Michel Bellehumeur

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, theft, misappropriation of funds, prostitution, racism, physical and verbal abuse of Cambodians, arms trafficking, unauthorized use of cannon and pornographic videos.

I realize people in the army like videos, but I think making pornographic movies at the Crown's expense for an armoury in Toronto is going a bit too far.

Does the minister agree it is high time the government woke up and introduced specific measures to improve co-operation between civilian and military authorities, in order to prevent further occurrences of this kind, which are totally unacceptable?

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, after the incidents in Somalia, the government abolished the airborne regiment. After the incidents in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the army took punitive action. However, in the case of Cambodia, the government simply put the lid on the whole affair, and no one really knows whether any punitive action was taken in the case of military personnel.

I realize we can probably get the documents via the Access to Information Act, but I would ask the minister to give us a clear answer. Could the minister tell us whether punitive action or disciplinary measures were taken, and if so, what kind?

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.

This morning we heard that military personnel were involved in a series of incidents in Cambodia, including physical abuse, racism, arms trafficking and running a brothel.

The army has been involved in a series of scandals in Somalia, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and now in Cambodia. What does the government intend to do to restore discipline among these and all other members of the Canadian military?

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

You are holding back, are you not?

I was saying that with Motion No. 24 that we introduced, when all is said and done, it was very clear that the Government of Quebec had a say in all sorts of agreements that the federal government could conclude with respect to the bill on endangered species.

There is another motion that is extremely important and that is along the same lines. I understand that the Chair has grouped the Bloc Quebecois's Motions Nos. 2, 16, 21, 24, 26, 34, 35, 44, 49, 55 and 64 together because they are all similar. That is the logic we are using in the amendments to make it clear that provincial legislatures have the last word on agreements concluded with respect to endangered species.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out the excellent work done by the member for Laurentides, who examined the issue in extraordinary detail. I think she had an extremely good grasp of the problems. She showed great initiative throughout. She took the time to consult her colleagues in the National Assembly so as to have a very clear position, to truly represent the greater interests of Quebec.

When we defend the interests of Quebec, they are always paramount in our eyes because they affect us deeply. That is why we are here. The day after the election, we will still be here to defend the interests of Quebec, and all the more so, considering how things will be after the election.

That being said, Motion No. 44 says:

(l.l) Where a provincial minister advises the Minister that the government of the province does not wish subsection (1) to apply in the province in respect of a wildlife animal species in so far as individuals of the species are found on lands in the province that are not federal lands, this subsection shall not apply to the species-

So, here again, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the provincial government to exclude species that the federal government would perhaps like to protect, but that the province, for all sorts of reasons, would not, or vice versa. All the motions we introduced are really along these lines, that is they seek to make it possible to establish very clearly the provinces' jurisdiction in this sector, which, in any event, comes under provincial jurisdiction. Yet the federal department wants to pass legislation in this area. We will allow it, with some extremely important modifications that will set things out clearly so that the agreement will be a good one.

Immediately after sovereignty is achieved, Quebec will want to have agreements with the federal government and with the other provinces. I believe we are capable of demonstrating this with a bill such as the one we have before us at present.

I do not want to take too much advantage of a good thing this Thursday, so I shall finish with this, a quote from the Quebec Minister of the Environment, David Cliche, who put Bill C-65 into its proper perspective with a concrete example. A bill which seems very ordinary at first glance, with which everyone ought to agree in order to protect little sparrows, can have some effects that are extremely important for the economy of Quebec when it is put into application.

On November 26, 1996, David Cliche said the following: "With Bill C-65, the federal government, under the pretext of protecting the harlequin duck-to take but one example-could intervene directly in our energy policy by saying that, in order to protect the harlequin, the Minister of Natural Resources could exclude a given river from hydro-electric development and rational use. This is a flagrant example of federal intervention in our areas of jurisdiction, an inconceivable intervention, and an unacceptable Canadian interference in our jurisdiction".

You see, this is just an ordinary little bill on which everyone agrees. We must protect the little sparrows, the whales and so on, from extinction. However, the government could use this to encroach upon jurisdictions which are even more clearly provincial and even stall a sector of Quebec's economy, like the example I gave, for hydro-electric power.

I have almost finished. He also said: "The federal minister-I will not name him, because he does-has just introduced in the House of Commons a bill which has raised concerns in Quebec. I want to put this into context because it illustrates the difficulties of federal-provincial relations. Recently I represented Quebec in Charlottetown and I defended its interests in the area of environment and wildlife. We had an agreement. We had even signed an agreement whereby if the federal government introduced legislation on the protection of endangered species under federal control, it ought to respect provincial jurisdictions, especially territorial jurisdiction. We thought we had an agreement with Ottawa on the following principle, which is simple: If we agree that a species is endangered, it is the responsibility of the government which has jurisdiction over the land on which the endangered species is living to take action to protect its habitat and, hence, the species itself".

The minister added: "The main problem Quebec has with this bill is that the federal government is changing the rules of the game completely by no longer establishing that the territory on which a species lives is also important for determining which jurisdiction applies. Instead, the federal government is trying to grab more power by extending the scope of the definition of federal land".

I could have quoted the minister more extensively, but this short excerpt allow us to clearly see that there is a problem. It shows especially that the presence of the Bloc Quebecois in this House is useful to make the connection between what happens in Quebec and what happens in Ottawa. Again, the Bloc Quebecois is here to defend Quebec's interests. We do so very well and we will continue to do so after the elections.

I thank you for your co-operation and also for your smiling attention. I believe it was a smile of approval and I thank you for it.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I knew what I was saying was so interesting that I would easily have the unanimous consent of the House. I thank my colleagues, particularly the member for Beauséjour who is smiling. For a minute I thought he was going to start applauding.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill that concerns my riding to some degree.

This bill may, at first glance, affect my riding since Berthier-Montcalm is located between Montreal and Trois-Rivières. This riding includes all the islands of Sorel and Berthier where, every year, many migrating birds, some of which are endangered, come to spend a few days or a few weeks before leaving for other places.

Unfortunately, even though it deals with endangered species, I have to say I am not in favour of this bill. It is not because its subject matter is not important, not because it is not dealing with fundamental issues, but simply because I feel Bill C-65 does not respect provincial jurisdiction.

It is not the first time the federal government has tried to interfere in this area of jurisdiction, probably because it wanted to keep its 1993 election promises, its red book promises. This will no doubt remind you, Madam Speaker, of the time when the minister talked about "a vision of a society that protects the long-term health and diversity of all species on the planet".

I am sure you remember that phrase from the red book. Although that vague commitment on endangered species can be interpreted in a number of ways, the red book contained more specific commitments which the government has not met. I would have told the government to forget about its promise, since this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. But, once again, the government has decided it wants to legislate in this area.

Hon. members will remember that, in Spring of 1995, the kite and flag lady, the current Deputy Prime Minister, then the environment minister, introduced a bill along the same lines as the bill before us today.

At the time, there was such an outcry in the environment community and also in the provinces and among the people who have to enforce the law that a year later, after a cabinet shuffle, the new environment minister decided to call a meeting of environment ministers to try to reach an agreement.

Indeed, on October 2, 1996, in Charlottetown, a famous city which has often left its mark on Canadian history, an agreement in principle was reached. However, if you were to compare the provisions of Bill C-65 with the so-called agreement in principle reached on October 2, 1996, you would soon realize that they are completely different.

Either we do not speak the same language in this country or we do not understand the same things. However, a bird is a bird and a whale is a whale, but we do not seem to understand the same things when a bill has to be drafted to ensure the agreement comes into force.

This is so true that on December 2 of the same year, the Quebec environment minister, David Cliche, wrote to the current federal Minister of the Environment to indicate that there were in fact some inconsistencies between the agreement in principle that was reached and the bill. I will not read the whole letter, because I know the minister has a copy, but for our viewers and the many Liberal members who are carefully listening, I would like to quote parts of the letter sent by Mr. Cliche.

It says: "Nor was it ever agreed that ratification of a treaty by Canada changed anything in the distribution of jurisdictions and gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction to implement

the treaty". The purpose of the treaty is still to protect endangered species.

Further on, he adds: "Under the pretext of protecting species at risk, the bill is in fact an attempt to rewrite or reinterpret the Canadian Constitution and the way it gives certain powers to various levels of government". This is a minister of the Quebec National Assembly writing to the federal Minister of Environment to tell him: "Listen. There are several differences between what we agreed upon and what there is in the act, in particular a marked difference in jurisdictions."

He says a little further: "Thus the federal government's definition of federal land for the purposes of the bill has no relation to reality. We never understood that the management of fish stocks or inland or coastal waters navigation meant that the federal government had jurisdiction over all aquatic ecosystems, along with the seabed and the subsoil and the airspace above these waters".

The federal government took advantage of this legislation to provide more than was necessary and to try once again to go against Quebec's views, even on issues that I think are quite neutral, on which we could easily agree if people would truly respect the agreements in principle that have been hammered out and the Canadian Constitution. This is a minimum and this is not asking too much but, at this stage, it seems to be extremely difficult to agree on these factors.

On Bill C-65, the Bloc Quebecois will be true to its mandate to protect Quebec's interests and those of the true Parliament in Quebec, that is, the National Assembly, since that is what all men and women of Quebec identify with. It was quite natural for us to propose amendments to the bill that would reflect that.

One motion requires co-operation between all levels of government. I understand that a migratory bird landing in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm can take off and land again in the riding of Beauséjour. I can understand that and I think it requires co-operation between all levels of government.

Motions Nos. 16, 24 and 26 call for the recognition of provincial primacy. Why? Simply to respect the Canadian Constitution. Nobody can accuse us, as members of the Bloc, sovereignists, nationalists and all the other ist-words, of not wanting to respect the Canadian Constitution in this House, the Constitution the Liberals across the way signed in 1982 and whose 15th anniversary they celebrated not too long ago. We did not celebrate that anniversary for other reasons.

I think it is just normal to want to respect the Constitution which gives each level of government certain responsibilities, but it seems to be difficult.

I will read to you Motion No. 24 so you understand that what we are asking is really not complicated. Here is what it says:

"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), no responsible minister may enter into an agreement under that subsection with an organization or person in a province unless the minister advises the provincial minister of that province of the responsible minister's intention to enter into the agreement with the organization or person, as the case may be, and the provincial minister informs the responsible minister that the government of the province does not object to the responsible minister entering into such an agreement with that organization or person."

It is crystal clear. In other words, we are saying to the federal minister that, if he wants to enter into agreements with organizations in Quebec, for example, he must simply inform the environment minister of that province.

Madam Speaker, I could have spoken all afternoon about these important motions, but you are indicating to me that my time is up. Am I right? May I have the unanimous consent of the House to conclude my remarks? I need five or ten more minutes to finish my argument on these motions, if the House agrees.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

More like sweating.

[Business Of The House, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take any chance.

In case Aline Chrétien decided to ask her husband to do the spring cleaning at 24 Sussex Drive, instead of calling an election, I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House to tell us what is on the agenda for next week.

[Committees Of The House, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois produced a dissenting report for a good reason. After this cross country tour, as the hon. member said, and after investing tens of thousands of dollars in this study, the Liberals apparently gave the impression, after considering how Quebec treated its young offenders, that they would support an approach that was proposed by Quebec in the sixties and would fully support the demands of the Bloc Quebecois, demands which simply reflected the wishes of all Quebecers.

Instead, at the very last minute, the Liberals preferred to pay lip service to certain principles and make recommendations that were more like campaign promises, in an attempt to satisfy part of the electorate in English Canada. One thing I cannot tolerate is that the government made a concession on the minimum age of young offenders by lowering it to 10 and 11, with the agreement of the attorney general. It is up to the government to set standards and pass legislation that is enforced across Canada. If it does not want to do so, it should get out of this area and hand it over to Quebec, which is what we want, or the other provinces.

However, as long as we have a Constitution and certain rules, the government has an obligation to pass legislation on young offenders that will be enforced uniformly across this country.

By the way, some Liberals told me I was a whiner because I was proposing recommendations that reflected Quebec's historic demands regarding this issue. That is one of the reasons why I decided to produce a minority report. The government would not listen.

As far as age is concerned, I do not think the age should be lowered this way, even with the consent of the attorneys general of the provinces. In Quebec, attorneys general will certainly not agree to lower the age and make 10 and 11 year-olds stand trial. In Western Canada people may think differently, but I think this is unacceptable.

As far as cost sharing is concerned, one of Quebec's demands which has been on the desk of the Minister of Justice for many months and many years, is the $77 million it costs Quebec because we properly enforce the Young Offenders Act. Before the government makes recommendations as it has done in the majority report, I think it should pay what it owes Quebec and write a cheque for $77 million. But we can get back to that during the election campaign.

My third item is the federal government's tendency to intrude in a number of areas where it has no business to be. It is not up to the federal government to tell the provinces what to do with the money it pays them for the administration of justice. This is a provincial matter, and in this case, it is up to Quebec.

I realize that members from English Canada do not like listening to what I have to say, but I say it with all the facts in hand, and I have the satisfaction of having done my duty.

[Committee Of The House, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to reply to my colleague, the member for Gaspé, on this issue.

On a number of occasions, the Liberals were heard telling us in the House that the whole issue of family trusts, the scandal of the century, was not their fault. They were not the ones who did it, it was the Conservatives. To help the Liberal members opposite, because they are going to be asked about this during the upcoming election campaign, I would like them to recall that it was in 1970, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in office, that 21 year family trusts were introduced.

In 1991, the Conservatives took over. Having opposed the idea in 1970, they simply continued the family trust system.

What must be remembered is that, on December 23, 1991, the day before Christmas at approximately 11.30 in the evening, very industrious employees of the department headed up to Parliament Hill and went to their offices.

Why? So that two rich Canadian families could move $2 billion out of Canada without paying a cent in taxes. Do you know what kind of a present this represents for these multibillionaire families? It represents a minimum of $500 million that Canadian taxpayers, the unemployed, single parent families and fathers who have trouble making ends meet at the end of the week because of taxes and the way the Liberal government is spending public money, all had to make up through the taxes they paid.

That is the scandal. And what have the Liberals done since 1993? They have covered it up. They have done everything to prevent us from finding out what really happened on December 23 at 11.30 in the evening. The Liberals took part in this cover up.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, as the official opposition and as watchdogs, asked questions here in the House. We wanted to get to the bottom of the matter once and for all in committee, and the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans did an excellent job in this regard as chairman of this committee in really trying to get to the bottom of this cover-up by the Liberals, who did everything they could to prevent us from getting answers to legitimate questions everyone had about this scandal.