Stéphan Tremblay

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am getting there. But the folks in our ridings deserve a nod.

I am very proud of my riding—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

People sometimes think that the Bloc Quebecois or the other opposition parties systematically oppose everything the government proposes. We for our part support this bill. We may have a few concerns, some constructive criticism, but in general terms, we will vote in favour of the bill's being sent to committee.

I would first like to take a few minutes to send greetings to the people in my riding. This is not the first time I have risen in this new Parliament, but this is my first speech. I would therefore like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the people in my riding.

As you know this is my second mandate. I obtained 64% of the vote thanks to a fine team that stuck with me throughout the campaign, which led to a great victory on June 2. The people placed their confidence in me. That moves me deeply. And I thank them very much.

In all good faith, I would like to salute my opponents in the last election campaign, especially Clément Lajoie, the mayor of St. Bruno, a village in my riding, and Sabin Simard, the Conservative candidate.

I think all candidates ran a respectful campaign. I say “candidates” because at the party level, it was another story. When you are facing in your riding a party like the Liberal Party of Canada, I can tell you that respect sometimes goes out the window. Let me tell you I did not appreciate the Liberal Party's little destabilization tactics in the middle of the campaign.

It was rumoured that we had not risen often enough in the House, while over not quite eight months I think I had risen more than 70 times, which is quite a bit more than many members across the way. The word was going around that I attended only 80% of votes, when it is well known that one day a week, that is one day out of five or 20% of the time, I could not be here. They were trying to destabilize us in the middle of the campaign using this kind of lines. They played with public opinion by capitalizing on the fact that people are not necessarily familiar with how politics works.

Also, what I find most disturbing is how much money these political parties have available. You probably know that, as a party, the Bloc Quebecois believe it is important not to have financial ties with business or corporate interests. That is why there are no corporate donations allowed in Quebec, only public funding.

When, in the middle of an election campaign, you find yourself pitted against political parties that take donations from large corporations, I find it extremely painful to have a policy to that effect, especially considering how they get their financing. This was made obvious recently during question period.

In a word, Mr. Speaker, as I can see you watching the clock, while I will not rend my clothes over this issue, I certainly would have a lot to say on the matter, but there is nothing to worry about.

I may be upset with how things were done in the past, as I said, but fear not, I am looking to the future. In fact, I am absolutely thrilled about the future. Because the future means 44 Bloc members. It means the year 2000 and a new country. This will require a third referendum, and this time the yes side will win.

[Conseil Québécois Du Patrimoine Vivant, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, from October 3 to 5, Jonquière will be, for the first time, host to the rally of the Conseil québécois du patrimoine vivant, the fifth in its history.

Jonquière, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is a great place to hold this momentous event. Under the theme “La grande criée d'automne au Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean”, this event will showcase, through conferences, workshops and performances, the various aspects of our region's heritage, including folk tales, traditions, legends and heritage sites.

I join with my hon. colleague from Jonquière and take this opportunity to extend our welcome to everyone visiting our beautiful region and to thank the Corporation de sauvegarde du patrimoine de Jonquière and the William Price interpretation centre for their contribution to these activities.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Outdated, perhaps, but a very global and very uniform view of the country.

I will ask one question of the hon. member across the way. Does she not consider that all of the youth initiatives taken by the government are merely interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to a person who is just an ordinary citizen, not particularly interested in politics, who turns on the TV to find our colleague across the way on the screen, praising the youth program being developed by the Minister of Human Resources Development, as I heard him doing—the minister seems to be confirming my words—that it is important for people to understand that the youth programs, the Human Resources Development programs, must reflect youth problems as much as possible.

What must be understood is that the problems very often differ from one region to the next. When the federal government comes up with programs, very often the problem is that it bases them on a single reality. I do not know if it is the reality as perceived by public servants or by politicians, but it is the reality of people with a view of the country that is very—

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the federal government try to dole out federal money in order to buy students.

I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he intends to give the money for this new program to the Quebec government, as has been done with the loans and bursaries program for the past 30 years?

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the future federal minister of education, whoever he may be.

In his response to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister kept for himself the announcement of new meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Prime Minister announced the government's intention to set up a fund to distribute bursaries directly to students.

How can the minister play saviour and announce such a fund worth $1 billion without blushing, when his cuts to education, which will amount to $10 billion, have put students in debt like never before?

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate you on your appointment. You are one of the Reform Party members with whom I have had the opportunity to work. In fact, when we worked together, it was precisely on a youth initiative program, as our colleague mentioned earlier.

What I want to ask the hon. member is whether he admits that the federal government is about to get fully involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the national conference on youth and the new economy had young participants from everywhere, including eastern and western Canada, Quebec and other regions of the country. These people from every region of the country told us that these youth initiatives, these employment initiatives must be implemented, to the extent possible, where the problems are, namely in the regions. In other words, we must take measures that are appropriate to the specific problems of the regions.

Listening to the hon. member opposite, one gets the impression that the federal government is the saviour of the world and that the municipalities and provincial governments have no jurisdiction and are not accountable to the public. Upon reading the throne speech, one cannot help but conclude that the federal government is trying to get involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction and to enhance its visibility.

I have a question for the hon. member. What does the federal government have to gain from getting involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is probably my last speech of this 35th Parliament. It went by very fast. It was very little time indeed, compared to all my hon. colleagues.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in the federal electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean. As I said in my maiden speech, they have put their trust in me. They were not sure, in fact there was some controversy about it, whether they should put their trust in someone who did not have any experience in politics, wondering if it would lead to disaster if the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean was represented by a young, inexperienced person.

A year later, I am pleased to note that we can trust our young people, notwithstanding their lack of experience. I think things have gone rather smoothly this past year.

I did not have time to bring certain projects to full fruition, including Opération Maillage, a networking operation designed to bring together persons with different skills. It will probably not get under way before the election, but after, and I am very pleased because we will have successfully developed a new concept in Alma. People who have an idea for business, an entrepreneurial potential, and those who are looking for a business partner could get together and share their respective skills. Small businesses should emerge, that will create jobs.

Second, we will recall that, on the evening of December 29, as an elected member faced with a problem, I called a public meeting and I said: "You must take an active part, not only by paying your taxes and going to the polls every four years, but also by getting your ideas across".

As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. I have put my trust in the people, and they have come up with solutions: a dozen policy thrusts we have been working on since January. People came up with a number of concrete proposals. I am delighted with what is happening in my riding.

Finally, it was a pleasure to work with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, and I hope I will be able to continue to do so during a subsequent term. We hope so, and it is very likely we will, because we intend to run this campaign with a lot of determination.

Sometimes people ask me: "Do you really want to start campaigning again after just one year?" I think it is wonderful for an elected representative to get back on the campaign trail just a year after being elected. During your first campaign, you are not too sure how everything works, but now, a year later, when I go back to my constituents, I will be able to tell them first hand about what happens in the House of Commons.

I wanted to make this little aside since this will be my last speech in this 35th Parliament. I must say it was a wonderful experience, and I hope I will be able to repeat it in the years to come.

Now, back to Bill C-65. I started my speech before oral question period and had to stop because of lack of time. I had started on my general comments, the reasons we more or less agreed or did not agree at all with the bill.

Bill C-65 directly threatens areas under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Liberal government is using the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity as an excuse to encroach on areas under provincial jurisdiction.

This comes as no surprise. It is the usual duplication story. Expertise has been developed in the provinces, including Quebec, where we already have legislation to protect biodiversity, legislation that goes back to 1989. The provinces had the expertise. They knew the field. Everything was fine. However, the federal government is now intruding on these jurisdictions. In fact, there is something in the Constitution about this, but unfortunately, they want the prestige. They want this federal institution to have some prestige.

Actually, I find it hard to explain. Perhaps our colleagues opposite could explain the purpose of this intrusion, but I do not understand it at all.

Furthermore, Bill C-65 respects neither division of powers provided under the Constitution nor its traditional interpretation, because it is based on a much broader interpretation of the definition of federal territory and because the government does not respect the joint constitutional responsibility it shares with the

provinces with respect to certain species. This is in line with what I said earlier.

Third, Bill C-65 gives the Minister of the Environment broad discretionary powers, including that of appointing the members of COSEWIC, listing species identified as threatened or endangered by COSEWIC and implementing recovery plans.

The same problem arises on the subject of interference in jurisdictions. The bill provides that the minister will have broad discretionary powers, including with respect to decisions on appointments to COSEWIC. It reminds me of a lot of other bills. When a committee is to be struck, it is always the minister who gets to appoint his buddies. I listened to my colleague from Frontenac speaking on this earlier. The situation is an unfortunate one because the little Liberal family will remain cloistered, not really open to the public. They appoint their buddies, their pals, to pay off their debts.

I could go on at length because this really bothers me. What about all the Liberal candidates who were defeated in the 1993 elections? I think some 40 of them are now working in the Canadian public service, simply because they had good contacts, they did the party a favour and are being paid back. That is democracy for you.

This is all the time I have. I therefore wish you a fine election, Mr. Speaker. I hope to see you in September.

[Canadian Airlines, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's comments that all Quebec taxpayers are good for is to pay tens of millions of dollars that the federal government then gives to Canadian, and that they do not

have the right to say anything when this company shuts down its operations in Quebec two months later?