Marcel Gagnon

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if madam wishes to speak, she may do so when I am done, but I would like to conclude my remarks. I have things to say.

The hon. member will know that, if I came back to politics, it was to say what I just said as often as possible. In the end, I think that we will convince people that it is in Quebec that such problems will be resolved.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for raising such an interesting and important topic.

The future—we are talking mainly about the present—of this federation, which the members opposite think handles finances so well, is shaky. The money collected by the federal government must be redistributed to the provinces, which are responsible for health, education and municipalities. These are responsibilities of the provinces and of Quebec.

But the federal government keeps on building up its surplus and distributing the money to the rich rather than giving it back to the provinces. I say that it is distributing it to the rich because, when it uses the surplus to pay down the debt too quickly, this is not money that goes to the poor, but money that goes to the rich. When the surplus is used to lower taxes, as was done last fall, this is money that has been taken away from the least well off, taxpayers, and redistributed to the richest members of society.

Last year, following the mini budget, which became the main budget, I had my accountant do two calculations for me. I wanted to know what two 35 year old men, one earning $33,000 a year and one earning $100,000 a year, would save in taxes as a result of the new budget. The man earning $33,000 a year saved approximately $300 annually in taxes. The one earning $100,000 a year, or three times more, saved seven times more in taxes, around $2,000.

If that is a fair distribution of money in a society that claims to look out for the poor, that says it wants to help low wage earners, some questions are in order. When members opposite say that they are right to take pride in how they are running this country, I have my concerns.

When the federal government takes $36 billion out of the EI fund and gives people to understand that the money belongs to it, we should be worried.

The employment insurance fund is paid into by workers, and also in part by employers. I have been an employer. What do employers do when setting salaries, when looking at the payroll a company can pay out? They take salaries plus benefits, plus the employer's portion of payments.

In the long run, employment insurance is entirely paid by the workers, because if there were no employment insurance, they would be paid a little more.

When I hear justifications like the one provided earlier in response to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whereby talking about grab in reference to the employment insurance fund is misleading the public, I disagree. In my opinion, that is a precise and accurate description of what the government has done.

The money paid into it by the low wage earners has been used to build up a surplus. Year after year, this continues to be done, at the rate of some $6 billion yearly.

A worker who has trouble making ends meet sees part of his pay taken regularly to be added to the federal government's surplus and distributed later to those least in need of it.

The motion being discussed today is one that relates to respect and honesty. As long as Quebec is part of this system, it is normal for part of the taxes we pay to the federal government to come back to us to help us—Quebec and the other provinces too, it is true—to deliver the services provided by the government of Quebec and the governments of the other provinces.

Education is a provincial area of jurisdiction. Health is a provincial area of jurisdiction. The municipalities are a provincial jurisdiction. So now we see the federal government giving some money back. They are congratulating themselves because, within a few days of the last election, an agreement was reached in the health field.

But what was the cost of this negotiation? How much did it cost in terms of time and energy? What progress has been made?

Did we get what the federal government was supposed to be giving us in the area of health care? No. We have figures that show that the federal government is now paying about 14 cents for each dollar spent in the health care area.

As far as I am concerned, this is a debate that should not even be taking place. People say that the federation is working properly. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has just said that, in the beginning, in the federal system, the tax points belonged to the provinces. If we have made our contribution to the war effort, and if all the provinces have done so, the tax points should be given back.

This has not been done so that, every year, regularly, people would have to come here to get what is owed to them, and to get it the way the federal government agrees to give it to them.

I will give an example. In the area of education, the government decided to set up the millennium scholarship fund. This is unbelievable. Roughly $2 billion has been put into this fund, in an area that is not under federal jurisdiction but rather under provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the government has asked unelected people to manage the fund and it found a way, ignoring provincial responsibilities, to give out scholarships, when we had very good scholarship programs in Quebec. It could simply have given the money to the Quebec government, which is responsible for education.

But no, it found a way to ignore provincial responsibilities. It found a way to play petty politics. It found a way to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, to play petty politics with money that belongs to the provinces. It is even going one step further in Quebec, right now.

It has money to give out, but only in exchange for flags. Our money must be used to promote Canada. This is an absurd situation, and it is the same everywhere.

We recently had a debate on the subject. We saw that getting money from the federal government is tied to distributing flags. Personally—

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I am outraged when I hear what government members are saying. They make it sound like the collection of revenues is a race between the federal government and the provinces. The member says that since the provinces have more revenues than the federal government, the federal government should not give anything back to them.

Wait just a minute. Provinces have more revenues but their responsibilities are greater. They are the ones with responsibilities, not the federal government.

Did the hon. member compare the provinces' responsibilities with those of the federal government?

[International Trade, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is time the minister reviewed his file.

Because of his careless handling of this issue, cheese stick imports have increased by 70% over the past three years.

Why does the minister persist in telling the House that if we import products it is because we have needs? This is false. Producers tell us that they have all they need to meet domestic demand.

[International Trade, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary secretary said that there has been no change in government policy on the issue of cheese sticks for the last 20 years.

The minister does not seem to be aware that, in 1995, there was a change. The government agreed to an import quota of 20,412 tonnes of cheese products.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why is the minister continuing to jeopardize the cheese industry by granting additional import permits in excess of the quotas that were negotiated?

[Air Transportation, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Transport and the very serious Minister of Finance accused the separatists of being the reason for the problems of Mirabel and Dorval Airports. What arrogance.

The federal government is the one responsible for the decision two decades ago to make Toronto the Canadian hub of international flights. That same government penalized Dorval and Mirabel in allocating routes to Asia.

It sure takes a lot of nerve for a Minister of Transport from Toronto, backed up by an aspiring Prime Minister from Montreal, to lecture to us.

There is a response to this arrogance, and it is Quebec sovereignty. A sovereign Quebec will negotiate its own international routes and will do everything possible to make the airports of Quebec a model of cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Quebec sovereignty, that is the answer.

[Cheese Imports, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in response to our questions concerning the federal government's issue of special permits to import cheese sticks and the risk this represents to our industry, the Minister for International Trade has made light of the situation and said any old thing.

Contrary to what the minister has said, there is no shortage of the product manufactured here. We have a surplus. Contrary to what he has said, we do not have to issue these permits in connection with our international obligations, because we are well beyond them.

One thing is true, however, because of his incompetence, the Minister for International Trade is causing one of Quebec's largest industries to lose revenues, something it could avoid if the minister were to stop being smug and believing that he alone knows the truth of the matter.

[Marine Liability Act, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to be against a bill making shipowners liable.

The amendments to the act strike me as logical. Making shipowners liable and giving passengers and owners of luggage an opportunity to recover their belongings and sue a shipowner after an incident is, in my opinion, extremely worthwhile.

However, it is not a question of making shipowners liable but of being able to give them the tools to assume that liability.

In clause 39, when it says that the government may require insurance, the way we see this is that by giving them responsibilities, the government must require shipowners to be responsible financially by having liability insurance.

I remember, in the days before car insurance was required in Quebec, if we draw a comparison, people were sued following an accident because they were responsible for the accident, but not financially responsible. I can remember defending families, for example, who had lost everything as the result of an accident, because the person who was responsible was unable to assume his responsibilities.

The Automobile Insurance Act was passed, forcing owners of cars, trucks and any other road vehicles to carry the necessary insurance.

In this regard, when the government says it will see that shipowners get insurance once the bill is passed, that is too late. We have to fix this situation now, while we have the opportunity to do so, and we strongly support the motion that vessel operators be required to get liability insurance immediately.

Some Department of Transport officials have said that the industry was not ready right now to take on such a risk. However members of the insurance industry assure us of the contrary. They say they are perfectly prepared to take such risks.

As for liability with respect to pollution, this is a topic of particular interest to me. It is true that we must do everything possible to force shipowners to respect the waters they navigate on, among others the St. Lawrence. There are regular spills, perhaps not major ones, but there is a certain laxness as far as the environment is concerned.

I applaud this bill, which will require shipowners to be more responsible for the waters of the St. Lawrence, as well as to enable those who have sustained damages, whether fishers, farmers, marine algae producers or anyone sustaining damages as the result of an oil spill for instance, to sue shipowners in order to be compensated for the losses incurred. Plant workers are also entitled to do the same.

I would caution the government against a temptation that seems to have existed for a number of years. The St. Lawrence pilots and the specialized pilots, all associations of pilots with the responsibility of taking control of a ship and guiding it through the St. Lawrence to the Lakehead, tell us that attempts are being made, or at the very least pressures, to exclude them from this work some day.

I must say that we owe the condition in which the St. Lawrence is today, claims of its pollution notwithstanding, to the quality of the St. Lawrence pilots. Without the skill and calibre of these pilots, even their interest, and because of the fact that St. Lawrence River pilots know the river like the back of their hand—they know it so well they avoid the reefs, as is true as well in the Great Lakes—there would be major incidents.

I warn the government to avoid the temptation to take away pilots' responsibility for guiding ships to the Great Lakes. The pilots are afraid for their status as St. Lawrence pilots, and I hope this fear is unjustified. For 30 years, they have felt there has been a temptation to take this responsibility away from them.

I am saying that, on the contrary, they must be assured that responsibility for safe navigation on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes is theirs. Given their calibre and skill, I think they require assurance that they will continue to do this work.

In short, we agree with most of the conclusions of this report and everything relating to the protection of the environment and the individual. Once again, I ask the government to act on its intention and ensure there is an obligation for shipowners to carry insurance in keeping with their responsibilities.

I will add one other small point, which I do not find here, and that is that it seems to me there should be a requirement to inspect vessels moving from the sea into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This would avoid damage caused by aging vessels, which could pollute the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, in the event of an incident.

[Cheese Production, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said last week that the issue of permits to import cheese over and above negotiated quotas was justified by demand or by a lack.

However, the volume of domestic cheese production easily meets demand without the need to import.

How does the minister explain the government's permitting the importation of cheese as a residue or in sticks, when local producers are struggling with surpluses and the industry will have to assume the loss of thousands of jobs?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pity that we have to deal with this issue today at this hour, at the end of the week. It takes a truly superb speaker to make the House crackle with excitement, even though the issue we are dealing with is extremely interesting.

Environmental issues have always been one of my concerns, but this is especially the case since I became a politician. I learned the ropes of political life in Quebec's National Assembly. At the time, in 1976, when Mr. Lévesque came to power in Quebec, there was no Department of the Environment.

The first environment minister was Marcel Léger. Not long after that, I became his assistant in environmental matters. Therefore, there are a few issues that are of concern to me and that I know better than others. Among them, of course, are issues related to environment.

The legislation introduced by the hon. member at least has the merit of bringing us to talk about the environment. In my opinion, we do not deal with it often enough. This is an area that should be a major concern for the population, because if we do not ensure that the environment is protected and if we do not make more efforts in this regard in the future, future generations will surely lay the blame at our feet.

We only have to think of greenhouse gases, for example, which are warming up our planet. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about pollution in the St. Lawrence River.

We realize it is high time governments did the right thing and tried to restore the environment, and not only try to restore it, but also ensure we no longer pollute it.

There is one aspect of the bill I disagree with; once again, we have here a bill which encroaches on provincial areas of jurisdiction.

In the area of the environment, Quebec has come a long way since 1975-76. I can tell the House that contaminated sites are now being reviewed. We have what it takes to do it. We have the necessary legislation and the BAPE does an excellent job.

The bill is flawed in the sense that once again there is overlapping. This slows down progress not only with regard to restoring the environment but also to protecting it.

In an area such as this one, it is important that each level of government stick to its own jurisdiction and act without delay to restore—studying is not enough—sites that unfortunately were allowed to be polluted. The areas of jurisdiction are very clear. We do not need new legislation for that.

I had the opportunity to talk about Lake Saint-Pierre, among others. Lake Saint-Pierre was polluted by the Canadian Forces. They fired shells into it. The consequences have been obvious since the 1950s. There were serious accidents as a result of shells being carried away by the ice.

This is clearly a federal jurisdiction. We do not need studies and special legislation and special committees to see how Lake Saint-Pierre must be restored. This lake is a source of vitality, of life for the river. It is the lung that restores polluted water coming from cities such as Montreal.

Lake Saint-Pierre was polluted with bombs. The Canadian Forces polluted it and we are asking the minister responsible to see to its cleanup as quickly as possible. We have been asking this for years. This is clearly a federal jurisdiction and this is not open to dispute. And yet, this is not being done.

This morning I talked about the pollution in Bagotville. This is a serious case of pollution that is spreading and seeping into groundwaters in the town of La Baie. I asked a question this morning on this. What answer did I get? I was told the government is examining the issue, that it is looking at the situation and that it will solve the problem when it arises. However the problem exists and this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. We do not need a private member's bill. We need only the government's goodwill to solve the pollution problem in Bagotville.

Not only have the shores of the St. Lawrence River been ruined but between Trois-Rivières and Quebec City we have lost and are still losing a great portion of land to erosion. Some houses have had to be moved back, because traffic on St. Lawrence River moved a little too rapidly. Again, this is clearly a federal jurisdiction.

In the past we have managed to get some money to restore and protect the shores of the St. Lawrence River but it is far from over. Municipalities like Sainte-Marthe, Champlain, Batiscan and scores of others all the way to Quebec City are asking us to try to get money to do something because the shores of the St. Lawrence River are being eroded. This comes under federal jurisdiction but the federal government is not doing anything.

There is a disaster waiting to happen on the St. Lawrence River. I already talked about this when we discussed the marine transportation bill.

Throughout the world there is an increasing number of accidents involving ships carrying oil or other dangerous substances. Almost every month we hear about ships sinking somewhere and polluting the shores.

Imagine for a moment that a tanker moving oil to or from Montreal had an accident on the St. Lawrence River. Seven million Quebecers would be affected. What are we doing to prevent this from happening? Some will say that it never happened. Well, it did. Fortunately it was not a disaster, but last year a ship broke in two near Sept-Îles. Fortunately, it did not cause any damage. I live by the St. Lawrence River and each year we see spills, not major ones but enough to see oil on the shores.

Through a bill, I suggested that the Canadian government, that is the Minister of Transport who is responsible for that—it is his jurisdiction—should require that every ship entering the St. Lawrence River carrying dangerous products be inspected. It would be a preventive measure. We do not need legislation for that, just the political will to do it. We could certainly prevent disasters. I hope it never happens. Still, every year we are concerned about that.

Oil shippers seem to use older tankers. When a ship breaks in two, it is often said that the ship was not inspected properly, that is was too old. These same ships go up the St. Lawrence River to Quebec City, to Montreal and on to the Great Lakes.

I often see these ships sail by since I live by the river. I pray to God that we not have a disaster like they had last year in France. We hear about this sort of thing happening all the time all over the place.

This is something that could be done immediately to cleanup and protect our water. I am talking about Lake Saint-Pierre and about inspecting ships carrying dangerous products on the St. Lawrence River. When we talk about the army or the air force contaminating the water table, as they did in Bagotville and Shannon, the minister says “There is no problem. The people are satisfied; we give them bottled water”. Yes, the water table is useless now but the consolation prize is that “From now on, you will be drinking bottled water”. Or better yet, we are told that the water table will clean itself up.

I want to thank the member who introduced the bill for raising the issue today. Although I just have to support the purpose of the bill, I still think that the member should introduce a bill asking the federal government to respect the jurisdictions in this area, to get involved in the restoration of the shores of the St. Lawrence River and all contaminated sites and to respect and support the work of the BAPE in Quebec.

Since my time is running out, I hope I will be able to come back to this very important issue in the near future.