Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in this debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

As we all know, industrial development in our society has had and continues to have disastrous and often irreversible effects on the environment.

Numerous plant and animal species have disappeared, particularly since the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was not until the last few decades that the need to protect our environment and to preserve our environmental heritage has become obvious, forcing governments to pass appropriate legislation.

As members know, I represent an urban riding, Laval being the second largest city in Quebec. On the initiative of certain individuals who understood the importance of protecting the diversity of our fauna and flora—and I will gladly take this opportunity to salute Jean Lauzon and Michel Aubé for their vision and their extraordinary commitment—an organization in my riding, Éco-Nature, has worked hard to preserve wildlife in the Mille-Îles River area. In co-operation with the Quebec department of the environment and wildlife, Éco-Nature has played an important role in the protection of endangered species for more than 15 years.

The part of the greater Montreal area where Laval is located is already heavily urbanized and development continues to grow. In fact, 75% of the north shore of the Mille-Îles River is developed, whereas in Laval, on the opposite shore, the figure is 65%. Of course what relatively intact habitat remains must be protected.

Since 1998, the Mille-Îles River Park includes approximately 10 islands that have wildlife refuge status. The Mille-Îles River Park is a protected habitat in the heart of greater Montreal. Every year it is host to tens of thousands of visitors.

Thanks to the enthusiasm and skills of many naturalists, the young and the not so young get reacquainted with the habitat of turtles and the great blue heron. In an idyllic setting throughout the seasons, visitors can see beaver dams and species of deciduous trees hard to find elsewhere.

This is an example of the kind of results produced by threatened species legislation such as Quebec's.

Earlier I mentioned the Quebec environment and wildlife department. I must add that since 1989 it has as protection tools the Act respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species and the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife.

Quebec uses these tools to identify species at risk, list them as threatened or vulnerable, protect their habitat, and develop and implement recovery plans to adequately protect species and habitat in a precarious situation.

One might well wonder why have federal legislation. What is this legislation going to add to the administrative measures already in place in Quebec? Nothing.

Moreover, it is not the first time the federal government has tried to slip through legislation dealing with this area. Here is a brief historical overview of the legislation.

In 1995, the Minister of Environment of the day, now Minister of Heritage, announced her intention to pass legislation on endangered species. This raised a general uproar, from both provincial governments and environmental groups.

A year later, her successor called a meeting with provincial environment ministers. This was on October 2, 1996, close to four years ago now, the location, Charlottetown, a city with a certain myth attached to it as far as agreements are concerned. The hope was for the ministers of the environment to reach an agreement in principle on endangered species. Thus the agreement on the protection of endangered species.

Yet, when Bill C-65 was introduced, which is sort of the ancestor of the bill we have before us today, the Quebec minister of the environment and regional minister for Laval, my friend David Cliche, rightly found that the federal government's bill did not fully reflect the agreement that had been entered into.

As usual, the federal government is proclaiming the necessity for co-operation between the various levels of government, but as usual when it comes time for action it knows but one way of implementation: blundering in over the lines of provincial jurisdiction. In a letter dated December 2, 1996, the Quebec minister of the environment wrote the following to his federal counterpart:

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.

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.

At that time, the Bloc Quebecois opposed this bill because it intruded in provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-65 died on the Order Paper in April 1997, when the election was called.

Bill C-33 is almost a carbon copy of the defunct C-65. With the same pre-election climate to boot, we could even ask ourselves whether this bill too will die on the Order Paper for electoral reasons.

The bill ignores provincial jurisdictions and existing laws, such as those in Quebec. This is new useless duplication in a field in which the government of Quebec has proven its mettle. As an example of these intrusions, let me point out that clause 34(2) provides that:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in lands in a province that are not federal lands.

Federal lands mean lands of the federal crown. The intent is clear. The prohibitions contained in clauses 32 and 33 of the bill can apply to lands under provincial jurisdiction simply by ministerial order.

In addition, if the minister feels that the laws of a province do not properly protect a given species, the minister may recommend the governor in council make an order in this regard. If this is not meddling in the way the provinces carry out their environmental protection responsibilities, I do not know what it is.

We all realize that the protection of the environment and particularly of the threatened species is a key issue. However, the federal government cannot take action in that area while denying the role that the provinces are already playing. As the Quebec minister of the environment, Paul Bégin, said:

Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and flora species and it intends to keep on exercising its authority in this matter. We will never accept an umbrella piece of legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.

Bill C-33 only duplicates what certain provinces such as Quebec are already doing, instead of harmonizing what each level of government could do in its area of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, we all know that this is the federal government's way of doing things. To believe that a tempered federalism, a federalism respectful of the existing jurisdictions is here is just an illusion and Quebecers will not be fooled.

[Persons With Disabilities, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since May 26, disabled youth in Quebec taking part in the federal opportunities fund for persons with disabilities have been without jobs.

As a result of the new accountability rules imposed unilaterally by Human Resources Development Canada, all participants in the fund's various programs—more than 1,200 people—will lose their jobs by June 30.

Given the uncertainty in which these 1,200 people find themselves, what measures does the minister have planned to help keep them in the labour market, apart from EI?

[Gun Registry, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in France on May 19, at the Carambolimages film festival, the Basket d'Or trophy was won by a film called “Une mystérieuse odeur de pin”.

It was produced by an alternative school in Laval, Le Baluchon, and was judged by an international jury made up of 10,000 children. It won over the next submission by 900 votes.

This adventure, wholly conceived and produced by primary school pupils, is a wonderful illustration of children's extraordinary capacity to combine fun, creativity and performance.

I am pleased to extend the congratulations of the Bloc Quebecois to the young creators of “Une mystérieuse odeur de pin”. I also wish to congratulate their teacher, Christian Desjardins, for his excellent guidance and the parents, François Tardif in particular, for their invaluable support. With their belief in the genius of childhood, they have contributed to the creation of a magical project.

To all the Baluchon school team, bravo! We are proud of you all.

[Parental Leave, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of parental insurance has been the subject of discussions in Quebec since February 1996. Having received support at the November 1996 economic summit, Quebec has been trying to negotiate such a program with Ottawa since 1997.

Instead of giving a positive reply to that request to negotiate, the federal government, in its September 1999 throne speech and its February 2000 budget, did not hesitate to propose a measure that willfully excludes thousands of young families from its program.

How can the government justify its decision to block a process that has the support of all Quebecers and to merely propose an incomplete, unfair and unsatisfactory measure?

[Parental Leave, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, parental insurance is a cohesive element of the family policy that has been developed in Quebec over the past 20 years. The Quebec society deems it essential to support all young families. In spite of the Quebec government's offer, reiterated today by minister Marois to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the government persists in its refusal.

What will it take for the Prime Minister to adopt an attitude that will allow us to meet the current needs of all young families?

[Transgenic Seeds, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government for regulations to guarantee the exact nature of export products for a year now.

Is the minister not ashamed to stand up in the House, when he has done nothing to properly protect our export markets?

[Transgenic Seeds, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, to all the questions we have asked in the past year about food safety and the quality of export products, the government has responded that Canada's reputation was above reproach.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the business of the transgenic seeds in Europe, how can he explain his laxity and his slowness to set export standards?

[Proportional Representation, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today in the debate on Motion No. M-155, introduced by my NDP colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

I am grateful to him for this motion, since it gives us the opportunity to debate an important question that I will look at from three angles.

First, can democracy be improved? Second, is the electoral process a component of democracy? Third, could proportional representation serve to improve democracy?

Members will have understood the importance of this debate, since it involves thinking about parliament as the favoured place of the democratic expression of a country.

To my first question, “can democracy be improved”, I have no hesitation in answering yes. Our electoral system is of course democratic. However, it is not perfect, since it promotes the hegemony of the majority party. I must quote a 19th century author who wrote “Truth, laws, rights and justice depend on 40 rumps that rise among 22 that remain seated”.

How many governments have been elected and will be again, even though a strong majority of electors do not want them elected? In the present system, the person getting the most votes is the person elected, and the party with the most seats forms the government. Tough luck for the tens of thousands of voters who have no voice in parliament.

Everyone remembers the 1993 federal election, which robbed the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party of party standing in the House of Commons.

To my second question, “is the electoral process a component of democracy”, I answer yes as well, since it enables the public to choose the person best able, in their opinion, to represent them. If they are wrong in their choice, they will try to correct their fire a few years later in another election.

The last question focuses on the value of proportional representation as an instrument likely to improve democracy. To this question, I answer yes, but on certain conditions. But before briefly describing those conditions, I would like to give a few figures.

A UN study listed 174 countries according to their degree of human development. Of the 64 countries said to meet the criteria for superior human development, 34, or just over 50%, have a proportional representation system. The percentage drops to 33.5% for the group of countries considered to have an average level of human development, while in the last group of countries only one in four has proportional representation.

In short, the more developed a country is, the greater the likelihood of proportional representation. In fact, of the 174 countries, 66 elect their parliament proportionally—the less developed a country is, the less this is the case.

However, it might also interest the House to know that, of the 222 political systems listed in 1997 by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, only 64 elected their parliament using a first-past-the-post system.

A hard look at other countries obviously requires that some serious thought be given to this topic, since fewer than 30% of them elect their parliament based on the number of votes.

Is proportional representation a panacea for democracy? What are its advantages and its disadvantages?

In Esprit des lois , Montesquieu wrote “The love of democracy is the love of equality”. A century later, in his Du Contrat Social , Jean-Jacques Rousseau associated the notions of liberty and equality, saying “If we seek to find precisely what comprises the greatest good of all, that which must be the goal of any system of legislation, it will be found that this can be reduced to two principal objects: liberty and equality. Liberty, because any individual dependency takes away an equivalent amount from the strength of the body of the state; equality because liberty cannot exist without it”.

Proportional representation seems to work in favour of a better women's representation in parliament.

It cannot be mere happenstance that, if any country has more than 20% of women MPs, it is one which uses proportional representation. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, the proportion of women varies between 33% and 40%, while it is a mere 12% in the United States. The same conclusions apply to the figures for minority groups.

There is one other interesting element. The rate of popular participation is also higher, no doubt because the individual citizen has the assurance that his vote will be worthwhile.

While the single constituency single ballot system, known as first-past-the-post system, promotes government stability, one of the disadvantages of proportional representation is, no doubt, the instability it can generate, with all the political, economic and social consequences that may follow. This disadvantage is not insignificant. It does not take much imagination to see that a parliament with 30 parties sitting in it could, at times, be a bit of a circus.

Another not insignificant aspect is the lessened importance of the elected representative's link to his riding. We all know people who vote for the man, as we say. In my case, they vote for the woman. It is the candidate's personality that, for some voters, makes all the difference.

With a proportional vote, the party's program takes precedence. It is easy for voters to believe that the person elected from their riding will represent their party rather than themselves.

The Bloc Quebecois considers it worthwhile to hold a serious debate on the various types of voting, including proportional representation. One element seems fundamental, however, and that is recognition in the debate of Quebec's uniqueness.

Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been a federal party devoted to the interests of Quebec. We are the first case, but who here can say that our situation will always be unique, a sort of artifice without real importance? Everyone knows how interests differ from coast to coast.

The advantage of proportional representation is to give the difference a fair place. Because we rightly consider that our difference as a people warrants respect in the electoral process, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding, after the word “proportional” wherever it appears in the motion, the words “by province”.

In closing, I would express a hope that democracy may end up resembling the portrait Jules Romain painted of it:

A democracy is first a way of life in which people dare to talk to each other of important things, all the important things, in which they feel entitled to speak as adults and not as disguised children.

This comes from his work about men of goodwill, which I claim we all are.

[Young Offenders Act, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that one gets the chance to see lawyers demonstrating. They would rather defend their point of view before a judge than in front of the Montreal courthouse.

But they stepped out of character yesterday and took to the streets to protest Bill C-3, a bill that will mean repression rather than rehabilitation for young offenders. The president of the Montreal Association des avocats en droit de la jeunesse, René Binet, had the following to say:

We are on the front line. We have handled thousands of cases. We know whereof we speak. We do not want this bill.

Bloc Quebecois members heard this message long ago. The time has come for the federal Liberal members from Quebec to go along with the consensus in Quebec and to demand that their government withdraw Bill C-3. There is still time to listen to reason. The future of many young people hangs in the balance.

[Nurses, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Nurses Day, I am proud to pay tribute to my colleagues, the nurses in Quebec.

Since 1994, in Quebec, we have celebrated Nurses Week. This year the theme is “nurses, expertise from the heart” reflects the commitment by these 65,000 health care professions, who provide quality care for the sick and their families, often under difficult circumstances.

It is not a matter of chance that the nursing profession was third last March among the top professions.

The listing of clinical expertise published by the Ordre des infirmiers et des infirmières du Québec numbers more than 600 projects focussed on the needs of the patients and their families. From all over Quebec, these innovative projects brilliantly illustrate the competence of nurses and their profound desire to provide care that is adapted to the latest technologies and able to meet the needs of an ever more diversified clientele.

To the nurses of Quebec and Canada, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I say thank you. We know we can count on you.