Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[The Late Marcel Dionne, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to pay tribute to Marcel Dionne who died on March 3 at the age of 66.

A native of the Eastern Townships, Mr. Dionne quickly became a member of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean community. He represented the riding of Chicoutimi in the House of Commons from 1979 to 1984 and held the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.

I and my fellow citizens in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area remember him as a very committed individual who spared no effort in promoting our region's socio-economic development.

Many people now recognize that he was a catalyst of important achievements for our community. Those achievements included the redevelopment of the port of Chicoutimi, in collaboration with the entire regional community and then MLA Marc-André Bédard. This undertaking required that giant reservoirs be moved and the Vieux Port federal administrative complex built.

The port of Grande Anse, which is now a hub in the development of our regional economy, was one of the major projects to which the former member for Chicoutimi contributed.

He was also responsible for the development of CFB Bagotville, which required major investments for the maintenance of CF-18 fighters.

It is unfortunate I must say that he was never given credit for these major accomplishments because of the Progressive Conservative sweep in 1984, which denied him the opportunity to continue his excellent work in our region.

In addition to his very full career in politics, Mr. Dionne worked in various other fields.

Before making a political name for himself, he headed a potato production company for 13 years. He made a major contribution to modernizing agriculture in our region, enabling us to attain self-sufficiency in the production of potatoes in the early 1970s.

He was active in his community as well, serving as president of the Saguenéens de Chicoutimi of the Quebec major junior hockey league and president of the Quebec federation of potato producers. At the time of his death he was an assistant commissioner with the Canadian Grain Commission.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois I offer my sympathy to all the members of the Dionne family and my condolences to the people in the riding of Chicoutimi and our region whom he served so well.

[Quebec Economy, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased and proud to learn that Quebec now has the second highest number of ISO 9000 registrations among the ten most industrialized American states, the four most industrialized Canadian provinces, and Mexico.

This survey by the American company McGraw-Hill confirms that Quebec businesses have been resolute in meeting the challenge of quality and innovation, with the increasing originality of their goods and services and with their management methods which allow much scope for worker input.

I invite the people of Quebec to continue their quest for new ways of improving performance and developing criteria of excellence.

As the new millennium approaches, Quebec's economy is placing it in a highly competitive position on the international level.

[Sustainable Development, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week in Jonquière, the Pyrovac group announced it would be investing $40 million to develop a new technology, unique to Quebec and a world's first, recycling by pyrolysis. This new process of pyrolysing ground and dried bark will yield wood oils and charcoal, both of which are in considerable demand commercially.

This innovation holds great promise for yet another means of exploiting the resources of Quebec's forests, and fits into the strategy for sustainable development of the resources nature makes available to us.

At a time when we are particularly concerned with battling the greenhouse effect, without a doubt this procedure of converting organic material into valued added products will draw world attention, and will place Quebec in an advantageous position in the renewable energy market.

[Postal Outlets, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation.

The vicious policy of closing post offices ended with the moratorium. Rural municipalities who lost their post office, however, are gradually seeing their retail postal outlets shut down. By capping the guaranteed revenue at $4,200, Canada Post Corporation may well end up closing them all.

Will the minister responsible for Canada Post intercede with the corporation in order to prevent the closing of these postal outlets?

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion M-75, moved by the New Democrat member for Kamloops.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of giving to the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939, the status of veterans under the federal legislation and making them eligible for veterans' pensions and benefits.

Let me say from the outset that some of my colleagues are using all sorts of excuses not to support this motion, including the financial impact and the fear of setting a precedent. I remind them that, if the motion is adopted, it will not be binding.

Indeed, the motion merely asks that a committee consider the advisability of recognizing the contribution made by Canadian soldiers in the Spanish Civil War to protect democracy. The committee will be free to make whatever recommendations it deems advisable.

In a letter dated November 20, 1997 and addressed to the hon. member for Kamloops, the Minister of Veterans Affairs wrote the following, concerning the 1987 review made by the veterans affairs committee on the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion “I agree with the committee's conclusions that we should deplore the losses suffered by the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, and that we should admire the endurance and the courage displayed by the battalion”.

If the minister was sincere when he wrote these lines, he should support the motion. The Canadians who participated in the Spanish Civil War left their homeland for a far away country, where they were going to risk their lives, along with other volunteers from all over the world. These people were united by the same cause, namely the defence of democracy and the right of people to freely choose their government through an election.

These men and women were not adventurers. They left their families, their work and their country to join an under equipped army that was fighting seasoned troops fully supported by the fascist governments of Germany and Italy.

Over 40,000 volunteers from 52 countries answered the call of a democratic Spain. These volunteers were not equipped, fed or housed adequately, and almost half of them were killed, while many others were injured.

These volunteers were fighting to protect Spain's democratic institutions. The word “antifascist” was written on their pay slips. It is important to remember that the Spanish government which fascist generals were trying to overthrow was an elected, democratic and liberal government.

The international brigades fought under the command of the legitimate Spanish government's army. The Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion was part of the 15th brigade, which also included a British, an American and a Spanish battalion.

The Canadian battalion, named in honour of the two leaders of the 1837 rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, was formed on July 1, 1937 at Albacete, Spain. It was made up of some 1,200 volunteers and distinguished itself particularly in four campaigns: the attack on Fuentes on the River Ebre in the fall of 1937; the defence of the city of Teruel during the winter of 1937-38; the spring retreat of 1938; and finally, the push beyond the River Ebre in the summer of 1938, which was to be the last great offensive of the republican forces.

In September 1938, the soldiers of the international brigades were withdrawn from the front lines and repatriated. Only half the Canadian volunteers came back. The other half had been either killed, reported missing or captured, with the exception of a few who remained in Europe.

When they returned home, some of the Spanish War veterans were given a heroes' welcome. Money was raised to help them out and to provide the casualties with medical care. Within a few months, however, their sacrifice and heroism was forgotten. Canada soon declared war on the Axis and called for the nation to mobilize against the fascists.

Of the fifty or so countries whose men and women took part in the Spanish Civil War within the international brigades, only two, Canada and the United States, did not confer war veteran status on these volunteers.

Today, about forty of the Canadian international brigade volunteers are still alive, although very advanced in years. Passage of the motion by the member for Kamloops would not cost the federal government much, but it would have great symbolic importance. It would recognize the some 1,200 Canadians who volunteered to defend democracy and to prevent the birth of a fascist regime in Spain on the eve of the second world war.

The democratic and patriotic ideals that inspired their struggle and their heroic sacrifice also inspired the Canadians who, later, fought fascism during the second world war.

Walter Dent explained that a number of the former volunteers on the international brigades contributed directly during the second world war through their experience. One of them became the chief instructor of the armoured tank corps in Alberta. Another taught officers how to read and draw maps.

The principal organizer of the British Home Guard was the former commander of the English battalion in Spain. The chief instructor of the secret war, who wrote a manual that was used by the American and British armies, was Bert Levy, a former brigade member, who was an American of Canadian origin. A number of parachuters dropped behind enemy lines were Spanish war veterans.

Proof that these volunteers were first and foremost believers in democracy lies in the fact that many of them returned to the countries of eastern Europe after the war and continue to defend democracy. They were punished and persecuted by the totalitarian regimes.

In 1980, the councils of seven Canadian cities passed resolutions asking the federal government to recognize the volunteers in the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion. They are Calgary, North York, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.

In 1995, all parties in the Spanish Parliament voted in favour of making all survivors of international brigades honourary Spanish citizens. Citizenship award ceremonies were held in November 1996, and 12 of the 40 Canadian veterans of international brigades took part.

Spain provided a small commemorative plaque in memory of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, which was installed on the grounds of the Ontario legislature by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board in 1995.

The inscription on the plaque is to the effect that Spain will not forget those Canadians who fought and gave their lives on behalf of democracy. It is finally time for Canada as well to pay tribute to these heroic individuals who volunteered their services to defend democracy. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, known in brief as the Canadian Parks Agency Act and introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The aim of the bill is to turn Parks Canada, one of the three programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage, into an agency separate from the department, to be known as the Canadian Parks Agency.

At the moment, Parks Canada has 5,000 employees, more than a third of whom work seasonally. It administers 38 national parks and national park reserves, three marine conservation areas, 131 national historic sites, seven historic canals, 165 heritage train stations and 31 heritage rivers.

In addition, Parks Canada works with 661 national historic sites it does not own. It administers policy on some 1,000 heritage federal buildings and shares responsibility for eight world heritage sites with UNESCO.

The government gives three reasons for the creation of a new agency to replace Parks Canada: to simplify structures, improve administrative efficiency and establish more flexible staffing and financial procedures.

In order to achieve these objectives, the agency will have new or revised financial, administrative and human resource management powers. To this end, the agency will become a separate entity, a public corporation as defined in schedule II to the Financial Administration Act and will become subject to part II of schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

In terms of responsibilities, the agency will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who will be accountable for the agency's activities to Parliament. The Agency will report to Parliament by tabling the following five documents: an annual report on the agency's operations; a summary of the five-year corporate plan; management plans for the national parks, national historic sites and other protected areas; a report every five years on the human resources management regime; and a biennial report on the state of protected heritage areas.

In addition, the agency's financial statements will be examined by the auditor general, who will report to the government and who will also assess the agency's performance against its mandate, its objectives and its corporate plan.

The Canadian Parks Agency will remain subject to official languages, employment equity, human rights, access to information and privacy legislation.

As for financial provisions, the bill will give the agency several new financial powers, including; a two-year budget better suited to the investments made to develop parks and historic sites; the power to keep and reinvest all revenues, except fines; the creation of a standing dedicated account funded through parliamentary appropriation and the sale of excess property.

This account will be used to finance new parks and national historic sites. Finally, the agency will be able to make advances for unplanned land acquisitions when the context is favourable. It will have to repay these advances subject to current interest rates.

As for human resources management, the agency will be a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The CEO will have the authority to appoint employees and to define the conditions of employment of agency personnel, including collective bargaining, and the implementation of classification and staffing regimes.

These changes will give the agency the necessary flexibility to develop the human resources management regime best suited to its operating context. The parks and historic sites network spans the country, operates around the clock in several different time zones, four seasons a year, and employs many seasonal, temporary and part time workers.

All employees performing duties that will be transferred to the Canadian Parks Agency will receive a job offer. Their present job is guaranteed by Treasury Board for two years. The federal government claims that the establishment of a Canadian parks agency will allow it to fulfil more efficiently and at a lesser cost the mandate currently held by the Parks Canada program, under the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Let us not forget that, in the last four years, the government reduced Parks Canada's budget by $100 million. That budget is used, among other things, to develop the network of national parks and marine conservation areas, and to maintain and promote national historic sites and monuments.

The financial constraints imposed on Parks Canada led the government to consider a restructuring of the program's operations. The bill before us is the result of that exercise, and the proposed change is the creation of a Canadian parks agency.

The Bloc Quebecois has long been asking the federal government to streamline its operations wherever possible, and to fight waste, instead of cutting in social programs and education. This is why we support the principle of the bill, provided it will truly improve the effectiveness of the parks' management, without jeopardizing the mandate to preserve, protect and develop Canada's national parks and historic sites for future generations and for all Canadians and Quebeckers.

At a briefing, government officials gave us the assurance that this bill is not the first step toward the privatization of our parks. In fact, when he appeared before the Canadian heritage committee, on November 20, the Secretary of State for Parks Canada said “There's something I have said over and over again, and I will take an opportunity to say it here when we are talking about finance. It is not the intention of this government to either privatize or commercialize Parks Canada. We believe the maintenance of our special places in Canada is an important trust given to us by Canadians. That stewardship Canadians want to see exercised publicly, and we will continue to do that through our agency and through the oversight of Parliament”.

An issue of major concern to the Bloc Quebecois about this bill is to guarantee that, once in operation, the agency will ensure continued accessibility of parks to all citizens. This bill reflects an unequivocal desire on the part of the government to raise fees on park users.

Given that taxpayers already contribute to funding parks through their taxes, fees imposed on visitors should not be increased beyond a reasonable limit.

In addition, extra revenue from user fees, royalties or the sale of assets should be used to provide more services, better fulfil the parks' mission or expand activities. This increase in revenue should not be used as an excuse by the government to further cut appropriations allocated to the agency.

In the same vein, we want to ensure that the agency's fiscal targets and the federal government's stated wish to see the number of visitors increase in order to maximize economic benefits do not lead to an overuse of parks and historical sites.

We would like this bill to state that the agency must balance the need to preserve and maintain natural or historical sites against the increase in the number of visitors and the related expansion of tourist and commercial activities.

The Bloc Quebecois' concerns are shared by many. In November 1996, the auditor general presented a meaty report to Parliament on the protection of national heritage in Canada. The auditor general had examined the systems established by Parks Canada to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of national parks.

At the time, the auditor general pointed out that park management plans focus mainly on economic and social factors and little on ecological factors. He noted also that Parks Canada should upgrade its knowledge of the condition of natural resources in national parks in order to be able to select a sensible management approach, based on the ecosystems.

Following this report, Parks Canada took a number of corrective measures and, last fall, the secretary of state forwarded to us Park Canada's response to some criticisms made by the auditor general. The bill calls for measures relating to the creation and implementation of park management plans.

Much still remains to be done, however, before all the auditor general's recommendations can be implemented. The data on park conditions still needs to be updated, and the policies on ecological conditions need to be applied on an ongoing basis as well. The ecological objectives set out in the legislation must be translated into concrete actions if they are to become reality in spite of budget restrictions.

Parks Canada has drawn up some ambitious development plans aimed at completing the national parks system, expanding the network of national historic sites and creating a system of maritime conservation areas. At present, 24 of the 39 natural regions defined by Parks Canada are represented in its system, and its objective is to develop the remaining 15 by the year 2000.

The federal government claims these objectives will be attainable because of the enhanced efficiency resulting from reorganization, which will enable it to do more with less. As well, the government is committed to not decreasing the parliamentary votes allocated to the agency.

Nevertheless, we question the new agency's ability to consolidate and fully develop the existing sites, while maintaining its objectives of expansion in today's context of budgetary restraint.

What we do not want to see happen is for there to be a very vast but badly maintained system, with insufficient services and no ecological integrity. We wish to ensure that the development of the system of national parks and historic sites is durable and sustainable.

Our support at second reading of this bill must not be interpreted by the government as a blank cheque, however. We have let the government know that, when this bill is studied by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we want the committee to call as witnesses representatives of all groups of employees, including seasonal and part time workers, whose status might be changed as a result of the bill's planned changes. We want to ask them to tell us about their concerns with respect to this bill, to check what guarantees they have been given with respect to job security and working conditions, and to see whether these guarantees are contained in the bill.

In addition, we want the committee to hear from representatives of environmental protection groups, in order to find out where they stand on the bill and the creation of the agency. Among other things, we would like to know whether environmental groups feel that the reorganization proposed in the bill will allow the new agency to fulfil its ecological mandate.

We also want to ensure that the bill will provide a means of controlling contracting out, and ensuring impartiality and transparency in the tendering process for all contracts awarded by the Canadian Parks Agency. The new structure and wide-ranging authority of the agency's CEO in the management of human resources must not pave the way for arbitrary decisions and patronage appointments.

The government can count on our support in principle for Bill C-29 establishing the Canadian Parks Agency.

We will, however, be vigilant during clause-by-clause study of this bill in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in order to ensure that the bill makes it possible to deliver services more effectively, while respecting the existing mandate of Parks Canada.

[Francophonie, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the flurry of activities surrounding the sixth Semaine internationale de la francophonie, I am proud to pay tribute to the city of Jonquière, the first city in Quebec to be twinned under the title of «Ville des mots 1998» with Braine-l'Alleud of the French-speaking community in Belgium.

This honour recognizes the dynamism of the city of Jonquière in promoting francophone culture with, among other things, its Fêtes de la francité and its theme park.

I invite all Quebeckers, and more especially the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore regions, to take part in the activities marking us as members of the francophone community, where people are bound together in solidarity.

Together, let us celebrate the future of French and the francophonie.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member misunderstood me.

I have been saying since the beginning that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction. In the past few years, the government has had the nerve to cut transfer payments to the provinces for education to the tune of $3 billion to Quebec alone.

The member has the nerve to tell me “Would it not be right and proper for the national government—” Let us take care of our own, we know what our students want.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for his question.

I believe he did not understand what I just said. I want to tell him that everything regarding education has always been well managed by Quebec and the provinces. What happened to education is that transfer payments to the provinces were cut. I said it before in my remarks. With its cuts to transfer payments the federal government made a mess of education.

Let us decide what we want for our students. We want nothing but the best. We are parents and we are close to our children. We know what they want and what they deserve.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise after my Bloc Quebecois colleagues in this debate on a motion moved by my party. The motion reads:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

It is no secret that the famous millennium scholarship program announced in the recent Martin budget is a personal initiative of the Prime Minister who would like to draw the attention of historians away from other less glorious deeds of his going back to the Trudeau era.

Well, it seems that he will not make his mark in history books with this program which is being widely condemned by provincial governments.

This comes after his attempt to destabilize the sovereignist movement in Quebec with a Supreme Court referral, a political football he deflated when he said yesterday it was a thing of the past. He was being asked about the eventual designation of the Progressive Conservative Party leader as the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party.

I urge the Prime Minister to re-examine very soon his strategies, like he has done for the Supreme Court referral, and to listen more carefully to what students and their associations are saying in Quebec. They all ask him to do his homework concerning the millennium scholarships.

One of the student federations that have condemned this program is the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, whose president Nicholas Ducharme said it was no more than an exercise in visibility and a purely political operation.

He goes on to say that the federal government is duplicating existing structures. I can only agree with the federation that the federal government should have invested this money which comes from Quebec in the existing loans and scholarships system in Quebec. This is the Bloc Quebecois position.

Quebeckers have not been fooled. They know the source of the problem, of the difficult financial situation which Quebec students are in, and it is, as we all know, the massive cuts in transfer payments made by this government.

Quebec has made major investments in its young people in the area of education. It has made some efforts to maintain tuition fees and student debt loads at reasonable levels and, in that regard, we have no cause to be jealous of the situation in the other Canadian provinces.

Indeed, tuition fees are about $1,700 a year in Quebec, while they average some $3,200 in the rest of Canada. This significant difference explains why students in the other provinces are often in a more difficult situation than Quebec students. The average student debt in Quebec is $11,000, compared to between $17,000 and $25,000 in the rest of Canada.

To counter this situation, the Chrétien government ignored its commitments at the last first ministers' conference and decided to intrude once again in a provincial jurisdiction.

What is the prime minister's word worth? An appropriate answer would lead me to use unparliamentary language. I leave it up to you to answer it in all honesty.

We in the Bloc Quebecois consider that all Quebec students who want to further their education deserve some help, and this is the approach favoured by Quebec with its loans and grants program. That is not the case with the millennium scholarships, only a third of which will go to low and middle income students, and which will be awarded mainly on the basis of merit or excellence.

This new duplication in the area of education concerns me a great deal, especially for my region.

The Conseil permanent de la jeunesse recently specified in one of its studies that the Lower St. Lawrence, the North Shore and the Saguenay would see their population decline by 10 per cent by the year 2016. This phenomenon is not new, but it seems to be increasing. Thousands of young people will emigrate to urban areas. We must help our regions keep their young people and it is the governments closest to these people that are in the best position to know and to initiate the corrective actions required.

I will not surprise anyone by saying that in outlying areas there is a problem created by the fact that young people are leaving. In the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, we are trying to slow the process by developing our university as well as the colleges in Chicoutimi, Jonquière, Alma and Saint-Félicien. We know full well that we have to offer a wide choice of education programs geared to the local job market and to regional development, in order to convince our young people they do not have to leave to study and to pursue a career.

It has been demonstrated that students who complete their studies and enjoy good employment opportunities in their region have a good chance of staying. The association of alumni and friends of the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi offers scholarships to graduate and postgraduate students to encourage them to pursue their studies in the region.

In my region and in all of Quebec, we have been trying for a long time to promote access to higher education through a scholarships and loans program. Also, by staying in their region students can save money by living at home with their families.

If the federal government wants to meet the real needs of our young people, it should transfer the money to the Government of Quebec.

It is clear that the millennium scholarship fund proposed by the Chrétien government is out of touch with the Quebec reality, as are many other federal programs. In that area as in manpower training, the Government of Quebec must hold the levers of power to better meet the challenges of the next millennium.

It must be said loud and clear: the millennium scholarships will not improve the quality of post-secondary education or substantially relieve the financial hardships of the students in our region. This misdirected program is a waste of money.

This $2.5 billion would have been better used if it had been handed over to the provinces, which are in a better position to know the education sector's priorities and needs. Moreover, these needs are being felt right now and will not appear only at the beginning of the next millennium.

As I said previously, in cutting its transfers to the provinces, Ottawa struck a real blow at the funding of Quebec's educational institutions. Out of the $10 billion cut from education, $3 billion was in Quebec.

I sincerely believe that we in Quebec must focus our efforts on our education network, which was hard hit by these cuts.

The Quebec loans and scholarships system is very efficient. This is certainly not the time to make financial assistance to students more complex.

Just as he did with the reference to the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister could change his mind, review the millennium scholarships program and at least hand over management of this fund to those provinces that want it.

I remind the Prime Minister that he is the first and only Canadian Prime Minister to jump head first into education, an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. That is another action by the Chrétien government that will be remembered.

I ask my colleagues opposite to think twice before they interfere again in this area, because they will face all Quebeckers early in the year 2000.

The Quebec population will not forget this new interference on the part of the federal government. There will be a final evaluation in the next referendum.

Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Lévis.