Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Plutonium Imports November 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous opposition to the plan to import plutonium.
In fact, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs rejected it in December 1998, and public opposition is growing. Yet the government is determined to carry out MOX trials at Chalk River as early as next month.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can the minister initiate a debate on the route the plutonium will take, when the House has not yet voted on the appropriateness of importing it?
The Late Roderick Webb November 2nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my condolences and those of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to the family and friends of Roderick Webb, who died last month at the age of 89. Our thoughts go especially to his wife Roxie and his son Fred.
Mr. Webb was elected on four occasions and sat as the member for the Ontario riding of Hastings—Frontenac and a member of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party between 1959 and 1968.
Before his election, Roderick Webb headed his own company, Rod Webb Electric, for 15 years in Norwood. Throughout his life, Mr. Webb was involved in his community of Norwood and contributed to its economic and social development. Among other things, he sat on the Norwood town council for 13 years. His friends have described him as a natural leader, whose political and community involvement inspired others.
With the approach of Remembrance Day, I would mention that, in the second world war, Mr. Webb served his country in the Canadian air force, as a master mechanic, from 1940 to 1945. I commend his memory to his comrades in arms, who served with him to defend the democratic values we all hold dear.
They, like Roderick Webb, keep our democracy alive. Mr. Webb was never one to seek honour and glory, preferring to be involved in a thousand different ways within his community, working for change and improving society.
He left the business world to devote himself to public life, serving his constituents of Hastings Frontenac to the best of his abilities. To my knowledge, he was never a minister, nor did he aspire to high places in government. Like most MPs of the past, the present and the future, his work was often done on the sidelines, out of the public eye.
He sat for long hours on parliamentary committees, hearing the input from members of the public as well as experts in order to draft policies that would be profitable to all. He took part in parliamentary debates, some more interesting than others, but all equally necessary to ensure a diversity of opinions.
What he did most was to travel the length and breadth of his riding, meeting its people. He spoke to them on the phone, answered their mail, advocated for them before government in order to solve their problems and help in their projects.
A society is not reflected only in its VIPs, in its stars. It is also built daily by the actions of dedicated people of conviction like Roderick Webb, and that is why we are paying him tribute here today.
His accomplishments are known to us. May he rest in peace.
Nuclear Energy October 29th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, within the Liberal government, there is an apostle of things nuclear who would like to see more nuclear power plants and waste.
However, this is an unexpected apostle. It is not the Minister of Industry, nor the Minister of Natural Resources, as one might expect. It is, instead, the Minister of the Environment, the very person who should be concerned about sources of clean energy and sustainable development.
At a meeting of environment ministers at the beginning of the month, the Canadian minister presented nuclear energy as a reasonable solution to the problem of greenhouse gases. He even advocated the export of Canadian technology to the rest of the world.
At the moment, there are over 23 million kilograms of uranium waste no one knows what to do with. In order to fulfil his mandate as the Minister of the Environment, the apostle should start worrying about the management of this waste, rather than promoting nuclear energy.
Supply October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member has understood that I was defending the position of the isolated regions. As hon. members may be aware, in distant regions such as mine we would be penalized if there were only one carrier. Healthy competition is important to my region. At present, even with two companies competing, we have to pay very dearly for our air travel.
Just getting to Montreal costs an extraordinary amount. A person can get from Bagotville to Florida cheaper than to Montreal. I believe that we would be penalized if there were only one company. I was referring to this very specific aspect. This does not mean I am not behind the Bloc Quebecois motion, but I am simply giving the point of view of a distant region. That is why it is important to have a debate, but there has not been one because the government was opposed to any true debate on this issue.
There is no debate at this time, and there are even government members who oppose this proposal by their own government who are not here to speak on this issue; they are not speaking out. On the other hand, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are allowed to say what we think and to speak on behalf of our respective constituents.
Supply October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, today, the Bloc Quebecois is using one of its opposition days to speak of this. Why? Because the Bloc Quebecois is concerned first and foremost about public interest and the interests of Quebec in this matter, unlike the federal government, which appears concerned only about the electoral interests of its friends.
Any restructuring, including a possible merger, should comply with current legislation. Recourse to section 47 and to various other considerations poses a great threat to the continuation of healthy competition in this industry.
The Bloc Quebecois considers that competition is vital, because air transportation is an essential public service, especially in remote areas. There is no guarantee that control of air transportation in Canada will not fall into foreign hands. Finally, the Bloc Quebecois feels that American Airlines has a real veto on any proposal to restructure the airline industry in Canada, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Transport Act.
We also oppose it because there are thousands of strategic jobs, including many in Quebec, that are at risk in this matter. The Bloc Quebecois refuses to consider the loss of thousands of jobs a matter of fate and proposes that other scenarios be considered. The role of a responsible government is to take all these elements into account in order to serve the general interest.
The offer to purchase contravenes the Air Canada Act, which prohibits a single shareholder or a group of shareholders from owning more than 10% of the voting shares of the company. If the Onex/American Airlines group is making such an offer it means that either they are ignoring Canadian legislation or their friends in the government have allowed them to change the law to their satisfaction.
My interest in the air transportation issue arises from my awareness as the member for Jonquière of the importance of these changes for remote communities. While the merger of international routes could give us a sound national carrier, the merger of regional subsidiaries might eliminate competition in local markets, with the consequences this can have on prices and the quality of service.
The airline industry has a responsibility to serve communities across Canada. This merger would include regional subsidiaries, and the new entity would control 84% of the domestic market. Would this be good for remote areas and how would competition be affected? Even the strongest advocates of capitalism will say that a monopoly will almost certainly lead to higher prices, deficient services and a slow degeneration of the industry.
I would not want my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean to lose out on this merger.
Yet it is these same company owners who want to change the rules who are asking the government to suspend the application of the Competition Act and who want to change the rules regarding ownership.
In closing, I support my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, and I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois has asked the federal government on several occasions to pass legislation on political party financing similar to that which exists in Quebec. Until such a law is enacted, the federal government will continue to protect the interests of those who contribute to the election fund to the detriment of the general public, as seems to be the case in the area of air transport.
Supply October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in the Bloc Quebecois opposition day devoted to the airline industry.
The reason my party has had to devote one of these opposition days to this topic is that the government has refused to hold its own debate. In the case before us, the government seems to want to keep its actions hidden, withholding information from parliamentarians and not allowing all stakeholders in the airline industry to be heard.
On August 13, the federal government announced its decision to suspend section 47 of the Canada Transportation Act, a section having to do with the Competition Act, supposedly to make it easier to restructure the airline industry. At the time, the Minister of Transport said he wanted to allow the two Canadian companies to reach a mutually advantageous agreement. But a few days later, on August 24, 1999, Onex, in partnership with American Airlines, made a public offer to buy Air Canada and Canadian International and merge them. This is the real reason that the Liberal government decided to suspend the competition rules.
In addition, the government turned down a request from the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties to hold an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport in order to study the matter. The Liberal government also prorogued the session, delaying the resumption of parliament and thus sparing the government from having to answer questions on this subject that it would find very embarrassing.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is today taking—
Plutonium Imports October 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, last Monday, there was a leak of radioactive material at Dorval airport when a barrel containing uranium was dropped. Last May, employees were contaminated while working on a plutonium extraction site closed since 1957. Several times in recent years, the safety of Ontario's nuclear facilities has been called into question.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can the minister support the Prime Minister's proposal to import plutonium in order to burn it in an Ontario facility, when the Canadian nuclear industry is already experiencing serious safety problems?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6, an act aimed at promoting electronic commerce at the expense of privacy.
Since the beginning of the week, I have noticed that the Liberal government opposite, with Bill C-6 and Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons, has been speaking from both sides of its mouth. The government tells Quebec and the rest of Canada: “We are going to talk with the provinces, we will come to an agreement before introducing new bills.”
I am really disillusioned with this government's double talk. I believe Quebecers and Canadians must realize that this government ignores everything that moves both in Quebec and the rest of Canada. This is the general image we have had of this government for the two years we have been sitting in the Parliament of Canada.
Do not tell me it is because I am a sovereignist, an independentist or a separatist that I talk this way. I am defending the interests of a francophone riding in Quebec, the riding of Jonquière. When I travel through my riding, my constituents tell me this about the current government: “What is wrong with them, why do they want to re-invent the wheel, redo what has already been done, and why do they not take the best in other laws to improve the justice system and health care system in Canada?” No, what they want is to re-invent the wheel.
Too much is too much, or not enough is not enough, but I think the government has time to waste, because it has no vision for the next millennium that is fast approaching. I think the government doe not know hoe to go forward. It wants to relive the past, to return to the time where it was not in power, to give itself good conscience. We have a concrete example of that with this Bill C-6.
I would have liked to ask the Minister of Industry if he is familiar with the Quebec privacy act that was passed in 1994. I would have liked to know if he is aware of the Quebec legislation on the protection of personal information in the private sector, which is unique in North America. Quebec is the only state in North America that has a legislation to protect personal information in the private sector.
I hope the minister noticed that we have a legislation in Quebec. Of course, nothing is perfect, and I think we can rewrite a legislation to improve it, because time goes by and society is evolving. He could have looked at this legislation and say: “Quebec did this, why not do the same for the other provinces of Canada, and also cover other areas that the Quebec legislation does not cover?”
What did the Minister of Industry do? He told us he had consulted with the provinces. I could give you some evidence that the Minister of Industry did not consult with the provinces, because on September 21, 1998, the federal minister sent a legislation proposal to his provincial counterparts. He asked for their comments. On October 1, 1998, he said: “I do not need the views of my counterparts, I will act unilaterally, I will table a bill in the House”.
On October 30, the 12 provincial and territorial justice ministers unanimously called—I am not sure if the word “unanimously” has the same meaning in English as in French, but this word means that everyone was in agreement—on the federal Minister of Industry to withdraw Bill C-54, because it was “a major intrusion into provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction”. This can be found in a press release that followed that federal-provincial-territorial meeting of the justice ministers, held on October 30, 1998, in Regina, Saskatchewan.
These are the facts. The government brags about consulting the provinces. Is this the meaning they give to the word “consultation”? I am curious as to what dictionary they might be using. To consult people is to sit down with them, to submit your projects and to ask them for their opinion. That is what consulting is all about.
If you hear about some legislation somewhere that is protecting privacy and working just fine, you sit down, negotiate and take the best of this legislation to try and make a society, a country like Canada a leader in that field to ensure the best protection for its citizens.
This morning, my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue made an eloquent speech in which he gave a clear explanation of privacy. Personally, I would not like for someone, anyone, to scrutinize my every move and say: “Maybe she should have done this instead of that. We should investigate the matter.”
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you would like that, but I certainly would not. I rise up against this tactic that the government of Canada wants to use against me and my fellow citizens who live in my riding of Jonquière and in Quebec. Enough is enough!
Did the Minister of Industry understand? The Minister of Industry created a whole constitutional litigation that could have been avoided had he agreed to work in co-operation with its counterparts.
If Bill C-6 is implemented in Quebec, the rights of Quebecers regarding personal information protection will suffer significant setbacks regarding consent and remedies.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says she is a legal expert. There are several legal experts in my family. We see more and more shortfalls in the legislation passed in the House of Commons. I think there are many shortfalls in Bill C-6. We must not let these legal experts implement legislation as they like. In all conscience, we must ensure that these bills help our fellow citizens, not the legal experts.
There is also a setback regarding the collection of information from a third party. Moreover, the Bill will be confusing for companies and individuals in Quebec.
The implementation of Bill C-6 in Quebec will require the setting up of two systems for the protection of personal information and it will be confusing for companies and individuals.
Today is October 22. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fact that the Bill he introduced in this House is a source of confusion.
When there is confusion there is a need for interpretation. I call upon the minister of Industry to exclude Quebec from his bill.
We, in Quebec—and I believe that some people in the House will laugh—are pioneers in privacy protection. The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms allowed our legislators to be at the forefront of privacy protection.
Far from me the idea of pretending that we are perfect, but I can say that we have always been listening to our fellow citizens to be able to take care of their wellbeing and to answer their needs through our charter of rights and freedoms. We are constantly listening to people to improve our legislation.
Bill C-6 does not improve on Quebec legislation, it will diminish it. We have a civil code in Quebec. Contrary to Ontario and the other provinces of Canada, we are not in a system of Common Law. We reviewed our civil code three years ago because we thought that it needed to be improved and adapted for the next century. We did it and the privacy protection act we passed is based on our civil code. If the minister does not know that code, I would recommend him to read it because it is a little gem as far as the protection of civil rights of Quebecers is concerned.
I will not repeat everything that was said by my colleagues, the member for Témiscamingue and the member for Mercier, but through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Industry—it is never too late to recognize one's mistake—to change his mind before it is too late.
I urge the Minister of Industry to wait, to meet both Quebec ministers as they requested and allow them to explain their position. This would make sure that the Liberal government in Canada is listening to the people and does not pass laws that duplicate or undo what has been done in the provinces. I am waiting for an answer from the Minister of Industry and I am putting a lot of energy into this to make sure that my request gets to him through you, Mr. Speaker.
Genetically Altered Foods October 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain that Canada is refusing to include in the biosafety protocol a clause making companies responsible for damage caused to the environment by their genetically altered products?
Genetically Altered Foods October 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in order to protect biodiversity, an international protocol on biosafety that would regulate the export and import of genetically altered organisms is now being negotiated.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is Canada one of the small group of six nations blocking the accord and putting trade ahead of the protection of health and the environment?