Marcel Gagnon

[Request For Emergency Debate, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think that you will view what I am about to say as sufficiently important to be taken into consideration in your ruling.

I am the member for Champlain, which is the riding next to Saint-Maurice. This is our region. The allegations which were made this morning, the new information we have received, comes from our riding and the neighbouring riding, from the region. This business is beginning to weigh heavily on us, even economically. The member for Saint-Maurice is not—

[Premier Of Quebec, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, presented a game plan to allow the people of Quebec to examine their future and select the political status that will allow them to fully and freely exercise, in sovereignty, the areas of jurisdiction their development requires.

This game plan includes an update on the Bélanger-Campeau Commission's study of Quebec sovereignty, the creation of a commission of experts to be headed by taxation specialist Yves Séguin, on the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and Quebec, the setting in motion of a set of vigorous measures in favour of regional development and social solidarity.

The effect of this speech by the Premier of Quebec on us Bloc Quebecois MPs is like a deep breath of fresh air. Mr. Landry can rest assured that we too will put our shoulders to the wheel in order to fully achieve the potential of Quebec, that is its sovereignty.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke for hitting it on the head, because what he just described is something we have been pointing out for some time now in Quebec.

It is for this and for all the reasons he gave, and others as well, that our dream is to see Quebec independent as soon as possible.

I have a question for him. Should the member not help us to get Quebec out of this system for all the good reasons he gave?

There is only one thing I would disagree with, and that is that whichever government is sitting opposite—I agree it is worse with the Liberals—the system is exactly as he described for Quebec. It is no longer any good for Quebec and Quebec wants to run its own show. Has he understood what I am getting at?

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 concerns the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. I would like to briefly put the bill in context.

Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the evolution of the earth over more than 4.5 billion years. This process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. Together they form the ecosystems that we know today. Each one plays a specific role in the food chain and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.

However, in recent years scientists have been warning about the disappearance of certain species in increasing numbers, as well as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or extremely vulnerable species.

It is appropriate to have a debate on this legislation just after the list of species at risk of extinction in the country has grown to an all time high. In Canada the number of wild animals, plants, insects and marine organisms at risk of disappearing now stands at an all time high of 354. This is a stark reminder that our country's natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species disappear from our planet speaks volumes to the overall health of our environment and ultimately our own human health. As we know, when species disappear from our planet it means that we could also disappear if we are not careful.

Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic since the time of the dinosaurs. Down through the ages an average of two or three species disappeared each year for natural reasons. Two or three species are now disappearing from the planet every hour. This is alarming and it is entirely due to the actions of human beings.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are aware that all Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about the protection of species at risk and about protecting and preserving the environment as a whole. We recognize that the fragile balance of the ecosystem must be protected and preserve.

In the past few years there has been a worldwide attempt to halt this phenomenon. Since the 1970s international agreements have been signed with a view to limiting trade in certain animal and plant species in order to protect them from extinction.

Cases in point include the 1971 convention on wetlands of international importance especially as a waterfowl habitat, better known as the RAMSAR convention, the 1973 convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the 1979 convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals.

In 1992, at the Rio summit, many nations of the world, including Canada, signed the convention on biological diversity and made the commitment to “develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations”.

Soon after that, the Liberals promised, in their red book, to ensure long term protection of species that live on our planet. In 1995 the Minister of the Environment introduced a bill in that spirit. The bill gave rise to an incredible amount of criticism and protest, mainly from environmental groups. One of the main objections to the bill had to do with the fact that the legislation would apply to federal territories only.

In 1996 the federal government proposed a Canada-wide agreement to the provincial and territorial ministers of the environment, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. In October 1996, the ministers responsible for wildlife gave agreement in principle.

At the time although the Quebec minister of the environment signed he issued an independent press release in which he made it clear he could not ignore the fact that the agreement would likely pave the way for overlap and that developments would have to be monitored very closely.

Members will tell me that it is a common event to have overlap between Quebec and the federal government. At that time, the provinces were very vocal in their criticism of the federal government for giving itself such broad powers on the protection of species.

Pollution and migration know no borders, so a concerted effort is required worldwide. Canada needs to better protect its species at risk.

To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has designated 340 species of wildlife in Canada as being at risk. Of that total, 12 are extinct, 15 others are extirpated in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 threatened and 151 vulnerable.

With the increasing rate with which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. Effective action is therefore necessary. But has this bill really made a contribution to improving the protection of our ecosystem and of the endangered species in it?

Unfortunately the government and the minister are wrong about what their real role is in designing a realizable plan to provide such protection.

The government is but one of the many stakeholders, and it has not yet figured out that its true role is to build bridges between the various stakeholders, not walls. I must say that the federal government is far more interested in promising to build bridges when it is electioneering than in building bridges between stakeholders. It is extremely good at building walls, however. So that is what the true task of government is when it comes to endangered species, a task it has failed.

The bill on species at risk the Liberals have introduced will polarize and divide stakeholders much more than it will unite them.

Every action plan to protect species at risk must be based on respect, that is on respect for species living in our waters and our lands, and for those to whom they belong.

This bill is full of provisions providing discretionary power, to the point that, if it passes without amendment, it will be the weakest of its type in North America.

True to the Liberal style, Bill C-5 establishes officially the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as the ultimate authority in determining endangered species.

At the same time the bill prevents this committee, which makes decisions based on scientific data, from determining which species are in fact protected by law. The committee determines which are the endangered species, but will not be allowed under the bill to take steps to protect these species and to draw up a list of them.

The day the bill becomes law, there will be no more endangered species in Canada, at least officially. Not one species at risk today will be protected under this legislation, until the minister has established his list.

The current list of species at risk, the product of 23 years of work by COSEWIC, will not be considered a given and will not be automatically included in the law. When is an endangered species an endangered species? When the minister so decides, it seems.

What threatens species most is the loss of their habitat, where they live, reproduce and feed. Habitat loss is responsible for 80% of species decline in Canada. Passing a law that does not protect habitat is really a waste of parliament's time. Again Bill C-5 fails in this regard.

I mention as an example an issue I raised this week about what the Canadian forces are doing right now in Lake Saint-Pierre, in Quebec. We know that the government is still thinking about cleaning up Lake Saint-Pierre, which would indeed come under federal jurisdiction.

Under the provisions of this bill a species will be protected at the discretion of the Minister of the Environment. Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division of powers as stated in the constitution and as interpreted over the years. This bill truly interferes in an area under provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the process.

The main problem with this bill, which seems to be raised by all environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists.

Considering the increasing rate of species extinction, the situation is serious. It is true that we must take effective measures, but does this bill really provide an additional protection that is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them? In our opinion the answer to these two questions is no.

In fact we are opposed to this bill because it constitutes yet another direct intrusion into many areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. It even overlaps the act passed by Quebec in 1989, which works just fine and has already had a significant impact in our province. The federal government is again engaging in overlapping.

The bill could very well increase paper burden, instead of allowing for an efficient use of already scarce resources. This is what the federal government is currently specializing in: creating paper burden, instead of respecting everyone's jurisdictions and working more efficiently with less money.

Moreover, what the federal government calls a double safety net, that is two levels of government operating in the same jurisdiction, waters down the accountability of both and seriously complicates the assignment of responsibilities.

In conclusion, we recognize the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them, but we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposing the principle of this bill today. However, we will examine it more thoroughly in committee and we will then be able to better define our position on this issue.

[St. Patrick's Day, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 17 we will be celebrating St. Patrick's Day, the national day of the Irish people, whose struggle to take their place among the nations of the world remains a source of inspiration to the Quebec people.

In the early 19th century, Louis-Joseph Papineau and the patriotes of the day were inspired by the nationalist convictions of Ireland's Daniel O'Connell.

We are told that 40% of Quebecers, many francophone, may have Irish ancestry, so there is a good explanation for the tenacious character of the Quebec people.

The beauty, richness and open-mindedness of the Quebec people and its culture is due to the contribution of all the immigrants who have settled here, each bringing with them something of their own history.

Today I and the Bloc Quebecois wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, earlier, some members seemed to find it bizarre that Quebec would sponsor a motion asking the Canadian government to protect us. We were told that this is contrary to our ideology.

Would the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier agree that a sovereign or independent Quebec could better defend itself and would not have to ask another government to do so?

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. When he talks about the competitiveness of the workers of his province, and the same goes for Quebec workers, he is right to say that some industries are able to face competition. In this sense, this is why free trade is beneficial for us.

As I said in my speech, one must have the energy, the willingness and the strength to succeed. To my knowledge this strength is also to be found in parliament.

Ministers who have such issues to contend with should submit them to us for discussion, to obtain the support of parliament and make use of its strength, so that they can meet with the Americans and tell them that we are almost unanimously in favour of free trade. There must be free trade because this has been negotiated. It has to happen now. No barrier is acceptable.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I congratulate the member for Joliette, for initiating this debate today.

I am also scandalized, a bit like the member for Burnaby—Douglas earlier, that an issue as important as this is being raised today, two weeks before the end of the agreement, two weeks before free trade resumes and by the opposition.

Such an important matter as this should have been given special attention by the House, debated and treated with something besides arrogance on the part of the government when we ask questions about it. It should have been responded to in a way that at least gives impression the issue is being addressed, if forestry workers are not given full satisfaction.

When we asked questions on lumber in the House, we had the impression the issue was a bit embarrassing or that it did not concern us.

This morning, thanks to my colleague from Joliette, we are having an indepth debate and we can show just how important this matter is. It is important for Quebec and for the rest of Canada. As we have just said, what does it mean for Quebec? It means 30,000 jobs, including 10,000 in the forest. This matter is doubly important for my riding of Champlain.

This year we will be celebrating the 350th anniversary of the city and the region of Cap-de-la-Madeleine. We are at the start. The forest is part of our culture, part of our past and will be part of our future if properly handled. My riding includes the city of La Tuque, in the north. Each time there is talk of American dissatisfaction over lumber, I can say the workers around La Tuque are not particularly happy with the situation. They do not like it a whole lot.

Last week I travelled around that region. They begged me to press the minister to do his best to defend this cause. He should stop saying in the House that he has everything under control if he is to come back after a meeting with the Americans and say that he is a bit discouraged by the whole issue.

The Mauricie region depends on the wood industry, on softwood lumber. Our industries have managed to adapt. Our industries are financially viable. As my colleague said earlier, perhaps the Americans are afraid because we adapted a bit quicker than they did. However we must now have the opportunity to compete freely. We can be replaced.

Sources say that the wood industry in general, especially the softwood lumber industry which is the object of today's debate, involves some 250 communities in the province of Quebec. Most of the 27 communities in my riding are concerned by the softwood lumber issue. I hope the minister will understand. Even if we do not obtain unanimous consent from the House, I hope we will give the minister a clear enough mandate for him to stand up and avoid weakening his position. To this end there is nothing else to do but to come back to free trade as of April 1.

I will read again the motion of the member for Joliette:

That this House support the government will [—]

I wish to underline the word will, because I was wondering if the will was there. I have faith in the Prime Minister who seemed to be saying yesterday that the will was there.

The motion goes on:

—the government—in its efforts to restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade process.

The motion before us is extremely important. In the riding of Champlain and in the Mauricie region, history is closely related to the forest. I remember the fight that I personally led in the late seventies, as a member of the national assembly, regarding the closure of pulp and paper mills. At the time, Trois-Rivières was considered the world capital of pulp and paper. We held our ground and we modernized the plants, thanks to René Lévesque, who believed in the importance of unconditional government support.

Mr. Lévesque used to say that the broadest possible consensus was needed to protect such an important industry. When we ask the minister about this issue, I would appreciate it if we could get answers other than those that we were given yesterday, and I am not only referring to this specific issue.

Yesterday, when we put questions to one minister, another would reply. Then, when we would ask a question to the second minister, the first one would provide the answer. We were treated as if we had no right to speak in the House, as if democracy did not exist. Today's motion seeks to strengthen the minister's resolve.

We had a great poet, Félix Leclerc, who was born in La Tuque and spent his childhood there. Another great performer, Sol, our national hobo, did a show to pay tribute to Félix Leclerc, after he had passed away. Sol ended his show by saying “This great and extraordinary poet of ours finally made us realize one thing: to become a giant, one has to stand up”.

I am asking the minister to stand up and to protect our lumber industry with all his energy. This morning, we are giving him our support, so that the people in La Tuque, Saint-Tite, the Mauricie and all of Quebec will know that everything will be done to protect their jobs in the lumber industry, and that the Americans will realize that, as of April 1, it is free trade and nothing else.

[Canada Shipping Act, 2001, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I happen to live on the shores of the St. Lawrence River. I hear about many incidents at sea involving ships that are carrying oil or other dangerous substances. Not a month goes by without a major disaster happening, which causes pollution in some part of our planet.

What I fear, as do other people living along the shores of the St. Lawrence River with whom I spoke, is that some day one of those disasters will happen right here. Just imagine an oil slick on the river and the damage it would cause.

Under clause 11 of the bill, the minister can have vessels inspected. Would my colleague agree that, in order to improve safety on the St. Lawrence River, we should have mandatory inspection of vessels coming from the sea, when they enter the St. Lawrence River? Vessels would be automatically inspected to provide the level of security needed to protect the shores of the St. Lawrence River.

[Criminal Code, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, on February 26 of this year, I asked the Minister of National Defence a question in the House about Lake Saint-Pierre. The answer did not satisfy me, nor did it satisfy those who live on the shores of this body of water and even use it to earn their living.

Lake Saint-Pierre is one of the lakes which purify the St. Lawrence River. It purifies the water from the Great Lakes, from cities such as Montreal, and from tributaries and various rivers. UNESCO has recognized Lake Saint-Pierre as a world reserve.

The lake is extremely rich in flora and fauna. There are professional fishers and hunters. For fifty years now, the Canadian army has been firing shells into Lake Saint-Pierre, for training purposes I believe.

More than 40% of the southern section of Lac Saint-Pierre, some 22 kilometres starting with the channel, belongs to the Canadian Forces. The lake has been polluted by some 300,000 shells, 8,000 to 10,000 of which are potentially dangerous. They are moved around by the ice in the lake.

They travel so far that every year helicopters scan both shores of the St. Lawrence right up to Île d'Orléans to try to recover shells that had been carried away by the ice. Even last year, a little girl found one, which most fortunately was disarmed.

What I am asking of the minister, on behalf of the users of Lac Saint-Pierre, is that it be restored to a safe condition, so that it can again be used as it ought to be. It is nonsensical to say that it cannot be cleared because there are no known techniques for doing so. This is not true. There are techniques known at this time for clearing the lake, and even people prepared to bid on cleaning up the lake and removing the potentially dangerous shells in and around it.

I am therefore calling upon the minister to promptly review the Lac Saint-Pierre situation. It is extremely important for the flora, the fauna and the users of the lake, both those who make a living from it and the tourists. It is a huge tourist attraction, because it is a large lake, some fifty kilometres in length and some twenty wide, stretching from Trois-Rivières to the islands at Sorel.

We are told it would be too costly. However, if the Canadian forces spend some $200 million on shells they say are no longer used, I think we could perhaps cut part of this money and take some $40 million a year to clean up this body of water. This is what I am asking the minister.

The minister said “Yes, eventually. We are studying and perhaps”. I say to the minister that this needs to be done urgently. Every year the ice carries shells, and they are found along the shore of the St. Lawrence. Action must be taken before something dramatic happens. There has already been loss of life. It could be even more serious, because some of these shells could be armed just by fishing gear.

I do not want to cause anyone to panic, but Lac Saint-Pierre has to be cleaned up. The Canadian forces, responsible for its pollution, have to do their job as user-payer. Companies are asked to clean up the sites they have polluted, but the Canadian forces have been polluting this lake for 50 years.

I think urgent that the Minister of National Defence ask the Canadian forces to return the body of water to the state the users want it in.