Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Border Agreement, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, because of the government's unwillingness to defend its point of view and its lethargic defence of its own legislation, the Americans are getting their way in the new border agreement between the two countries.

Will the government admit that, in the circumstances, the toughest provisions in both countries will be the ones that apply?

[Gala Défi 2001, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the International Day of Disabled Persons, which we are celebrating today, is a most appropriate time to mark the 50th anniversary of the Quebec Association for Community Living, which works relentlessly to help those with an intellectual disability live independently.

On Friday, five Quebec families were honoured as part of the Gala Défi 2001.

As the member for Laval Centre, I want to salute in particular two families from Laval who were among the five that were honoured on that evening.

I am referring to the family of Lise and Robert Pilon and to the Medeiros-Martin family for the extraordinary leadership that they displayed in the daily struggle for the right to be live happily.

Through them we want to thank the thousands of Quebec families who believe that love, support, encouragement and good humour are the ingredients of an unbeatable recipe to give everyone his or her chance.

I wish to say congratulations to them for believing in life. They deserve all our admiration.

[The Acadians, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the last stretch of a passionate debate on Motion No. 241.

My colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes explained that his own re-election, no more than that of other members of the Bloc Quebecois, does not depend on the adoption or the defeat of this motion in the House. Similarly, it must be recognized that the fate of this motion will have no bearing whatsoever on the fate of Quebec as a sovereign state. Need I remind members that the Bloc Quebecois ran no candidates in New Brunswick in the last federal election? So those who are looking for the motivation behind this motion by the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes should look elsewhere.

To eliminate any notion that this motion could be of a somewhat partisan nature, the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes indicated that he was prepared to accept that the name of the mover be changed. He even said that he was opened to the idea that the motion be amended by members from other parties so that it could become a multiparty motion. He even stated publicly that he wished the government would get involved in this initiative and that it could even lead it if it wished to do so. I can hardly imagine that, after all these concrete gestures showing the good faith of the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, there are still people in this House who insist on saying that Motion No. 241 is of a partisan nature.

On September 26 of this year, Annie Racine, a reporter for La Voie Acadienne , said this about Motion No. 241: “I naively thought that the various parties worked together for the good of the nation. I believe there are some ideas that transcend political boundaries and that can be supported by all parties”. I think that we must work for the betterment and the development of all communities, regardless of language and political affiliation.

One other element has attracted the interest of parliamentarians: what did the people directly concerned by this motion think? We have since had the answer to this question, as the Société nationale de l'Acadie tabled the advisory committee report on Motion No. 241 on October 2. Many parliamentarians were waiting precisely for that before taking a position. They wisely wanted to know the position of the Acadians and some wanted a strong consensus if they were going to give it support.

This House will be pleased to learn that, according to the report, only 3 of the 140 opinions from all over Acadia, the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the U.S. and France, were not in favour of the motion , whereas 129, or 92%, supported it, while 8 could not be placed in either category. This is an undeniable and indisputable consensus in favour of the motion we have before us. Moreover, the advisory committee presented a recommendation to the Société nationale de l'Acadie that leaves absolutely no trace of doubt. It reads as follows:

—that the motion be sponsored by the entire Acadian deputation in the House of Commons, regardless of political affiliation.

As a result, the parliamentarians of this House will be able to make fully informed decisions. The opinion of the Acadians is clear, and their recommendation is unequivocal.

In supporting Motion No. 241, parliament will be showing the great nobility of spirit of one who acknowledges his errors. Calling upon the British crown to officially recognize the wrongs done to the Acadian people is an affirmation of the desire to strengthen and improve ties between two peoples, beyond the collective historical wrongs.

Recent history has provided several examples of official apologies or regrets acknowledging wrongs committed in the past. Among these, the Canadian government has, and deserves great praise for doing so, made an official apology to the Italian Canadian and Japanese Canadian communities. Great Britain has done the same to the Maori people, and the U.S. government to Americans of Japanese origin. Thus this honourable gesture would not be establishing a precedent in Canadian history, and still less in world history. Support for Motion No. 241 is a contribution to the development of our historical conscience.

This request to the Canada's parliament fits in with other legislative measures of a similar nature that have recently been passed elsewhere on this continent. The states of Maine and Louisiana did not hesitate to pass resolutions on this, and Democrat Senator John Breaux is reportedly preparing to bring this up in the U.S. congress. How then can the Canadian Parliament, a democratic body where Acadia is represented, refuse to recognize a historic fact and its consequences?

As Rosella Melanson wrote in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal of June 19:

Those who would refuse an apology cannot help but be seen as apologists for the deportation decision, and for the likes of Charles Lawrence, who--shortly before he was appointed governor of Nova Scotia, wrote to London about the Acadians: “As they possess the best and largest tracts of land in this province, it cannot be settled with any effect while they remain in this situation...It would be much better...that they were away”...

Acadian society will want to go ahead with this motion and it will certainly have a bigger impact than expected.

In closing, I would like to quote the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes who wrote:

In fact, only the Acadian people could come away more scarred if the motion is rejected, a situation that certain people would certainly consider a new snub and that would only serve to keep feelings of disillusion, distrust and bitterness alive.

At this point, I ampleased to table an amendment, supported by my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst. I move:

That the text of Motion No. 24 be amended by deleting the words “to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them” and substituting therefor the words “to recognize officially the wrongs done to the Acadian people”.

The motion would therefore read:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to recognize officially the wrongs done to the Acadian people in its name between 1755 and 1763.

This House has no more rational argument against Motion No. 241.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the House is sitting today.

Everybody knows that Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of measures to protect our environment. However, they will never accept that, in doing so, Quebec's constitutional rights be reduced, particularly because Quebec, as regards the environment, is a model in several respects.

We all remember that the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park in 1997. In fact, that legislation and the one passed by the Quebec government provided for the creation of the first marine conservation area in Canada, and we are proud of that.

Through these pieces of legislation, each government continues to fulfill its respective responsibilities in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This park includes only a marine area. Its boundaries may be changed only through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard. These are some of the main legislative provisions passed in 1997.

The main thing to remember, which the government seems to have forgotten, is that the creation of this marine park is the result of a consultation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. Unfortunately, the federal government did not think it was useful to follow the same path with regard to Bill C-10. This may be a sign that when things are going well for the federal government, it is time to make some changes.

Other precedents could have been followed, like phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan, which was concluded in the following way.

In June 1998, the federal Minister of the Environment and Quebec's Minister of the Environment released phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan, the financing of which was shared equally between the two levels of government. This is another example of a project that was developed jointly, while respecting the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government.

Should the refusal to apply precedents that have been proven to work be considered as a lack of goodwill, since nowhere in Bill C-10 can we find the slightest element of consultation?

How, then, can the federal government be naive enough to believe that the Bloc Quebecois would support this bill? Instead of focusing on working together, this bill does something dear to this government, namely the unilateral introduction of marine conservation areas without any regard for Quebec's jurisdiction on its own territory and environment.

But there is more. As if this were not enough, far from limiting itself to interfering in Quebec's area of jurisdiction, and apparently believing that ridicule has never killed anyone, the federal government is duplicating its own jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, this bill will confirm the introduction of marine conservation areas, thus creating a new structure at Canadian heritage and bringing about a duplication of pre-existing federal structures, namely marine protection areas under the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and protected marine areas under the jurisdiction of Environment Canada. This means we are not through with disputes and they will all originate from the same side.

What is clear for everyone is that Bill C-10 totally ignores the territorial integrity of Quebec, given the fact that the federal government is to become the owner of the land where the marine conservation area will be created.

But there is a problem: the 1867 Constitution. Indeed, section 92 provides that the legislature of every province may exclusively make laws in relation to the management and sale of the public lands. Quebec is still a province. Quebec may only be a province, nevertheless it is still a province, nobody will dare say otherwise; a number of Quebecers though would like nothing better than to have a different status.

Quebec legislation on public lands applies to all public lands in Quebec, including the beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence river, estuary and gulf which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

In addition, this same legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. But the federal government is not intimidated by Quebec legislation, it is a well-known fact. Canadian heritage is planning to establish marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the gulf of St. Lawrence, three areas in which the submerged land is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Time flies when one is speaking from the heart.

Canadian heritage wants to compel Quebec to give up its exclusive jurisdiction. What a nice example of co-operative federalism. It is very clear that the prerequisite for the creation of marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence is the transfer of property rights to the federal government. Quebec will never agree to it.

According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the same territory could be zoned three different ways and come under three different federal departments enforcing their own specific regulations, all this under three different pieces of legislation.

Only God knows in which waters fish will feel like swimming. As for bureaucrats, I believe Moby Dick's stomach will not be big enough to house them all when they try to come to an agreement.

Again, since 1993 it is not the first time and certainly not the last time I am faced with a dilemma. If federal departments are unable to work together, how can we expect the federal government to be able to work with the provinces?

Marine conservation areas served à la Canadian heritage are like ketchup: I do not want any.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

I could perhaps read a poem. It would be interesting.

I am rising today at third reading of Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. This bill is sponsored, surprisingly, by Canadian heritage — which already has many other subjects of interest. With this bill, Canadian heritage wants to regulate the creation of 28 marine conservation areas that are representative of each of Canada's ecosystems.

In 1987, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park became the 29th marine conservation area. Interestingly enough, this park is not covered by the bill before us because it is the subject of its own legislation.

As this is all the time I have, I will leave off until the next time the House considers this issue.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time unanimous consent has been denied to me. If the bill is important, I think it is important to listen to people who have to speak to it. On a logical level, it could be decided that it is 6.58 p.m. or 7 p.m., given the fact that there is very little time left. Would that be agreeable to my hon. colleagues?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, three minutes is very little time, given the fact that this debate is exciting and that it is obviously dividing everybody in the House.

Considering that when people come back in the House they get applause, I ask for unanimous consent to be able to speak for ten minutes.

That is extraordinary. I do not hear anyone saying no; this has to be put on the record. Therefore I will begin.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. Once again, with Bill C-10, we are faced with what can be considered as a characteristic of the present government, that is a total inability to work in co-operation. Once more, this government will interfere in areas outside its jurisdiction to take over and to show the maple leaf flag, and to pose as the great protector of the environment.

I agree with my colleague when he says that this bill is not about the quality of the environment. I would still like to hear his comments on a topic that I am really concerned about.

Many departments are concerned with marine conservation areas and bodies of water. Fisheries and Oceans Canada deals with the marine protection areas and so is Environment Canada. And Heritage Canada is now joining in.

How can we justify the fact that three different departments are dealing with the same issue when we all know that the government can not work in co-operation with the provinces, and I am not talking only about Quebec, but about all provinces?

I would like my colleague to explain to me how this government could try to act in a united and intelligent fashion to protect the environment.

[Nelson Mandela, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Nelson Mandela was granted honorary Canadian citizenship, following the unanimous adoption, on June 12, of Motion M-379.

With today marking the beginning of Quebec citizenship week, we cannot forget the deep meaning that Nelson Mandela, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, gave to the word citizen.

Convinced of the right of his people to full and total freedom and democracy, Nelson Mandela spent his whole life pursuing that objective. Without ever giving up, even when he was in South African jails, and freer than ever, he led his people to demand and assume the respect to which they were entitled.

We are all responsible for democracy. Through his courage, his tenacity and his commitment to his people, Nelson Mandela is a model for us all. May he guide our daily actions as responsible citizens.

[Afghanistan, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend at the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be presenting his vision of the establishment of a system of governance for Afghanistan. Everyone agrees that this is a matter of the utmost importance.

Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicate what his definition of governance is, and what role humanitarian aid plays in it?