, because we succeeded in Quebec, in partnership with the federal government. The agreement is there. I will get you a copy, Madam Speaker, because it is important. You are a member of the Liberal government. I am sure you wonder about this bill. I think many of your colleagues do so as well. I think we should base ourselves on texts people spent years drafting to ensure we reach a positive conclusion.

I never dismiss out of hand an initiative from the community. That community had an idea and, over the years, was able to get the attention of both levels of government. The governments said “Your idea makes sense. We must sit down together to put that plan into action”. That is what they did, and I congratulate them for having succeeded in doing that.

But why then is the government doing the opposite with this bill? I think we have not seen the last of this government's tricks. One day it says yes, the next day it says no. It is too important. There is a lot of money involved in environmental issues.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is totally against this bill and is asking the government to go back to square one. It has plenty of time to do so; this is not an urgent matter. It will have to resume consultations. It will have to speak to stakeholders and to come to an agreement with the provinces. It has a lot of work to do.

At this time, it is impossible to make any progress. There is simply too much division. I think we should be able to talk and to agree. If the government does what it can to achieve that, I will be the first one to congratulate it.

But congratulations are certainly not in order today. On the contrary, I am accusing the government of being a source of confrontation, of interfering and of not doing what should be done to protect our environment.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-38. Before I begin though, I would like to congratulate the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel for the excellent work that he has done on this bill.

I listened intently to his speech this morning, and I must say that it contained all of the elements the government needs to ensure that this bill really helps the airline industry in Canada and particularly in the regions.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This issue of restructuring the industry in Canada has been discussed at great length for over two years now.

In fact, in the summer of 1999, the sale of Canadian Airlines led to a power struggle between Air Canada and Onex for the purchase of this company, which was in dire financial straights. After giving his implicit support to Onex, the transport minister had to backtrack when the takeover bid was ruled illegal by the Superior Court of Quebec.

At that time, the basis for the ruling was the percentage limit of capital shares in Air Canada that could be held by a Canadian investor. Just one year ago, the Minister of Transport raised the limit from 10% to 15%. Under the current bill, the government would remove the ceiling for this figure.

It must be said that this proposal would not be without consequences. In fact, removing the 15% ceiling would pave the way for the private sector to invest even more heavily in air transportation and the industry would find itself in the hands of financial sharks with no sense of the importance of offering quality.

In my opinion, the current quality of air service offered to the regions of this country, but more specifically to Quebec, should serve as an alarm bell for the federal government. Remember now that Baie-Comeau no longer has direct air service to Quebec City. Business people who want to travel on Air Canada's regional carrier must first go to Montreal, before boarding a flight to Quebec City. How crazy is that? It is completely unacceptable.

Given the situation, business people on the north shore would do better to walk to Quebec City. It would probably be faster than taking the plane.

Such a situation also exists in Gaspé and in the lower St. Lawrence area. Regional air services have disappeared. This is a paradox in the 21st century. It seems to me that this should be an era of modernity and of easy travel. But no, people in the regions are 50 years behind the times now. If they want to travel out of their region in future, they will have to take the bus. As Michel Vastel put it a few weeks ago in an editorial in which he was taking a few pot shots at this government, “Welcome to the 21st century!”

My comments on Bill C-38 are therefore understandable. By removing the 15% limit, we could be making the present situation even worse. The only way to try to improve this potentially disastrous situation is to strongly urge the federal government to impose some very strict conditions.

The Bloc Quebecois, through the hon. member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel may therefore approve of removing the ceiling, but only if amendments are made and very strict conditions set.

This is a difficult challenge, but we are offering Liberals the chance to correct past mistakes. They can no longer be counted on the fingers of just one hand. I need only mention the dreadful quality of French in this country's airline industry. Moreover, there seem to have been a good many reprimands to the government about this by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam and her predecessors.

This is just one more source of government tax revenue.

I would also like to mention the federal government's unfair treatment in terms of financial assistance for the smaller airlines that operate in the regions.

This morning, my colleague mentioned to me that it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who spoke on behalf of the government. He said that he was pleased that Air Canada was in the process of getting its business in order, cutting short haul flights within the regions.

I come from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the same region as my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I think that we have a right to the same service we had in the past. When Air Canada received permission to purchase Canadian Airlines in 1999, it assured us that it would increase the number of flights in the regions. Air Canada did the opposite.

In our region, we pay $800 to $850 for a return flight, Bagotville-Ottawa. I could go to Europe or Florida, return, and both would cost less. We have a right to the service promised by this company in 1999. Today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport says that they are in the process of putting their house in order; they are in the process of cutting flights in the regions.

The Saguenay—Lac St. Jean region does not deserve this sort of treatment from the government. I remind the House that, a few weeks ago, the Minister of Transport decided to help out the five major carriers: Air Canada, Air Transat, Sky Service, WestJet and Canada 3000, by giving them interest-free loans.

But such a policy is extraordinarily unfair. By giving financial assistance to these major carriers, the Minister of Transport has put the last nail into the coffin of small carriers. Let us not forget that the major carriers will be able to use this money to engage in unfair competition with small regional carriers, such as Air Alma, in my region of Saguenay—Lac St. Jean.

I read an article this morning in Le Soleil , in which the Minister of Transport said that the competition commissioner must be given more power. When he appeared on CTV yesterday, he talked about giving more power to the competition commissioner. But there is no need to do that because there will be no more competition, no more regional carriers.

I think that telling the people in the regions not to worry, that the government is going to give the competition commissioner more power, is just another way of misleading them.

This is an extremely important issue because jobs are at stake. Workers deserve to get back their fair share of what they are paying in, of what they are entitled to, from the government. This is completely ridiculous.

Last week, I asked the Minister of Transport a question. Since Canada 3000 had gone bankrupt, he had promised it a loan guarantee. I asked whether he could give the remaining $45 million to the regional carriers so that they could get back on their feet too.

But he did not even answer. So it is clear that this bill will not solve anything. It will make matters worse. It will not make Air Canada a better administrator. It will simply prevent the regions from obtaining the services to which they are entitled.

I think that the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill, but I hope that the government will include in it the extremely important conditions we put forward.

[Air Transportation, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with Canada 3000's activities ceasing, the minister will have some manoeuvring room.

Once he has helped Royal, does the minister intend to put the remaining $45 million at the disposal of regional carriers giving them help as well in the form of a loan guarantee?

[Air Transportation, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after announcing it was claiming protection under the Bankruptcy Act, Canada 3000 indicated that it would no longer be operating.

The former owner of Royal Air has offered to buy the company back so long as it gets a loan guarantee of $30 million.

Now that Canada 3000 has stopped operating, does the Minister of Transport intend to take part of the $75 million loan guarantee intended for Canada 3000 and give it to Royal?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Oh yes, after Lévis. I am not so sure, but anyway.

So, these people took charge and called the attention of the two levels of government to their priorities. Together, they came to an agreement.

As we know the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park covers a very large area of several square kilometres. These people set up a co-ordination committee. They said “Since these jurisdictions could be shared between the two levels of government, we will call to task each government regarding their respective responsibilities”.

On April 1, 1990, after all these negotiations, the governments of Canada and Quebec signed the agreement establishing the 29th marine park.

Bill C-10 is about creating 28 marine conservation areas. But both groups of amendments before us tell the provinces “We are going to make the decisions. We are going to set a framework in place”. We are fed up with frameworks. I think we have quite enough of them in Canada.

I do not think any government member has read this agreement, or maybe a few did. I would have liked them to read it and then say “We are going to start from this, and, wherever we want to create a marine conservation area in Canada, we will use identical legislation and we will build on this instead of reinventing the wheel”.

With this bill, we are reinventing the wheel. I think there are more important issues we should be debating. On November 6, 2001, instead of discussing existing legal entities, we should start from there, and respect provincial jurisdictions.

That framework legislation was respectful of entities recognized in the Canadian constitution. It recognized the fact that the sea floor is under provincial jurisdiction. In that context, the Canadian government and the Quebec government could take action in their respective jurisdictions without interfering with one another.

Quebec contributed $11 million plus another $5 million, while Canada put up $9 million. In Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean, phase two has begun. It is working and we are moving forward.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Quebec for her speech. I applaud her. She pursues this issue with a lot of determination. We cannot allow this government to interfere again in provincial jurisdictions, whether in Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, the western provinces or British Columbia. Enough is enough. I think that it is time we talked about consultation. With this bill, the Canadian government is not talking about consultation.

They want a new structure. We would need money for all that. The profile of a marine park is very important. It defines the beauty of the area within the park. We should also take into account the priorities of the local population. This is not what this bill is doing; it is creating a top down structure.

The government does not know which bill to present. It does not have a legislative agenda. It brings old things back instead of taking what is on the table and starting from there.

Through our critic, the member for Québec, the Bloc Quebecois will once again be saying that we do not agree. We said that we did not agree with Bill C-48. And we will be saying that we do not agree with Bill C-10.

The Liberal member said that feasibility studies were going to be done. These have been done. We have a basic document. Why not build from there?

Submerged lands belong to the provinces. The framework agreement for the 25th marine park recognized this. Why must we keep fighting to have this government respect the constitution? They said submerged lands belonged to the provinces, they put it in writing and they signed. Why, this morning, must we debate a done deal?

The government thinks that the opposition parties do not realize we have already been down this path. Perhaps the Liberals have nothing to say so they are keeping us awake? All they want to do is interfere in provincial jurisdiction. What is going on here in the House right now is serious. Bill C-10 should never have seen the light of day. It should have stayed where it was.

During the 36th parliament, when this bill died on the order paper, I thought that the government would do some thinking, that officials would read the agreement already signed, that they would have done their homework. I see that the government is a real tower of Babel. No one knows what they are supposed to do. Everyone wants to grab a little bit of power which is not theirs by law.

Enough. I think that this bill should die on the order paper. The Bloc Quebecois will not give its approval to a bill which, once again, creates overlapping jurisdictions. This bill will allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to create another structure and interfere in the work of other departments. The Department of the Environment and fisheries and oceans will be involved. Several departments are parties to these marine park agreements. The minister is giving herself the power to tell them what to do.

Imagine the confusion this bill will create within the Canadian government. We must see that public money goes elsewhere than into bills that are obsolete and unnecessary.

As the hon. member for Québec said, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. And I hope that the majority of members in the House will do the same.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10 this morning.

I would have thought that the Liberal government, which sponsored Bill C-48 when I was the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment, a bill similar to the legislation now before us, would have listened to opposition parties and heard what we said during the previous parliament.

Bill C-10 will result in duplication, and the federal government will take over jurisdictions that do not belong to it under the Constitution Act of 1867. This is a mixed bag of things other than what is targeted. The federal government is interfering through the involvement of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in areas that come under fisheries and oceans, and it creates new structures that are not needed.

In 1988, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed mirror legislation. I have a copy of the agreement creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. That legislation was developed by the community.

At some point, people decided to do something about their environment. They got together and contacted the two levels of government. They told them “We want to work together to do something for our region”. In my opinion, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the St. Lawrence are the most beautiful regions of the country—

[Employment Insurance, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals have reneged on one of their many election promises. This time, however, the cost will be borne by the unemployed.

After grand promises that they would change the employment insurance plan, the Liberals quickly forgot what they had promised.

Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development responded to the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which advocated greater flexibility for the self-employed and for older and seasonal workers. The minister has not acted on a single one of the 17 recommendations.

With surpluses of nearly $40 billion in the employment insurance fund, the Liberals could have acted on all of the committee's recommendations. It is easy to manage a program when you do not spend the money on what it was collected for.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development are happy to steal from the country's unemployed and turn a cold shoulder to their problems.

More dead end election promises.

[Question No. 18, October 29th, 2001]

For the fiscal years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, can the government provide a detailed list of all funds paid by departments and Crown corporations to the 75 ridings in Quebec and the 17 administrative regions in Quebec, indicating separately the amounts paid out by the federal government in employment insurance and old age pensions to the 75 ridings in Quebec and the 17 administrative regions in Quebec?

(Return tabled)

[Pay Equity, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at last the federal court is going to hear the case of 6,000 public servants, mainly from the Office of the Auditor General, CSIS and the Health Research Institute, in connection with pay equity.

Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board's reply suggested that she would be supporting the employers. Can she clarify her stand for us? Does she mean she will provide them with financial support for the legal proceedings or for pay equity?