Stéphan Tremblay

[Canadian Airlines, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Canadian Airlines is still having problems despite the assistance provided by the federal government. If the company cannot sell Inter-Canadian, it will shut down operations in Quebec in less than five weeks, killing 500 jobs.

What is the federal government going to do about this potential closure, after agreeing in the last few months to postpone the last payment on the $120 million loan it extended to Canadian in 1992, and after granting Canadian last February a reduction in fuel taxes of $20 million a year over the next four years.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with emotion that I address this bill on endangered species.

As a community, we must be aware of the importance of the ecosystem. We must also realize that human beings are but one element of biodiversity, and that it is vital to ensure a balance between fauna, flora and human beings.

However, statistics show that many species are endangered. Many are already extinct, and I am quite afraid that many more will meet the same fate. This truly concerns me because, if we do not protect the fauna, the flora and all these endangered species, it will have an impact on our lives, 40 years from now, even though we may not always know all these species.

Our planet is currently losing 50 species per day. This is enormous. Given the time it took to reach this point, one might conclude that the world will end in a few thousand years, which is really soon.

So, we cannot overstate, to the international community, the importance of wildlife.

Let me go back to policy, and the bill itself. While it is important to protect endangered species, we must also do so in the appropriate manner. In Quebec, we have our own approach.

Once again, I have the feeling I am saying the same things as always: the federal government is interfering in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

I remind the House that the former Minister of the Environment had created all kinds of working and consultative groups to come up with a bill that would make the federal government a leader in that area. The minister introduced her bill in the spring of 1995. It created an outcry, primarily among environmentalists. One of the main objections to the minister's bill had to do with the fact that the legislation would only apply to federal territories.

Environmental groups argued that only four provinces had a law on endangered species and that, consequently, the federal government should legislate for the whole country. I want to point out that Quebec has had an act on endangered species since 1989, and Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick also have legislation on this.

One year later, the current environment minister met with his provincial counterparts, in the hope of reaching an agreement in principle to harmonize protection and conservation policies on wildlife. The meeting took place in Charlottetown, on October 2, 1996. Even though he signed the agreement in principle, Mr. Cliche, Quebec's Minister for the Environment and for Wildlife, issued an independent press release, in which he said: "We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlapping between the future federal act and the legislation which has been in effect in Quebec since 1989 and which is working very well".

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. When we speak of broadcasting, we speak of culture and of heritage and that led my colleague, the member for Richmond-Wolfe, to comment on bills such as this.

This is probably one of the last times I will speak in the House during this Parliament, and I want to say that one of the things that have hurt my feelings the most is the way heritage and culture are dealt with here.

Only this afternoon, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage if it was normal to require individuals applying for a job with Heritage Canada to hand in a 250 word essay in support of Canadian federalism. We know that 75 per cent of the young people from Quebec who usually apply to Heritage Canada voted yes during the last referendum. So it almost boils down to telling Quebec "pay taxes, but you are not entitled to the services we can provide".

This reminds me of the recent refusal by the NFB's cultural production fund to finance Mr. Falardeau's film on the Patriotes. Sometimes, one almost has to apologize for being a Quebecer. It seems to me it is a fund to which Quebecers contribute financially. The vast majority of Quebecers would like to see Falardeau's film. I would like to see it myself. It is a part of my history and it is perfectly natural. But Ottawa says: "You do not have the right to see such films".

The third thing bothering me about heritage and culture is that members opposite and beside voted not to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel. It seems to me it would have been so easy to vote in favour, at least as a symbolic gesture. But they did not. Then they wonder why Quebecers want to leave Canada. It seems obvious to me. I can tell you that, this year, I have really seen it all.

That having been said, about Bill C-216 on broadcasting, the September 25, 1996 issue of La Presse said: ``The subscription act would jeopardize the French cable industry''. Essentially, what this bill wants to do is to prevent cable distributors from connecting some subscribers and then charging them until they say they do not want that service any longer.

I have no problem with what is called the negative option billing. If I put myself in the shoes of my colleague opposite, the member for Sarnia-Lambton, I think I could congratulate him. I do so through the Speaker. I think he is defending the interests of his riding, except that this shows a problem in the system, that is, in order to solve a local problem, the government must draft Canadian legislation at the expense of other regions, including Quebec.

Why do I say the member for Sarnia-Lambton has good intentions? Subscribers that are offered cable products must pay for them until they call their cable distributor to tell him they do not want them any longer. When all is said and done, this is not a bad approach by the cable companies. They impose certain channels on their subscriber and, if he does not want it, he must say he does not want to pay for it. So, basically, I find this is very good.

However, this must be examined on a larger scale. We will also recall that this bill is the result of a revolt in the Vancouver area. So, when Rogers decided to change the service packages offered to its subscribers, they lost some channels that they liked or they had to pay more to have them back. Furthermore, the onus was on the subscribers to notify the cable distributor of their intention not to renew their subscription. This is called negative option billing.

Again, this bill is full of good intentions but it could hurt Quebec. We are against this bill because it encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. How many times has it been said in this Parliament that this or that area comes under provincial jurisdiction?

But the federal government cannot help showing off and encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction. On the subject of relations between businesses and consumers, section 92(13) of the British North America Act has this to say:

1. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

(13) Property and Civil Rights in the Province;

This section of the Constitution applies to all businesses, even those under federal jurisdiction, such as broadcasting and telecommunications corporations. If the CRTC has the power to license broadcasters, the Government of Quebec has the power to legislate commercial relations between those institutions and consumers.

One of the main reasons-I think this is rather obvious-is that it is an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction. They do not ask for our opinion, they just go ahead. It is a little bit like putting a bandage on a wound, when we know very well that it will only make things worse.

The second reason I oppose this bill is that it prevents the creation of any new French-language broadcasting service. Under this bill, before offering a new non mandatory service to the basic or optional service customers, the cable distributor should first obtain consent from each of his subscribers. I can give an example.

In Hull, if one customer says he does not want the news service recently offered by TVA or whatever, all the customers will be penalized. It seems to me that we must preserve some freedom of expression. Even if 50 per cent of the customers rejected such service, the other 50 per cent would still want it. The negative impact is not that strong.

These different proposals deserve to be examined in the context that is unique to Quebec. Since each specialty channel targets a specific segment of the public, it is hard to reach the critical mass that will ensure its viability. This limit takes on even greater proportions because, in a small market like Quebec, we could be penalized.

Several industry experts have argued that, in Quebec, if RDI or the Canal Famille had not been provided to consumers free of charge for three months, it would have been impossible to offer those services. People who do not know a product are not inclined to buy it.

What we are proposing is the procedure in effect in Quebec, that is, the introduction of new channels. I am very open to the idea of new television channels, new products. Offer them free of charge, just like a sample you would send consumers, and then let the consumers decide if they want them or not. This is just common sense.

Let me substantiate this with a few opinions. Those are the views of people who appeared as witnesses before the Senate committee. The chairman of the CRTC said that this measure, apparently in favour of consumers, was actually not in their best interests but rather bad for them. A high rate of penetration is essential for the French language specialty channels to survive in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. Legislation to protect consumers from abuse is useful in a monopoly context, but we are no longer in such a context.

A number of companies are competing to provide signals to consumers who benefit from that competition. The former Liberal Minister of Communications, Francis Fox, has outlined the measures taken since 1980 to protect French culture in Canada.

[Young Canada Works, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has obviously lost all common sense. In order to obtain a summer job with Heritage Canada, young Quebecers and Canadians will have to show that they believe in and are prepared to promote Canadian unity.

Does the representative of the Prime Minister share this discriminatory opinion, yes or no?

[Young Canada Works, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Heritage Canada is at it again. For the second year in a row, young people applying for jobs in Heritage Canada's Young Canada Works Program will have to show that they are federalists. In order to get a job with Heritage Canada, young people, whom the department will transform into ambassadors for Canada, must write a 250 word essay telling their future employer what Canada means to them.

The Bloc Quebecois takes exception to the government using young people to further its political ideology. How can young francophones in Quebec hope for a job with Heritage Canada when it is estimated that close to 75 per cent of them said yes to Quebec in the last referendum?

[Senator Pietro Rizzuto, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, reference has just been made to great Liberal principles.

The Corival construction company, of which Liberal Senator Pietro Rizzuto is a minority shareholder, has been fined $56,000 by the Quebec Court for major fraud. A Revenue Canada investigation has proven that the company of Rizzuto and his brother-in-law claimed four fictitious invoices totalling $198,000 as business expenses for tax purposes.

This is not the first time that Pietro Rizzuto, the Quebec campaign manager for the Liberal Party of Canada, has been involved in some funny business. During the 1993 election, he had promised jobs to all defeated Liberal candidates. Three and a half years later, 40 of those former Liberal candidates or MPs have jobs in the Chrétien government. It is therefore obvious what clout this man of few principles wields in a party that thumbs its nose at ethics and integrity.

The Liberals have just reminded us, once again, that where honest government is concerned, they are tarred with the same brush as the Conservatives. Their 1993 commitment to restore integrity was mere opportunism, and was not rooted in any real desire for change. Accordingly-

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, April 16th, 1997]

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development give me a complete and up-to-date statement on Youth Service Canada including, for each province, ( a ) a description of the projects funded, ( b ) the names of the organizations concerned, ( c ) their addresses, ( d ) the amount of their grants and ( e ) the number of participants per project?

Return tabled.

[Student Debt, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on behalf of my party, I moved a motion dealing with the Bankruptcy Act.

This motion asks the Liberal government to amend the new standards governing bankruptcies, so as to prevent the application of more stringent rules for discharge of a student loan debt than for other types of debt.

Our purpose is not to remove the responsibility of students, quite the contrary. We know that the vast majority of students pay back their loans. Rather, the motion seeks to make the government aware of the injustice being done to students who are overburdened with debt and not able to pay back their loans.

In its study on the issue of personal income tax reform, the Bloc Quebecois recommended the introduction of a tax credit to help graduating students who must start paying off their loans.

Instead of going after students, the Liberal government should make a commitment to create jobs, which is the only concrete solution to the student debt problem.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that when I was nominated recently in my riding, between 130 and 135 people came to the meeting. I would like to start by thanking these people who may be listening at home. It was March 25, which happened to be the first anniversary of my election win last year.

This year has been filled with a lot of emotion, a lot of experience and a lot of learning. As I look back, I think I can be satisfied with this first year. I think the record for the first year is positive. From the outset, learning the ropes was not easy, but I managed to adjust. I even initiated a number of projects in my riding and I am pleased with the results. I hope I have a chance to keep working on these projects.

As I said, since I entered politics, I often saw things that were rather extraordinary. This afternoon I was listening to the whip for the Reform Party who said that the third party option was probably the one with the best prospects, in that it was more attractive to the rest of Canada and Quebec.

When I look at the motion presented by the Reform Party today, I am afraid I do not quite agree. Clearly, the Reform Party is on the far right, while we tend to be more to the left or the centre.

In any case, let me explain this motion on labour disputes. We are of course against the motion, and I will tell you why. If I may summarize the motion, basically it concerns the unions, labour disputes and relations between employers and the unions.

Unions were originally formed by groups of employees who got together to fight for better working conditions and to have more clout when facing their employer. That is pretty clear.

The motion by the Reform Party suggests that in certain labour disputes the Minister of Labour would have his say, this in any dispute where we have the employer's position on one side and the employees' position on the other side, represented by the unions. In many cases these labour disputes can go on for some time. And that is because there is a disagreement.

In this motion, the Reform Party suggests giving more power to the minister to intervene in any labour dispute across the country. He could come and give his opinion and tell the parties to stop. To the extent that employees would be able to vote in favour of an agreement without going through the unions.

We believe strongly that the minister's powers must not be increased, but rather decreased. The debate of a few years ago gave rise to the Sims' report. I will read a few extracts.

On page 167, the Sims report discusses the administration of the Canada Labour Code. It provides, and I quote: "Management and labour run labour relations, not government".

The authors of the report continue a few pages along with the recommendation that: "The Minister's current powers under sections 57(5), 59, 71, 72 to 82, 105 and 108.1(1) should be vested with (or amenable to delegation to) the Head of the FMCS". This is completely contrary to today's motion.

Secondly, the report recommends: "The section 97(3) requirement for Ministerial consent to file complaints to the Board should be repealed".

We must remember that, after people were brought together to consider the situation, they concluded that the minister should have fewer powers. Today, however, the Reform motion is proposing to give the minister more power. It is like putting a bandaid on a sore. Could you listen, please.

The Reform Party has a lot of supporters in western Canada. We will recall the recent labour dispute between the employees and management of Canadian airlines. There were a number of unions in Canadian, including one that turned a deaf ear to management proposals. That extended the dispute, because the unions representing the employees thought that was the best thing to do.

So the Reform Party, a party of the right, hoping perhaps to come up with some votes, is proposing the motion we are considering this evening.

Furthermore, this motion is pro-management, because the minister could always go over the heads of the unions to find out and interpret for himself the intent of a firm's employees.

So the unions' powers are being cut, and, what is more, they are saying the minister should have the power to circumvent the powers of the union. Yet these unions were born of a need. Today they are saying there is no longer a need.

So even though this motion is not votable, we oppose it, as the bias in favour of the employers is too strong. I have nothing against them and I also do not want to favour unions over management. I am trying to favour a good relationship between the parties, but this evening's motion smells too much like an election ploy. However, we will see what our colleagues have to say.

That concludes my remarks on motion M-308.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I must do my duty. Since I was elected to do so, I will promote sovereignty and try to explain it to the rest of Canada. I am surprised that people still do not understand, although we have been talking about this for so many years. I wonder why. I have travelled in the rest of Canada. I like Canada. I have nothing against it.

What is wrong with wanting our own country, which may be smaller, easier to govern, when this is similar to what our big corporations are now doing? People realize that large corporations are too difficult to run, so they are making them smaller to be closer to the employees, to perform better. That is what sovereignty is supposed to do. We will have everything we need to meet the needs of the people of Quebec. We do not want to make Quebec sovereign just to penalize the rest of Canada. On the contrary, the rest of Canada would benefit.

Look at who is the official opposition in your country, Canada. These are members from Quebec. Quebec intends to have a real debate, it does not matter whether people are on the left or on the right. We will pass our own laws and collect our own taxes, and we will be able to talk to each other. No problem at all.

I would like to continue this discussion, but you are signalling that my time is up.