Marcel Gagnon

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I would just like to correct one little fact. The information on the guaranteed income supplement was not available only on the Internet, but not enough effort was made to find the people that were hard to find. That meant that a great many older people, including the most vulnerable, did not have access, because they did not know they were entitled. One of the people I met was a woman who had lived all her old age with $6,000 per year. When she died at age 88, she was owed $90,000. That gives you an idea.

I am always shocked to hear the federal government make promises in fields of provincial jurisdiction. During the election my opponent told me they were fed up with fighting. I told him that we were, too. It is very simple not to get into a fight: let the federal government stay home and look after its own affairs.

Here are some examples of fields that are actually under federal jurisdiction: pollution in the St. Lawrence River, whose banks are being destroyed; or pollution caused by the Canadian Army in Lac Saint-Pierre where there are some 300,000 artillery shells, 10,000 in dangerous condition. These come under federal jurisdiction.

Then there is the problem of fisheries. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has talked about that. We are emptying the oceans. Someone said that we need to pay down the debt so as not to leave it for our children. I agree. On the other hand we will be leaving them such pollution that whole countries will be devastated. We are emptying the oceans. Oceans come under federal jurisdiction. Why not each take care of our own affairs and put money into provincial jurisdictions so that the provinces can manage their own issues?

We were talking about health, a field that is the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. We were talking about education; the same applies. Let us each take care of our own affairs and there will be no fights.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is the usual practice in rising in reply to a throne speech to say a few words about our riding and what we will be focusing on in this session.

I have had numerous opportunities to speak in this House, but this is my first time as the member for Saint-Maurice, which if I remember correctly was represented for 42 years by a Liberal MP who was the Prime Minister of Canada for many years.

So it took a heck of a lot of courage to decide to run as the representative of Saint-Maurice. I must say I was helped by a population that had had enough and wanted a change, along with the rest of the population of Quebec.

There are 54 of us here for the Bloc Québécois. It is a source of great pride for us to be such a large group. The Liberals over there had predicted that we were going to disappear off the map. We have not, and Quebec is better represented here than it has ever been, and I do not think we are likely to disappear any time soon.

In the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the people are of course used to inviting a Prime Minister to their various events, and now they will just get a regular MP. I have told Mrs. Landry, the mayor of Shawinigan—I take this opportunity to greet her—that we would definitely have a different approach. I am not going to turn up with my pockets full of money; however, I will be present and I will look after every file. I may not have pockets full of money, but if I do turn up with something substantial, it will not always be for the benefit of the same people in the riding.

A few million dollars, or a few hundred million, may be a good thing, but less of a good thing when one sees how it is distributed. I have never been able to handle patronage, even as a member of a majority government, on the René Lévesque team from 1976 to 1985. He was as allergic as I am to patronage, so I never learned how to do it.

I work with my constituents regardless of their politics. That is how I intend to work in the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, and the people there will notice a big difference as a result.

I have forgotten to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

That is how it happened. If I succeeded in getting myself elected in this riding, it was, because, as I said earlier, I had help from many people. I would like to thank everyone who supported me; some of them had to travel a long way to do so.

I do not have any family in Mauricie, so when I became a candidate I could not count on hundreds of sure votes. Still, I have relatives near Montreal, in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Knowing that it would probably be the last time I ran—because at a certain age, you have to pull back—my family members made the trip to support me, and I salute them. It was a great help to me.

Of course, there were the people in the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, from the Parti Québécois and the two provincial members, Mr. Pinard and the member from Champlain in the National Assembly. Everyone worked together, and we had a very successful campaign. I am proud of my team and thank them very much.

The riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain is immense. As an indication, during the campaign I travelled over 13,000 kms. Comparing my riding to that of Trois-Rivières, for example, or to the ridings in Montreal where one can walk all around them in a day, or maybe half a day. It is difficult to imagine but my riding covers thousands of kilometres.

For example, if the riding of Champlain were 4,000 km larger, it would be the size of Switzerland. In addition to being large, there are people living pretty well everywhere. So it means a lot of travelling.

The first nations aboriginal population is quite significant. The Attikamek are located 125 km from La Tuque, which is quite far from the river. Going from Trois-Rivières to visit the Attikamek in Weymontachie, you are not always guaranteed of reaching your destination. These people have the same needs, however.

If I want to visit people in Parent, I am not always guaranteed of getting there. Two weeks ago, on Thanksgiving Day, I had to go to Weymontachie. Unfortunately, after a three-hour flight, we noticed we could not land and we had to go back to Trois-Rivières.

That is how we work in such a riding. That is the difference between a prime minister and a regular MP who has the time to make several attempts to go back and see the people. These remote and vast ridings should receive a little special attention. I cannot administer this riding the same way a smaller riding is administered.

There are, across Canada, ridings that are even bigger than mine, still, we deserve special attention. For example, we need budgets to help provide services to the entire population since everyone has the same rights.

Parent is 250 km from La Tuque. The only link the municipality of Parent has to other municipalities—the town of La Tuque in particular—is a dirt road and an airport with a dirt runway. Imagine what it is like to be stranded in Parent, when you have an emergency and you cannot leave in inclement weather because planes cannot land. Pilots can only make visual landings.

That gives you some idea of how complex things are in a riding as large as mine. But the constituents do have to be served. I hope that the Minister of Transport, to whom I have spoken about the situation in the municipality of Parent, will take its isolation into consideration. They have refused to pave a landing strip in Parent, and I find that unacceptable. They refused because it did not comply with the standards. Of course, if the criterion for paving it is that the runway has to be near a major centre, then we will be out of luck. These are the kinds of things that I will be focussing on in my riding.

I would also like to say a few words about another issue that has been dear to my heart for some time, that of seniors. This is one of the things that brought me back to politics. I want to try to do more for seniors.

The government promises in the throne speech to increase and adjust the guaranteed income supplement. This is pretty unbelievable, as well as somewhat scandalous in my opinion. Some $3.2 billion have been stolen from seniors. This is the same government that stole $3.2 billion from them by depriving many of them of the guaranteed income supplement.

If the throne speech had even mentioned paying seniors what they are owed, I would accept an increase to the GIS. Indeed, we will put a lot of energy into demanding it. They must get this money back. Then the throne speech will be able to boast of adjusting the supplement.

I will have an opportunity to address the issues in my riding on other occasions. I would have liked, for instance, to have touched on softwood lumber, which is a major issue where I come from. The ministers never wanted to do what we suggested in order to save jobs. Unfortunately, when we win the war, there will be no more soldiers left. The plants will all have shut down. There are several other similar issues in Saint-Maurice—Champlain, and I will have the pleasure of discussing them again.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the speeches made so far on this extremely important bill for Quebec. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel just highlighted how very important it is for Quebec. The industry is shrinking and it should not be allowed to shrink any further. I see the Minister for Transport coming in; he himself mentioned that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario.

In the same vein as what was said earlier, is it not true that it is extremely important to have an aerospace policy that would truly help the industry in view of the fact that, for the most part, this industry is located in Quebec—we can say it is a Quebec industry—and that 240 out of 250 aerospace companies are SMEs? They are the way to the future. To have big corporations, you need SMEs. SMEs as a whole employ 40,000 workers in Quebec. I would encourage the minister to invest in that area.

Would the member, who talked about training, not agree that training is done in part by SMEs? For instance, I know that in Trois-Rivières there are plants that manufacture airplane parts, renovate airplanes, painting them in particular. Their workers are competent and would like nothing better than to hone their skills and become experts in their field. I am wondering if this is what he meant when he talked about getting students to specialize in that area.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to those of my colleagues on this bill. Of course, we cannot support a bill that, in the end, does not solve any problem other than changing the department.

Yet, a lot could have been done. The report of the parliamentary committee is the result of serious work. It asked the government to act as quickly as possible to correct some things, to clarify the mandates of the Coast Guard and to give it money it needs as soon as possible.

It seems to me that it would have been easy, while changing the department, to define what the Coast Guard must do, particularly since we are in a period where there is no deficit. The federal government has money; so why does it not act in a sector that it is responsible for?

I swear that if this were a provincial jurisdiction, the government would probably have found a way to get in through the back door, or through another door, to finally work against the provinces. If this had had anything to do with health, education or some other sector, the government would have found a way to get in to annoy the provinces. However, this is clearly an area of federal jurisdiction. It concerns the oceans, the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. There are things to do and it is urgent to do them.

As I said earlier, I have been living along the St. Lawrence River for a long time in a sector called Champlain, in the Mauricie area. It is quite incredible to see what is happening on the river. We see that the Coast Guard is totally overwhelmed. We often talk with these people and they tell us, “We do not have the mandate, we do not have the people to fulfill our role”.

This bill could have been significant in dealing with urgent problems. It could have given a clear mandate to the Canadian Coast Guard as well as the money it needs to do its job.

Along the St. Lawrence we see all kinds of things. Some islands in the St. Lawrence are disappearing. Some villages are disappearing too for the simple reason that there is no monitoring, especially regarding the speed of vessels. It is incredible.

Repairs needed to protect the village of Champlain, which stretches over some 15 kilometres along the St. Lawrence, are currently estimated at $4.5 million. Ships, vessels—our Prime Minister knows the industry quite well—are simply not abiding by the speed limits because there is nobody to enforce them.

Last fall in Champlain around 1 o'clock in the morning a ship sailed by so fast that it sent a wave crashing onto the shore completely swamping a house. The basement door had not been properly closed and water got in. It is several metres above the river level; the ship was just going too fast. The person affected came to see me and identified the ship. I lodged a complaint and was told that responsibilities were not clear enough in the matter and that they lacked the equipment to keep an eye on that kind of thing.

It is an area under federal jurisdiction though. It seems to me that if you take the trouble to move such an important body as the Canadian Coast Guard from one department to another, those problems should be dealt with at the same time. The committee invited a number of experts and representatives from various levels of government affected by the Canadian Coast Guard problems, as well as competent employees of the Coast Guard itself, who told us that what was needed was money and ships in good repair.

Earlier my colleague talked about the age, quality and performance of the ships guarding our coasts. It does not make sense.

A Liberal member said that the legislation must first transfer the Coast Guard to another department. In my opinion, we must act first and not only leave the impression that we did act. We are going through a period of prosperity and high returns. There are big surpluses, but major environmental problems. All our waterways suffer from them. We now want to know what will happen, for example, to Lac Saint-Pierre, the whole St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.

However, when legislation like this is presented, why do they not try to deal with some of the problems that were identified by experts and on which the parliamentary committee was unanimous? During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said how important democracy and the democratic deficit were for him. Is there something more democratic then hearing members from all parties, than inviting members of the public and hearing them all say that there are needs and that we must act urgently? I believe that would be a way to deal with the democratic deficit.

Somebody told me: “When we are invited to appear before a committee in Ottawa, we wonder if it is not only a way to make us waste our time”. The report was done well, and it was unanimous.

Like my colleague who just spoke, I am sure we could not agree with nor vote in favour of a bill that is meaningless. It does not meet any of our needs.

I swear it is time for us to do something about the St. Lawrence and do it quickly. I am using every forum I can to talk about this issue. Disaster is imminent; it has already occurred. For example, there is the shoreline, or as I mentioned, there is the problem of the unexploded ammunition in lake Saint-Pierre. Disasters are bound to occur. About two years ago, a ship upstream from Trois-Rivières almost hit the bridge there. We have been told that, had this ship hit a bridge footing, the damage would have been incredible. I am sure of that.

Why should we pass meaningless bills? Why not do something to solve problems or prevent potential problems? This is what legislators should do. Obviously, we are ready to cooperate in order to improve bills, but not to support meaningless legislation.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with keen interest to the speeches made about Bill C-3. It is of great interest to me, as I live very close to the St. Lawrence river and, from time to time, I have encounters with the Coast Guard, or what is left of it. People have to realize how difficult it is for it to fulfill the mandate it has been entrusted with.

The member argues that now is not the time to talk about that, because the only thing the government is currently doing is transferring the Canadian Coast Guard to another department. However, at the same time, it says it is following what the committee recommended.

In my view, that is not altogether accurate. The committee took the time to study the serious problem that the Coast Guard currently faces. Various stakeholders and a number of specialists, as well as representatives of all parties in the House, were heard. That led to a unanimous report to the effect that things within the Coast Guard had to be done differently. It was not a matter of just changing departments. Therefore, I do not understand the deputy saying that now is not the time to talk about it. I would like to know where and when we will be allowed to take the time to talk about these things. When, in his opinion, will it be important enough for us to act as soon as possible?

His colleague has also mentioned that we will be able to consult with the department of Transport twice a year. There was a study by a parliamentary committee in which all stakeholders were invited. Do we need further consultations to act? What's the member's view?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard another member of Parliament saying she was proud of the throne speech. She has the right to be proud, but it is the reasons why she is proud that I am questioning.

She talked among other things about the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, saying that the government would improve the supplement. That is the first thing that she mentioned to show us how proud she was. As a matter of fact, I am extremely disappointed for the same reason, and not for the improvement of the supplement.

Is she aware that the government has been robbing the poorest seniors for years? Indeed, it has collected $3.2 billion by taking this money away from the most disadvantaged seniors. It is now in the government coffers, along with the $45 billion or $50 billion from employment insurance.

We are asking, together with seniors, that they be reimbursed for this theft. We know that, if seniors did not receive what is rightfully theirs, it is because they were not informed enough. Indeed, the government has been mean-spirited about the way that it must inform vulnerable people in our society.

I know some seniors and older couples. Just yesterday I met a couple who had been robbed of $180,000. When they were 88 years old, this man and woman realized they had never received what they were owed. The retroactive payment is for 11 months. It can be proven that these people were not informed and that is why they were not given what they were owed.

I would applaud this measure if, in addition to increasing the supplement, the government said it was prepared to pay back money that had been stolen. There are people still living who continue to be in a difficult financial situation and who are owed money.

I know of a couple who at age 70 realized that they had been robbed of $4,000 a year for the past five years. They were paid back.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, of course, when you have paternalistic laws, when you make regulations from a so-called superior vantage point for the people that you want to administer, you risk developing attitudes such as this. It is relatively common to see people who think that we give everything to the first nations, when in fact we took everything from them, they were here before us, and they developed before us. That is why we must stop being paternalistic.

We must give them the tools to ensure that they will develop according to their abilities and their aspirations, but without thinking that, when we give them a cheque, we are giving them a gift. That is not true. It belongs to them. This country was theirs before we came. They certainly have aboriginal rights going back at least 10,000 to 12,000 years in certain parts of Quebec.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not there was a question in the member's remarks. In any case, if he thinks that the Bloc Quebecois is the holder of the truth, he is totally wrong. I hope that this is not the impression we give. On the contrary. I mentioned the statements made by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, among others, who worked on this issue with the aboriginals. He went as far as Vancouver with our colleague from the New Democratic Party. They both received the eagle feather because of the good job they did on this issue and because they consulted with first nations.

This is exactly what must be done. We must consult with the first nations. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has some experience in this place. He says that, if we took a few more weeks—a few weeks is nothing compared to years—we would have unanimity, or at least a very broad consensus. We are not saying that we are the holders of the truth. The truth lies with the first nations peoples. That is where the truth lies.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about him also. Indeed, talking about him brings back excellent memories.

As a political mentor, there was none better than him. I heard someone say that a people produces a man of René Lévesque's calibre once every hundred years. I had the chance to work with him.

Mr. Lévesque would say, “When things are not going well, shut down your office and go see the people; there lies the truth”. I remember that, in 1981 or 1982, following his second election, we were in the middle of an economic crisis, things were going really bad and everyone was totally depressed. Mr. Lévesque said, “We shut down Parliament, and I ask all members, no matter what party they represent, to go back in their regions, in their ridings, to meet the people and come back with solutions”. This, in my opinion, is well applied democracy.

I will answer the hon. member's question by saying that if Mr. Lévesque had this legislation before him, he would go back to the first nations and say “Here, in my generosity I drafted a nice piece of legislation. Tell me what does not work in it and what could be done to improve it”. We have to work together. We do not work for the sake of saying that we were a member of Parliament for x number of years, or that we are part of an invincible and extraordinarily bright government. We are here to serve people who want to develop.

Here is a little story. One day, I was driving back from La Tuque and I saw someone wearing a poncho who was hitchhiking along the highway. I stopped and told the person to get in the car. This was in the seventies. I saw that the gentleman, who was about 30 years of age, was a little sad. I tried to get him to talk, but he was reluctant to do so. Finally he told me that his country was located around Lake Gagnon, in northern Mauricie. He was the last one left; his people were all gone. That morning he was coming from his country. He had buried his father the day before. His father desperately wanted him to stay with him, so that his remains could be buried with those of his ancestors, on the shores of Lake Gagnon.

I began to draw him out about his people and I realized that they had all been exterminated. That community, which he called his country and which was located on the shore of Lake Gagnon, did not disturb anyone. On the contrary, it was developing that region of Quebec. Finally, I looked at him and said “It seems to me that you might resent me”. He wondered why he should, since it seemed that such was their fate. I told him that it was not true, that if I were in his shoes, I would not accept this as my fate or that of my community.

These people have a right to be respected like anyone else. They have a right to live and to develop like everyone else. Their aspirations are as good as mine. We have a right, a duty to give these people the tools they need to develop.

In one of his songs, Gilles Vigneault says “Ask the stones, ask the kings. No one is a stranger on this earth. Everyone has rights”.

There has to be a minimum of respect. It is not true that it would cost too much, that we would lose a degree of autonomy, or that we would be diminished if we respected others more.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to add my voice to this debate. I had the opportunity to do so by asking questions.

First, I must tell you that this is not the first time that I am interested in the issue of the first nations. I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly under René Lévesque, who was the first premier to recognize the first nations and their autonomy. Each year, Mr. Lévesque would oblige us to spend at least one evening—more, if possible, at a large convention held by the first nations in Quebec City—discussing with them to try to understand their problems and also try to ensure that they were increasingly recognized in Quebec as full-fledged nations, with whom we could discuss as equals.

It is quite deplorable to see how the federal government has always treated the first nations. It is as though it were the superior government and they were inferior minorities, underage people, and it had to take responsibilities for them, make decisions that they would be fully capable to make themselves, if they were given the opportunity.

I had the opportunity to visit aboriginals in my riding several times, and it is disturbing to see how they live. They are surrounded with wealth, but they have no right to develop themselves, since they are still under trusteeship.

When I saw the state of their housing units, I asked some Attikamek why they did not renovate or repair them. They told me that they did not own them, that these units did not belong to them, they belonged to the federal government. They said that they had been put on a reserve. They were very upset that, because they could not develop their abilities and skills, and considering the right to self-government enjoyed by all nations of the world, they had major problems, including health problems and problems with suicide.

Last summer, I visited an aboriginal community. During the first month of the summer, in June, three young women aged 14 to 18 had committed suicide. Three suicides in a community of 2,000 people is quite dramatic, considering that these are very talented people. There is nothing they would love more than to develop their talents, to make a contribution and to prosper.

For example, in a community like Weymontachie, which has no more than 2,000 people, I found out that there were two hockey players aged 19 and 21, who were of professional calibre. I worked with them to try to get them to play in Europe. So, these are two players in a population of less than 2,000.

These people are full of talent. It is simply a matter of allowing them to develop their talents. It is not true that these people still need to be under the trusteeship of the government, under the Department of Indian Affairs like in the old days. These people simply need to be treated like adults.

I am told that the bill before us will be good for those who want to use it. The hon. member who just spoke said that people have been talking about it for years. Another member said that, if this legislation does not do the trick, the government will amend it. As we know, it takes years to change things, particularly with this government.

If we are taking the time to give people the tools they need, why not take the time to give them what they truly want and to adequately consult them?

That was not done. My colleague from the New Democratic Party has just said that it is wrong to say it is voluntary. They are afraid. Moreover, the law will make certain things mandatory, and those are not the things people want to be mandatory.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot suggested that we take a few weeks more, but that the results would have to be unanimous, or at least a very broad consensus. So, it is not a big deal. He told us that if this bill had been presented to the Assembly of First Nations, the attitude would have changed completely. These people simply want to be consulted and listened to, like competent adults, individuals who have the right to develop as they choose.

Having had my political education under the watchful eye and tutelage of a man like René Lévesque, I find the attitude of this government scandalous from all points of view, and that is not all. In fact, they take themselves for superior beings. They believe they possess the truth. That is the defect of the Liberal government opposite. It is at the point where all kinds of things are popping up. Scandals are everywhere. Almost nothing is working normally, but they still possess the truth. In fact, they have the truth and, since they are a federal Liberal government, they have the talent, the will and the attitude of superior beings who are capable of telling the first nations what they need in order to develop.

I do not believe that. I invite anyone at all from the government to come with me to visit the aboriginal people, the first nations, in my riding. I am sure it is the same all across Canada. In any case, it is like that all across Quebec; that is certain. These people have the right and the duty to develop—according to their own desires.

When I went to meet with the first nations, including the Attikamek, I wanted to find out about the guaranteed income supplement. I had been told that the first nations were one of the populations that had been deprived of the supplement and needed to be targeted. To my great surprise, I found virtually no senior population worth mentioning among the Attikamek. In the white community, there is about a 15% senior population; there were three Attikamek over the age of 65 in a village of about 2,000.

If their life expectancy is no better than that, does this indicate good living conditions? Does this show that they have everything required for development? I was told “Don't bother looking for seniors. Nobody here gets the guaranteed income supplement, because we have no seniors”.

For us, the average life expectancy is 79 years for men and 82 or 83 for women, yet their community of about 2,000 had only three seniors. This raises questions about their living conditions and their development.

When we hear, on the other hand, about three suicides and suicide attempts by girls between the ages of 14 and 17 in a single month, we need to ask ourselves some questions, as the reasonable people we think we are. We must stop imposing our way of thinking on others, and we must listen to them to find out their needs and provide the opportunity to develop to which they have a right.

I agree with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the hon. member from the NDP. It is wrong to say that the 60% who do not want this legislation simply do not have to use it. We will pass this bill for those who like it and think they need it and the others can just ignore it. That is wrong. We have been told that there are requirements in the legislation that the first nations do not like.

As citizens, as a government, it is our duty to ensure that the tools in this legislation are accepted by the entire community and that they obtain the broadest consensus possible, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot says.

The first nations are not here to represent themselves. That is why I would be remiss to pass up the opportunity to vehemently denounce this paternalistic attitude of the federal government toward the first nations of Quebec and Canada. The government must agree to go back to the table, to negotiate, to ask them what they want and, above all, to tell them the truth. If, in fact, $150 million a year is available under the legislation, yet the government knows there is only $25 million, then now is the time to say so. They need to be told the truth. It must be possible to get at the truth in this House. That is essential.

They have to be told the truth about what this legislation will mean for them. In turn, they have to be honest about what they want in order to be considered adults and equals so that they can develop as all peoples in the world have the right to develop.