Guy St-Julien

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be taking part in this debate, which is a very important one for the Nisga'a and the Government of Canada.

I think it is important for all members to understand how the Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated within the Canadian legal context.

The Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated with an eye to the rights and interests of all Canadians and, as recommended by the courts in recent cases such as Delgamuukw, is intended to reconcile the rights of the Nisga'a with the title and sovereignty of the crown.

Although all components of the Nisga'a final agreement fully reflect the Canadian legal context, it must be linked to the Canadian constitution, Canadian laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First, let us look at how the Nisga'a final agreement relates to the Canadian constitution. In fact, the Nisga'a final agreement recognizes the constitution as the supreme law of Canada. No amendment to the constitution is therefore necessary to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, and the agreement does not alter the Canadian constitution.

Although this agreement includes self-government provisions, the legislative authority of the Nisga'a will be exercised simultaneously with existing authority.

The following are a few examples of how the Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated with a view to the Canadian constitutional framework.

The Nisga'a final agreement states clearly that it does not alter the constitution. The intention of the parties was for the Nisga'a final agreement to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the constitution.

The preamble to the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act states that the constitution is the supreme law of Canada and reaffirms that the Nisga'a final agreement does not alter the constitution. The courts may refer to this preamble when interpreting the Nisga'a final agreement act.

Reform Party members have proposed that we delete from the bill the clear and unequivocal statement by all parties that “the Nisga'a Final Agreement states that the Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada”.

What problems do they want to create? What confusion are they stirring up with this amendment? What is more, they are also proposing an amendment to the wording of the preamble as it relates to application of the constitution. It is certain that Reform Party members cannot have it both ways.

The proposed preamble makes the intentions of the parties clear and will assist the courts in their interpretation of the Nisga'a final agreement.

Let us touch on the charter of rights and freedoms as it applies to the Nisga'a final agreement. I want to point out that one of the general provisions of the final agreement calls for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to apply to the Nisga'a government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic character of the Nisga'a government as set out in the agreement.

It is therefore clear that the charter will apply to all activities of the Nisga'a government. Consequently, the charter will apply not only to legislation enacted by the Nisga'a government but also to other activities, such as the decision to hire someone or to issue licences. The charter will protect all individuals who might be affected by the decisions of the Nisga'a government, not just the Nisga'a people.

The last part of this article—“bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government”—is similar to the terms used in section 1 of the charter, which indicate clearly that the rights conferred by the charter are not absolute.

Governments, including the Nisga'a government, must justify any limits to be imposed on the rights guaranteed under the charter. This expression shows therefore that the Nisga'a final agreement provides for the establishment of a government of a free and democratic nature. A Nisga'a government established in accordance with these provisions could invoke section 1 of the charter like any other government in Canada.

The Nisga'a have supported the application of the charter since the conclusion of the agreement in principle in 1996. The language of the final agreement, as I have said, follows the wording of the charter to facilitate its application.

In closing, the Reform Party has proposed an amendment under which the Nisga'a government would be treated differently from other governments in Canada. Does that make sense? Does this further the integration of the Nisga'a into Canadian society which we are all seeking?

The Reform amendments run contrary to the desire of all of us here to see the Nisga'a government integrated with the other governments in Canada. Is that really what they want?

[Victims Of Violence, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, although all of us were affected by the tragedy at École Polytechnique de Montréal, the real pain was, and always will be, that felt by the families and friends of the victims.

We must salute the courage of all the men and women who are working to break down the wall of indifference to violence. This includes the courageous Heidi Rathjen, Wendy Cukier and Suzanne Laplante-Edward who, through the Coalition for Gun Control, made a major contribution to the passage of an act in Canada aimed at doing away with violence.

Our appreciation goes out also to the Fondation de Polytechnique, which offers help to those who have lost loved ones and who would otherwise be left to cope alone with their despair.

All of us can make a contribution to making our society a healthier one by supporting activities in our community that are focused on doing away with violence.

[Gasoline Prices, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to his website on gasoline prices, René Goyette is becoming known throughout Quebec and Canada. His www.abacom.com/essence website has become one of the sites with the most hits in the Province of Quebec.

According to Mr. Goyette, it all started when there was a sudden gas price hike a while ago. Mr. Goyette, along with myself and many other drivers, is fed up with high gas prices.

Surfers are invited to input the gasoline price in their region. All they have to do is click on a map of the province to find out where the best price can be found in their vicinity. Every region of Quebec is included. This site has become a means of defence against the gasoline companies.

I invite people to participate in the vote that is part of this web site.

[Mining Industry, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In its throne speech, the government said “To seize the opportunities and meet the challenges of a new global economy, we must work together in the Canadian way and concentrate on what matters most to Canadians. To that end, we must achieve technological progress that will increase productivity. We know that the natural resources sector is a pillar of the Canadian economy”.

Can the minister tell us what is currently being done to promote state of the art technologies in the mining industry?

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I understood what the hon. member said earlier. They have millionaires living in the Mont-Tremblant and upper Laurentian regions. We do not in Abitibi.

The Bloc Quebecois member voiced her disappointment with my motion, and said I should have taken a couple of minutes to think about it. The fact is that I took four.

I have here remarks made by Guy Chevrette on RDI on October 10 or thereabouts. He said “Go to the feds. They are the ones concerned”. I have notes here on my desk. I understand that he is a good pitcher because he has thrown a strike ball to the federal team. He also indicated that out of the 10,000 truckers concerned, 8,000 were subject to federal legislation and these ought to approach Ottawa to find some ways of getting around their inability to negotiate with their employer. I have notes on this here and it is important to know this.

I understand that the member for Laurentides would want all members to get involved. I agree with what she said about the need for a committee to be struck. That is a good point. But I did not appreciate her saying that I ought to have given it two minutes' thought.

In the current situation, it is impossible to confirm that 80% of the truckers in question come under the jurisdiction of the federal government until the Canada Labour Relations Board has finished its investigation and dealt with the demands of the third parties currently before it, which are to have Quebec truckers granted union certification.

The board will have to determine whether the truckers are employees, dependent contractors or independent contractors and, in the first two instances, if their employer is governed by federal legislation. Demands are being investigated and the date of the board's response is not known.

Another thing is really important. We must stand by the truckers. I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues tonight, even though we may disagree.

Of course, we could deal with the concerns of the truckers about working conditions, for instance, higher pay through collective bargaining, if union certification were granted, but there is nothing we can do, at the labour relations level, about the price of gasoline and the deregulation of interprovincial trucking as of January 1, 2000, pursuant to section 19 of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

What is important to remember, and I appreciate it, is that hon. members from the Reform Party, the Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have all taken part in this debate. At least, the issue is being addressed and things should look up for independent truckers of Quebec and their families. Solutions will be found, whether they come from Quebec, Canada or Ontario.

What is important here is to defend the truckers we see every day on roads and highways. I am proud of having put this motion forward.

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see that opposition members are here to comment on my motion, even at this late hour, which means that there are good things in there.

The Reform Party's position is that this is a provincial matter. There is one thing I should say from the start. On October 25, 1998, two Quebec ministers signed an agreement with truckers when we had the first crisis, the first blockade.

The second point in this agreement talks about assessing the problem of the federal-provincial jurisdictions in labour law and transport law. The agreement was signed by both Minister Brassard and Minister Rioux. These two ministers told the truckers “Both sides must reassess the problem”.

But coming back to federal-provincial matters, on October 8, I was on the picket line with the truckers. On October 10, I was watching the RDI network when I saw my good friend Guy Chevrette, just back from Europe, make the following statement “You should go to the federal government. The trucking issue is a federal matter”.

I understand that my good friend Guy Chevrette—

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, on October 8, I was in Louvicourt, 36 kilometres from Val-d'Or, where I spent the day with Quebec truckers to find out about their claims concerning the road transportation crisis in Quebec.

I met Denis Martin and Vital Meilleur, who were representing truckers and who told me about commitments that the Quebec government made in 1998 but failed to honour. They included legislative changes and a promise to put pressure on the federal government to amend Canadian laws accordingly.

The Quebec government made a written commitment to adopt these legislative changes by January 1, 2000. I have here a copy of these commitments made on October 25, 1998, at 9.45 p.m., and signed by two ministers of the Quebec government.

One year after these written commitments were made, the government of Lucien Bouchard still has not taken any concrete action. Worse still, the Quebec Minister of Labour, Diane Lemieux, announced her intention to postpone indefinitely the long awaited labour code reform for truckers in Quebec.

On October 8, truckers from Quebec and the Abitibi who were in Louvicourt told me that they have had enough of the unfulfilled commitments of the Bouchard government. The document was signed by two ministers of the Parti Quebecois on October 25, 1998, around 9.45 p.m., namely the Minister of Transport, Jacques Brassard, and the Minister of Labour.

That document includes 11 sections. It provides that a committee of experts must be set up. That was done and properly done. The Bernier report, a 200 page document, was submitted to the government in 1999.

Section 2 and the following provide:

1. Explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law.

2. Propose possible scenarios and evaluate their applicability to the labour relations between independent truckers and clients.

3. Examine the nature of the contractual relations between contractors and clients, as they relate to law 430 (division of responsibilities).

4. Define eligibility criteria for becoming an independent trucker that will ensure a harmonious transition for the holders of bulk trucking permits.

5. Analyse the working conditions of independent truckers, i.e. rates, contracting charter, driver pay, hours of work, etc.

We know that a number of things are now being done anyway. Quebec's transport minister, Mr. Chevrette, has set up a committee that includes a federal representative. Committee members are working very hard, but the year 2000 is fast approaching.

The truckers present confirmed to me verbally that they are sick of seeing their working conditions deteriorate in Quebec. Clients are imposing difficult conditions. There are also the consecutive fuel price increases.

Let us talk about the cost of gas. On October 13, I rose in this House to call on the Government of Quebec to regulate the price of gas in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I said:

The Canadian Constitution gives the provinces the authority to regulate prices. Only Prince Edward Island and Quebec have taken any action in this regard, although Newfoundland announced recently that it would look at the statute provisions that would permit it to regulate the price of gas.

Other provinces preferred to rely on market forces as the most effective means of determining the appropriate prices, while retaining the incentives that contribute to innovation and cost reduction.

The Government of Quebec has no choice: it will have to rely on the market forces and provide incentives for the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

The time for study is past. It is time to get down to business—

In closing, I wish to say that the best way to placate consumers is to rely on market forces and provide incentives.

Here is an example for Abitibi—Témiscamingue: the wholesale price, including the margin of the Montreal refineries, is 25.4 cents a litre. Provincial tax represents 15.2 cents, the federal excise tax, 10 cents, and the retail profit margin, 5 cents.

Transportation, and this is important, because people say the cost of transportation to Abitibi is high, costs only 1 cent a litre. The cost without 7% GST and 7.5% PST is 8.2 cents a litre. The total cost at the pump, if competition were vigorous and effective in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a vast region far removed from major centres, would be 64.8 cents.

On October 6, the price of regular gasoline was 75.9 cents a litre in Val d'Or. That contributed to the crisis with Quebec truckers and many residents of Abitibi, who considered themselves to be everyone's hostages.

Gas stations in Abitibi have nothing to do with this situation. They must submit to the orders of the oil companies and the Government of Quebec.

Whatever forces affect the price of gasoline, the people of remote areas like Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik have the right to expect fair treatment in the market by the Government of Quebec. As of January 1, 2000, the entire trucking industry in Canada will be deregulated, and the sector will thus be opened up to competition among carriers from all provinces.

The Bernier report has been submitted to the Government of Quebec. The Bernier committee had to concentrate first of all on the element it felt was central and essential: the creation of scenarios and assessment of their applicability to the relationship between owner-operators and customers, as well as those elements directly related to it.

On July 21, 1998, in order to respect its commitments under the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade, Quebec replaced its trucking legislation with the Loi concernant les propriétaires et exploitants de véhicules lourds. This act relating to the owners and operators of heavy equipment harmonizes with the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, which applies to trucking or motor coach companies operating out of province.

Bulk haulage in Quebec is part of a distinct economic framework under the Quebec transport act. Since 1972, the Canada Labour Code has covered independent truckers, as defined in section 3, because it considers them employees.

Quebec and Ontario are among the geographical entities with the most bilateral economic exchanges in North America. In large part, these exchanges stem from the considerable growth in Canadian exports to the United States and traffic to Ontario as an access route to Michigan, Illinois and upstate New York. For Quebec truckers, this increase in interprovincial trucking has become an important dividend of the economic deregulation of their industry.

According to the latest news, an agreement will be reached between the Canadian partners of the Quebec transport industry to reduce the hours of work of truckers.

Quebec's independent truckers feel that the reduction in the number of hours worked is a good idea from a health and safety perspective. However, they are concerned about the impact of this piecemeal approach on the income of truckers who own their vehicles. If the rate structure remains unchanged, independent or exclusive truckers will simply earn less money.

The Quebec government will have to solve the income issue. It is in the process of doing that with a committee set up with the FTQ, the CSD and the CSN. The federal government is also present. They are trying to find solutions before the year 2000.

Since the deregulation of rates and licences, in 1988, it has been very difficult for truckers to earn a decent living in the Quebec trucking industry.

During the protest and blockade organized by truckers on October 8, in Louvicourt, I met many truckers throughout the day. The important thing is to listen to them. These drivers are always alone in their trucks and they travel long distances in Quebec, the United States, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. They are always alone and they do not have time to see all the contracts. It is often their wife who pays the bills at home and who takes care of the family.

They told me that it is about time solutions be found, because the next crisis in Quebec's trucking industry will be serious. As we know, there is a project for bulk haulage.

I have here the 1997-98 annual report of Quebec department of transport, tabled by the minister. It deals with bulk haulage, and there is currently a bill on this, Bill C-89. There will be a fight, but solutions must be found.

The Quebec transport report states:

Together with other Canadian administrations, the federal Minister of Transport decided to postpone until January 1, 2000 the provision of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act (Bill C-19, clause 19), to give truckers enough time to adjust to a more open market.

The amendments are intended to comply with commitments Quebec made recently with other Canadian administrations to permit carriers from outside Quebec to truck within Quebec in certain sectors, primarily, wood chips and factory supply, since January 1, 1998.

As of January 1, 2000, out of province trucking firms may provide carriage within provinces without economic restriction. In the meantime, the local bulk haulage industry should restructure in preparation for deregulation.

What do we see in Bill C-89? It is no longer deregulation but regulation.

What counts today is to hear the other political parties and to see what they have to say for our friends the truckers when we meet them daily on the highway. And what is important: What are the working conditions in Quebec?

Quebec will find solutions, but finding solutions requires everyone working together. I will speak for all the people I met on October 8. It was my duty to move this motion in the House of Commons to help our friends the truckers.

[Referendums, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the members of the Bloc and their leader at the mother house, Lucien Bouchard, have wrongly claimed that this government wanted to give more weight to the federalist vote in the next referendum in Quebec.

I have a few questions for them, however. What weight did they themselves give to the votes of Quebecers who voted no in the 1980 and 1995 referendums? Why do these votes not count for the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ? Why are they insisting on putting a question that holds no interest for Quebecers?

[Division No. 57, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, please note that I abstained on the amendment.

[Canadian Forces, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, before an assembly of approximately 60 Canadian Rangers representing all Nunavik and Lower North Shore patrols, chief of defence staff General Maurice Baril presented a Canadian forces unit commendation to the 2nd Canadian Rangers Patrol Group.

The commendation was in recognition of the unit's humanitarian actions during the avalanche that hit the village of Kangiqsualujjuaq on January 1, 1999.

A Canadian forces unit commendation is normally awarded to any Canadian forces formation, unit or sub-unit that has gone above and beyond the call of duty.

Many lives were saved through the efforts of unit members, who bravely ignored their personal safety in this potentially dangerous emergency situation.

They successfully dug out women, men and children buried under a building that had literally collapsed under the weight of the snow.

Words are not enough to express our deep appreciation for the actions of these brave and determined individuals. What they did is an example to all.