Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his question. I believe he has not looked at the history of what has been going on in Cape Breton for the past 25 years. He is not familiar with history, a history that was made by this government, by the Liberal government of the day. This government is responsible for the situation we are in today. Had it left the local communities and the province to do what they wanted, had it not played sugar-daddy in order to build up its empire and get back its visibility, things would not have ended up like this.

In the past 25 years, the government has invested $1.5 billion, or $1 million for every one job. Instead of handing it back to the people, it invested again in order to extend the life of something that was doomed to failure.

I have quoted federal government studies which have stated for years that our thoughts about coal have to be changed. It has continued telling people “Things are fine. Stay as you are, the future is no problem.”

This government had no social conscience. Today, once the harm has been done, the hon. member over there tells us “We are going to pull out. We are going to leave the local communities to become self-governing”. They turn everything topsy-turvey and then they withdraw. They cannot ignore the fact that they are the ones in the wrong, and they are the ones who have to right that wrong.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in the debate on second reading of Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The reason we are having to debate this bill is that, on January 28, 1999, the federal Minister of Natural Resources announced the closure of the Phalen Mine and the privatization of the Price Mine, both of these being coal mines located in Cape Breton and operated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

Bill C-11 means the withdrawal of the federal government from coal mining in that region.

As a result of this decision, once the closure and privatization have taken place, some 1,000 people will be without work in a region where the unemployment rate is already close to 25%.

I believe we should take advantage of the debate on this bill to properly examine how this could happen. Our role as parliamentarians requires us to question the economic development choices made by the federal government in the past, so as not to keep on repeating the same planning errors.

Today we have an example of this in the coal mining sector. In recent years, the fishers have also had to pay a high price for the federal government's lack of planning and poor resource management.

We must also ask ourselves how the government needs to act in future to ensure regional development, and we must wonder, in light of its numerous failures, whether it ought not to leave this to the provincial governments, which are often in a better position to know what a population to which they are closer needs.

In closing, I shall focus on the importance of planning replacement industries when the decline of others is predictable, and particularly on the replacement of polluting energy sources such as coal by renewable and cleaner energy sources.

But I would like first to return to the situation of the workers, who, after years of work in the harsh conditions of the mining industry, find themselves without work and with few prospects for the future.

That moves me, because last year, with some of my colleagues, I met the representatives of these workers, who were very concerned about their fate. They had come to Ottawa to tell parliament and the government that they should do something to save their community. To my way of thinking, they are the victims of the lack of vision of the federal government, whose economic strategy for this region hinged solely on the mining industry.

Since 1967, the federal government has injected over $1.5 billion in coal mining by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. However, by the end of the 1960s, a commission on the future of the industry on Cape Breton Island indicated that coal production should be phased out and the local economy diversified. Unfortunately, the Liberals of the day, like the Liberals of today, lacked political courage. Instead of planning a change in the economy in co-operation with the provincial government, the federal government preferred to keep its little empire, which assured it maximum visibility.

And so the federal government continued over the years to encourage hundreds of young workers to go into the mines like their father. It said to them “Trust the federal government, you young men, you will have jobs for the rest of your days. Keep on mining”. We can see what happened. Today, the government is putting the key in the door and proposing an early retirement program that, however, excludes some 230 miners with over 25 years' seniority. These events are serious, very serious.

In my opinion, the federal government has a moral responsibility to these workers and to the some 6,000 people living off coal mining, since it is in large measure responsible for this situation. I encourage my colleagues who will be examining this bill in committee to remember this responsibility when they address the issue of pensions and acquired rights.

This situation totally upsets me, since I have seen the federal government behave this same way in many other sectors of the economy, dropping them overnight, with no transition, with no alternative, when its visibility was threatened.

One only has to think about the program for older worker adjustment. That program was designed to help workers who were often the victims of the federal government's mismanagement and of plant closures. That program helped workers, in spite of being underfunded and in spite of criteria which were sometimes inflexible and which did not take specific circumstances into account. But at least there was a program.

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case since 1997. The then Minister of Human Resources Development stubbornly refused to maintain the program. And the new Minister of Human Resources Development did not have anything concrete to propose to these workers, even though a unanimous report from the human resources development subcommittee recommended that measures be taken for workers, including the 230 miners. But the government has nothing for these people. This is how caring this government is.

The government abandons these workers, but it has no qualms about using employment insurance surpluses, about using money that belongs to workers and to which they are entitled. These workers are even more frustrated when they see that the Department of Human Resources Development uses their money for political purposes and distributes it so freely that it is unable to know who got money and for what purpose.

In order to avoid other human dramas such as the closing of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, this government must absolutely have greater long term vision. If mines in Cape Breton had to close, other coal mines elsewhere in Canada could suffer the same fate.

Alberta produces 50% of Canada's coal and British Columbia produces 35%. And even if western coal is of better quality than eastern coal, the fact remains that power plants, which are the main users of coal, are gradually replacing it with natural gas.

Moreover, the price of coal on the international markets has declined sharply over the past 20 years. Between 1981 and 1994, prices of the two leading types of coal dropped by 40% to 50%. And this trend is expected to continue because this is a source of energy that leaves a high level of very polluting residue in the air.

Even the report released last September by the federal government appointed task force said that coal use was coming to an end. It felt that Canada should rapidly cut back on its use of coal to produce electricity if it was to meet its commitments to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions.

The report also concluded that, in order to produce more electricity while reducing pollution, coal would have to be replaced by energy sources that produce less atmospheric pollution, such as hydroelectricity and natural gas. An analysis suggests that Canada should reduce its production of coal-generated energy by 38% over the next decade.

I point out in passing that while Canada, by signing the Kyoto protocol, undertook to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 6% annually to 1990 levels by the year 2012, Canadian emissions increased by 13% between 1990 and 1997 and that, without a radical change in government policies, greenhouse gases could increase by as much as 41% by 2020.

In light of the predictable decline in fossil fuels and given its international greenhouse gas reduction commitments, it is high time the federal government invested substantially in the development of alternative forms of energy. The government must have a long term plan to favour the use of energy that is less harmful to our health and our environment, such as hydroelectricity, wind energy and solar energy.

If the government had acted 25 years ago, we would not see what is happening now in Cape Breton. We would not be faced with the fact that 1,000 workers will lose their jobs and that an entire community is threatened because of decisions that were not taken 25 years ago.

I will take this opportunity to mention that the federal task force report I referred to earlier asked the federal government to harmonize its environmental assessment process with the provinces' processes, so that it will no hinder the development of new sources of energy, particularly hydroelectricity, which could help Canada meet the targets set out in the Kyoto protocol.

Therefore, I encourage the federal government to start planning now, in co-operation with provincial governments, the transitional measures that will be required to reorient the economy of areas that are in decline such as Cape Breton, particularly in the energy sector.

The federal government can no longer afford to close down entire industries or regions by walking away from its responsibilities to workers and communities.

[Bill C-20, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is the principle underlying civilized human relations in society. Contrary to an all too common notion, it is fragile because it is based on a tacit agreement between parliamentarians and citizens that the most diverse points of view should be heard.

In that respect, our political system leaves a lot of room to the executive branch, which controls the legislative branch and which appoints the judges who administer justice. This is what gives particular importance to our parliamentary committees. These committees are the one forum where partisanship can and must be avoided.

Yesterday the committee examining Bill C-20 ignored this tacit agreement and gave the worst example of blind partisanship by government members.

The government decided to restrict the freedom of the committee in order to ram Bill C-20 through the House. But this is forgetting that democracy is both a means and an end—

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

That is true.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

You are a block head.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, as you can see, once again the members of this government do not even have the decency to be present to listen to their own colleagues who want to speak to Bill C-20. I ask you to check that we have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to table a document, which, I am sure, will enlighten the House.

Following the tabling of Bill C-20, I think the House is not enlightened enough.

This report deals with the territorial integrity of Quebec—

[National Highway Policy, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on Motion No. 102 put forward by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

First, I want to say that this motion should be deemed admissible only if it is agreed that Quebec would oversee the new policy being promoted in the motion.

Quebec has a comprehensive transportation policy with very specific priorities and goals. Members may remember the meeting of Canada's premiers held in Quebec City last autumn and hosted by the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard. The premiers unanimously agreed to ask the federal government to start reinvesting in a national highway strategy. They did not ask the federal government to intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction but only wanted Ottawa to do its share where the national highway system is concerned.

Some of the highways in my area of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean lead outside our region. I am referring to highway 175 as well as highway 169 in the Parc des Laurentides. I have often put questions to the Minister of Transport in this House and I have sent him letters asking him to reinvest in this national highway.

Since 1996 the Canadian government has refused to renew the strategic highway improvement program. In Quebec, half of the costs of this program were covered by the province and the other half by the federal government. Ottawa did not renew its financial contribution.

Like the former Quebec transport minister, Jacques Brassard, and the current Quebec transport minister, Guy Chevrette, I have asked the transport minister again and again to renew the program. Each time, the Minister of Transport's answer was that we needed a national agreement. There was national agreement at the last meeting of the premiers and leaders of the territories.

I do not understand why this government always ignores every region's concerns about the infrastructure necessary for regional development.

Many years ago, this government stopped subsidizing the railways. What happened? An increasing number of heavy trucks travel our highways. Heavy trucks crowd our highways. Access is more difficult and there are fewer opportunities because our system was not really designed to handle the effects of globalization, as I said, in the Parc des Laurentides.

This government withdrew its financial support for railways, airports and shipping. What happened? All major firms are now shipping their products by truck.

Highways are under provincial jurisdiction. This government withdrew from an area where it should have been working with the provinces.

I think the proposal is the obvious solution but I encourage the member to demand that the government let the provinces implement the agreement, which is part of his proposal.

We will have to stop thinking that the government has the authority to intrude in all areas under provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa needs to understand what the provinces expect from it. It collects taxes in each and every province, so it needs to contribute to highway improvement.

I must say that I will support the proposal provided the provinces are in charge of its implementation. I hope the government will listen to us. In 1998, all provincial transport ministers submitted a five-year proposal to the federal Minister of Transport. It was a comprehensive proposal whereby, over a five-year period, the federal government and the provinces would have invested $16 billion in a joint national highway building and improvement plan.

Once again, the government, through the Minister of Transport, told the provinces that they would have to talk to their finance ministers and their premiers. It is always the same old song we get from the government through the Minister of Transport.

As we move toward the new millennium, the government is bragging about the astronomical surpluses it is expecting after slashing transfers to the provinces and bleeding the middle class dry. It has refused to index the tax tables. It grabbed the EI surpluses, which actually belong to workers and employers.

I think the federal government must start acting and stop prevaricating constantly adding new conditions to the legitimate and justifiable requests of the provinces and the population of this country.

I hope this motion will serve as a wake-up call to the government, whose ears must be stopped up. I think it is normal and that the provinces ought to have full jurisdiction. Then and only then will I be able to support the motion of my hon. colleague.

I want to take the opportunity to wish all my hon. colleagues in this House and everyone listening to the debate a happy new year and a very pleasant holiday season.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before answering the question, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member and I encourage him to speak French more often in the new year to show everyone that Canada is really a bilingual country, as the Liberals like to put it.

I want to point out to the hon. member that community organizations and transfers both come under provincial jurisdiction. What have the Liberals done since 1993? They have infringed upon jurisdictions when they had no reason to do so.

Everything that has to do with health care and the municipalities also come under provincial jurisdiction. I encourage my hon. colleague to tell his government, which has way too much money, to give some back to the provinces. I am sure they will ensure that the money goes to the people.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain sadness that I am rising today to take part in the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance because there is not much good news in this report tabled just before Christmas. It does not contain many measures to alleviate human suffering and to bring some hope that next year will be better.

Once again, this report shows the contempt of the Liberal government for the views expressed by the people and by the witnesses who appeared before the finance committee or took part in the prebudget consultations held by my colleagues, the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

Instead of reporting accurately the views expressed by the people who said they wanted surpluses to be reinvested in social programs, the Liberal majority on the committee preferred to be servile and to tell the minister only what he wanted to hear, namely that he can keep his surpluses and use them as he sees fit for measures that are not essential.

The Standing Committee on Finance and the finance minister deliberately ignore the reality that exists in many regions. They prefer to hide their heads in the sand. The reality is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider every day.

I will say a few words about my region. Today, in my region, we have to serve meals to children under 12 who, otherwise, would not be able to take their classes or would get sick.

Some parents are no longer able to serve three meals a day to their children, even if they themselves do not eat their fill. That is the reality the Liberals are ignoring because they prefer to talk about growth, about the economy and so on. During that time, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, six soup kitchens are helping people to survive all year long.

Today, La soupière de l'amitié of Arvida, in my riding, is holding its eight fundraising campaign with the help of more than 200 volunteers, who collect money to help the underprivileged.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those volunteers working on the campaign, under the auspices of honorary president Monseigneur Jean-Guy Couture, and thank also the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean for their generous support of the less fortunate.

This government has abandoned the population. There is a growing number of relief agencies and food banks. This situation should not be tolerated. We should never get used to hardship. However, it seems to be a sad reality: this government has created more hardship.

During the prebudget hearings, I consulted with the people from my constituency and from Chicoutimi. Incidentally, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his document containing realistic suggestions that take into account the real concerns of ordinary people. The people told me that their priorities, with respect to how the budget surpluses the finance minister thinks are his own should be used, are different from the federal government's priorities. They do not want the Minister of Finance to loose sight of the fact that these surpluses are the result of the considerable sacrifices he has imposed through drastic cuts to social programs as well as of not indexing the tax tables and taking money out of the pockets of the middle class.

Incidentally, I thank the hon. member for Lotbinière for his help in the consultations I have held in my riding. I appreciated his co-operation. Many of my constituents have suggested priorities, some of which I would like to mention here.

Many of my constituents do not necessarily want tax reductions; they would rather have the money used to ensure that quality services continue to be provided to seniors, the sick and the young. Many senior citizens who participated in my consultations complained that the money they get from the government and the level of taxation do not take into account the expenses people who live alone are faced with, be it for maintenance or home help, which increase substantially every year.

Many told me that the surplus in the EI fund should be used to help communities through assistance and support programs for the elderly, to help existing small businesses or new ones getting started and to set up an EI fund for young people.

A number of people told me that the surplus the minister is bragging about, which came straight out of the pockets of ordinary citizens, should be used in part to set up assistance, integration and adjustment programs for people between 50 and 60 who are out of work.

I know of several 50 or 60 year old workers in my riding of Jonquière who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs following plant closures and who are left with nothing. They cannot get training, because, as you know, after spending 30 years in a plant, these older workers can hardly go back to school.

I think the government should be sensitive to the needs of these people who are hurting badly. It should restore the POWA program, or a new and improved program that better suited to their situation.

Unfortunately, the government is once again turning a deaf ear. It contends that there is nothing wrong, that nobody has to deal with this problem on a daily basis. There are things we have to do for the future. But right now, people are really stuck with this problem, and families are facing considerable hardship.

Most of the people want the government to maintain its social transfers. As you know, the federal government has been cutting transfers to the provinces for social programs since 1993. Many people were furious and spoke against EI, which brings nothing but misery. Ten years ago, EI covered 80% of the workers who lost their jobs. Nowadays, a mere 40% of the workers are eligible, although all of them pay premiums.

I would like to point out that, since 1993, the Liberal government's record with regard to the environment has been dismal. Apart from engaging in jurisdictional wars with the provinces and trying to impose national standards, the federal government has not proposed any concrete measures to reduce pollution.

Regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases, which affect the climate, pollution and health, and involve considerable economic costs, the federal government still has no clear plan and no clear timetable to meet the objectives that it set for itself under the Kyoto agreement.

Several environmental groups have adopted a more practical approach and have proposed concrete measures to the Minister of Finance to reduce pollution, such as investing in public transit systems or encouraging the transportation of goods by train, particularly by special railway cars that can carry trucks.

Finally, it is urgent that this government keep its promise to invest in new depollution technologies. There is an approach that we fully support, because it is a concrete measure that would allow industries, farmers and municipalities to reduce their levels of pollution when renewing their equipment or infrastructure.

I will close by saying that in the Jonquière area, as shown in a recent federal study, air pollution reaches very high levels. We are all waiting anxiously for the federal government to co-operate with industries, municipalities and the provincial government to make the air cleaner, which would better reflect the nature of our region.