Ghislain Fournier

[Small Business In Port-Cartier, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, every entrepreneur and business owner will tell you that being a businessperson is not always easy.

One must juggle many things, and this on a daily basis. However, when our work is publicly recognized, it is the best present and reward that one could think of. This is what happened to seven businesses in my riding, which all won awards at Port-Cartier's business of the year gala.

Congratulations to Boutique Marie-Fleur, Ébénisterie Concept-Plus, Auberge Étoile du Nord, FMS Usitech and Clinique Physio-massage. All these businesses won awards in various categories.

Congratulations also to Boucherie Margil for its 20 years of existence and to Clinique Physio Massage Santé et Forme, which won the public's award for the quality of its products, services and hospitality.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that the amendments proposed this morning strike me as useless, to say the least. They are not in the least intended to improve the bill, only to delay it being passed.

The number of amendments proposed by Reformers suggests to me that their sole objective is to slow down the process leading to the passage of Bill C-9. My colleagues and myself cannot endorse such action.

We support the Nisga'a agreement overall. Now that the committee deliberations are over and the bill has been thoroughly examined, we do not want to see it held up. It was important for a number of elements raised by the Nisga'a agreement to be discussed. But second reading, coupled with the committee meetings that were held in British Columbia, leads us to the conclusion that we have been able to examine the bill properly and that amendments are not appropriate.

I hardly need to reiterate that the Nisga'a final agreement was duly endorsed by the three parties that negotiated it. The Nisga'a nation gave majority approval to it in a referendum on November 19, 1998.

The Government of British Columbia signed and approved it on April 22, 1999 with the passage of Bill 51. As for the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, she ratified it this past May 4.

All that is left is the passage of Bill C-9 for them to finally have the necessary tools to develop as a nation. The Nisga'a are most anxious to see this happen, and they deserve it. They have been at the negotiating table for nearly 25 years.

Since the arrival of the first Europeans in the Nass Valley, the Nisga'a nation has attempted to negotiate on numerous occasions and to sign a treaty relating to their land claims. In the mid 1880s, aboriginal leaders started making representations to the authorities. However, their efforts met with no success for several decades, because the leaders at the time refused to recognize the aboriginal titles to the land they were claiming.

Following written and verbal claims, official meetings and court proceedings, especially in the Calder case in 1973, they managed to establish the likelihood of ancestral claims to these lands and the need to negotiate to establish their ownership.

In 1976, the federal government began negotiations with the Nisga'a tribal council. In 1990, British Columbia joined the negotiations. In February 1996, the three parties reached an agreement, which was finalized in August 1998 with the signature of the final agreement.

This agreement therefore puts an end to over a century of claims. It puts an end to many years of claims by this nation regarding its ancestral rights over land in the Nass Valley. It means a settlement of the land rights of the Nisga'a and a lessening of the economic uncertainty over the ownership and the use of the lands and resources in the region.

So, Bill C-9 is the last stone needed to give effect to the tripartite agreement among the Nisga'a, the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada. We want to reiterate once again the Bloc Quebecois' support for the agreement and its pleasure at participating in this historical moment for the Nisga'a.

The type of amendments proposed by the Reform members do not improve the bill in any way. Right from the outset, Reformers said they would do everything in their power to delay implementation of the agreement. With the amendments they are now moving, that is exactly what they are doing.

Given the nature of the bill to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, we feel it is parliament's role to debate, approve or reject the bill, not to amend the proposed agreement. I repeat, it has been duly approved by the three parties that negotiated it.

In fact, under the provisions of clauses 36, 37 and 38 of Chapter 2, the agreement may not be amended without the consent of the Nisga'a—the Nisga'a of British Columbia, obviously—and of the federal government. Amending the bill would, in our view, be a show of paternalism that we want no part of.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois will not be commenting on each of the amendments moved by Reformers.

We would simply remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supported the main recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault commission, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which proposed an approach to the concept of self-government based on recognizing aboriginal governments as having jurisdiction over how their people were governed and their well-being.

In addition, the entire report was predicated on recognizing aboriginal peoples as autonomous nations occupying a unique position in Canada. The Nisga'a final agreement fully reflects the spirit of the conclusions and recommendations of the Erasmus Dussault report, and therefore constitutes a positive step toward a healthier redefinition of relations between governments and the aboriginal nations.

The majority of the Nisga'a, or 61% of the eligible voters, voted in favour of this agreement, and we acknowledge their will in this. The agreement represents a compromise approved by the people. It is the result of close to 25 years of negotiations. It clearly reflects the will of a nation.

It is not a one-size-fits-all model. The first nations are very different one from the other, and there is no single way of negotiating that could meet the needs of all aboriginal peoples. It took many years to reach this agreement, and it would be unrealistic to think that all such agreements will follow a similar path. There may, however, be some similarity in the paths followed by other nations and, in our opinion, this constitutes a very positive step toward improved relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

We believe that the Reform Party's opposition is based on an erroneous concept of Canada's political history. No matter what they cost, they want all citizens to be treated on what they consider an equal footing, but they are on the wrong track. By so doing, they are completely closing their eyes to the particular characteristics of aboriginal issues. Equality does not equate with justice, and justice is what must be defended when culture, language and traditions are involved.

Recognition of the right to self-government is recognition of the right of aboriginal people to possess the tools required to develop as a nation. The Reform wants to give them nothing more than the powers of a municipality, while retaining federal control over all of their decisions. How could the Nisga'a accept having decisions affecting their daily lives and their culture entirely the responsibility of Ottawa?

The Reform is refusing to understand the realities of aboriginal peoples and their culture distinctiveness. They want to see a uniform vision of Canada at any price.

I will close by stating that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-9, and opposes the amendments presented by the Reform Party.

[Social Housing, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for a budget to be balanced, spending must be lower than income.

An individual should not spend more than 30% of his income on housing. In my riding, in Minganie, 90 households are having to spend half of their income on rent.

My question is for the minister responsible for social housing. Can he tell us whether, after ten years in which no money has been invested in social housing in Minganie, he will finally act to help families who are having a very had time making ends meet? When will he invest?

[Pollution Of Drinking Water, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1998, the Minister of Transport acknowledged responsibility for the contamination of the water table supplying the Plages sector, in Sept-Îles. He indicated on several occasions that the situation would be corrected. Eighteen months have passed and we have yet to hear anything more from him.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. When does the minister plan to remedy the situation?

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed as I take part in this debate today to speak to Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative and communication problems between members of First Nations communities and their First Nation and between First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration and allegations of electoral irregularities.

I used the word perplexed because I wonder about the need for such a bill. Bill C-222 proposes to first nations a totally useless structure, a structure they have not asked for and, moreover, one that duplicates processes already in place.

Budget management by band councils has been the focus of the efforts and energy expended by both the Department of Indian Affairs and native communities, particularly over the last two years.

The implementation of efficient, standard accountability regimes is a new challenge that is in line with the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault commission concerning the need for communities to have access to the necessary tools for sound fiscal management.

Administrative problems do exist, but they have more to do with the fact that these are new agreements than it does with defective or inadequate management. Financial transfers to reserves are new, and we are experiencing problems now because we are undergoing a transition phase, which is quite normal, and not because of poor management. It is obvious that, with time and experience, the existing relationships will only get better.

Answers that emerge from the local communities themselves are far better than those that are brought in by people from the outside, well intentioned as they can be. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the first nations can find solutions, and these should come from within those organizations. It is the key to success. Nobody should come in from the outside and tell people “This is your problem, and here is how you are going to solve it”. It would be paternalistic and arrogant.

Having an ombudsman who would tell the first nations how to deal with problems between and within them would be a little bit like trying to settle squabbles in a school yard.

We are not dealing here with kindergarten kids, but with people who have been looking at achieving self-government for a very long time. We should not impose on them an ombudsman to solve all their problems. We should support them as they move toward self-government.

Far from being naive, we do not believe that everything is fine, but I would say that we are optimistic and mostly we believe in the capability of the first nations to efficiently manage their finances, as long as they are given the means to do so. This is the goal of the negotiations currently underway.

Also, with the co-operation of the native people, the governments are trying to set up round tables to discuss ways to develop standards relating to financial administration, internal control, public accounts and auditing.

I think that these round tables are more useful than an ombudsman would be, because the constructive solutions put forward are in sync with the values of the first nations, as well as with the legislation and guidelines of the various provinces.

Canadian chartered accountants took part in the development of the many administrative agreements signed by the stakeholders and the federal government. These chartered accountants provided and are still providing some advice. They came up with relevant and dynamic solutions and are providing band councils the support they need to carry out the administrative duties related to the management of their financial resources.

As for the allegations of electoral irregularities, the information we have leads us to believe that more specific rules are needed to ensure that the complaints are received and processed appropriately. Here again, an ombudsman would be useless.

But what disturbs me the most is not the presence or absence of an ombudsman responsible for looking into administrative or electoral difficulties among first nations, but rather the conviction that seems to be behind this bill. It is a false one, based on the assumption that there are major problems. This is incorrect. There are no major problems. This is a period of adjustment and there is certainly room for improvement, but the situation is not disastrous, nor will it become so, because it is changing for the better.

According to the progress report by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Canadian Polar Commission for the period ending March 31, 1999, the number of financial statements by first nations on which there was a favourable opinion by an independent auditor has risen from 57% to 81% since 1985. Is this not an improvement? Does such progress not deserve to be highlighted?

This is not the time to make the machinery more unwieldy by adding something to it unnecessarily. What we need to do instead is to support the first nations in their progress toward self-government and independence. Bill C-222 attacks band council administrative procedures head on, and by that very fact attacks their administrative ability.

The Petit Robert defines an ombudsman as “a person responsible for defending the rights of the citizen against the public administration”. This is a noble and laudable function, but one that is pointless in the situation we are concerned with here.

An ombudsman would not be the right answer here. The right answer is to continue along the path on which the first nations and the department are already engaged. They must continue to work to improve the administration and monitoring of financial transfers and must set stringent rules for handling any allegations of wrongdoing.

Bill C-222 is therefore, for all the reasons I have given, totally pointless. As well, it demonstrates a somewhat paternalistic attitude, one which has no place in the new relationships we must forge with the aboriginal nations in order to reinforce their capacity for good self-government. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-222.

[Drinking Water, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, never did I think I would have to rise in the House and remind the federal Minister of Transport that people in the Sept-Îles region still do not have access to drinkable running water. The inhabitants of the beaches area have been deprived of this essential service because the water table has been contaminated for several years.

Yet, in the summer of 1998, the federal Minister of Transport admitted responsibility for contaminating these residents' water source and promised to come up with a long term solution to the problem.

Today, I join with the spokesperson for the citizens' group and denounce the Minister of Transport, who seems in no hurry to assume his responsibilities in this matter and to foot the bill for the environmental damage caused by—

[Minister Of Transport, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, highway 389 runs through part of the riding of Manicouagan. The construction in its present state puts those using the road at risk.

Twice—in November 1997 and November 1998—the Minister of Transport has mentioned that an agreement could be renewed to complete the construction work on this road, if funds were available.

There is no shortage of surpluses. If the minister had the political will to act, the money could be available, especially since the minister invested $300 million on the highway through Labrador, which is, in a way, the extension of highway 389.

The people of Manicouagan are entitled to safe highways. This House must be aware of their impatience at the minister's inaction in this matter.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Charlevoix. I congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing on the transport committee. His question gives me the opportunity to tell the House about a scandal that occurred at the Sept-Îles airport.

Money is not spent on enhancing security in the transportation industry, as the hon. member for Charlevoix pointed out. When I was city councillor, we were told that the airport was being transferred to us.

I was against the project, because the airport, which was located in my ward, came with an annual deficit of $2 million, $2.2 million to be exact. However, the city council met and I was there when we were told “Give us five minutes and we will explain how you can get rid of the $2 million deficit”. I said “You have been running a $2 million deficit every year for 30 years now. That is $60 million. Why were these measures not taken before today?”

They started by saying “We have a firefighting service with trucks and 9 firefighters that we pay for year round and have never been put to task. Besides, if there were a fire, there would not be enough pressure, as there is not enough water. We have a pumper, but it is not powerful enough. We have to get help from the Sept-Îles firefighters. There were two fires and both times the firefighters from the city of Sept-Îles were called to do the work. So we will get rid of the firefighting service and save almost a million dollars”.

We were told that there were three airstrips and only one was in use. It is 1,000 feet longer that the average strip and 50 feet wider. It can handle a departure and a landing every ten minutes. We could save $800,000.

There was a restaurant that took up a whole floor and cost $300,000 in heating bills. We were told it could be moved downstairs, that service would be better and the savings would be $200,000.

So, they reduced the deficit and there will even be a small surplus this year. This goes to show how the money was utterly wasted at Sept-Îles airport. However, security services are being cut, even though we have had fatal accidents.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, that is how the article reads, and I asked permission to read the article, but I will refer to the Minister of Transport.

I was saying:

We could easily have him disqualified for being biased in the matter of the airline merger. Unfortunately, he is a minister. For quite some time we suspected the Minister of Transport—

This is not the Bloc Quebecois speaking. That is what was written in the paper this morning.

—of being biased in favour of the Onex proposal, if only because of the remarkably close ties that exist between that company, Canadian Airlines International, and the Liberal Party of Canada. Tuesday, before the transport committee of the House of Commons, the Minister of Transport provided the last piece of evidence proving that he is indeed biased with regard to this issue. He announced that the federal government was prepared to suspend—without asking for anything in return—the application of the act that prevents an individual or a company to hold more than 10% of Air Canada shares. The 10% rule is important because it is the only legal obstacle to the Onex proposal, which is the only proposal that requires such a change. Such a rule limiting concentration of ownership was included, mind you, in practically all transactions to privatize Crown corporations over the last few years. While in the public interest, this limitation will be waived by the government in support of a proposal made by a private company. Most importantly, it was the only lever available to the federal government to have a direct influence on this transaction, which will determine to a large extent the future of air transportation in Canada. It is a rather unique situation. Onex made a proposal that could not even be considered without an amendment to an act of parliament. Practically at the first opportunity, the government announced that it would agree to this request and not ask anything in return.

The article goes on:

This is what the transport minister means by “parliamentary consultation”. It is a kind of consultation that is completely meaningless because it comes after the fact, after the vote on Onex's offer by Air Canada's shareholders. We might as well say that the transport minister works for Onex.

I did not say it, it is in today's paper. The article goes on:

Of course, if we do not allow the government to modify the 10% rule, Onex's offer will die.

It is quite clear.

We could always believe that the government does not want Air Canada to win by default. However, there must be an amendment to an act of parliament to make Onex's offer legal. That must be justified by saying that the Canadian public will gain something from it. Better guarantees for air service in remote areas could have been required.

For example, in my riding, on the north shore, the distance between Ottawa and Sept-Îles is 1,200 kilometres. And the price of tickets is very high. A trip from Ottawa to Sept-Îles costs more than $1,000.

The article goes on:

Do you know of many corporations that have got, with nothing in return, such favours from a government, when their bids were contrary to the law and could not have been made to the interested shareholders? But the Minister of Transport had nothing to ask for in return. We might as well say right away the minister works for Onex. Meanwhile, it has to be noted that this same government and this same minister did not lift a finger to help Air Canada, the more profitable of the two corporations, but the one that is unfortunate enough not to have friends in high places among the friends and the bagmen of the Liberal Party of Canada. What is even more ironic is when the minister states that once the airlines merger is completed, the government intends to be very watchful of the new monopoly, that it intends to protect the rights of consumers and the rights of official language minorities and that it will deal severely with any attempt to inflate prices. In short, the government intends to watch closely the new monopoly, but it claims that it has no role to play in the creation of the new monopoly and that it is letting market forces determine everything. As long, of course, as the market sees to it that the friends of the government end up the winners.

I really wanted to quote this article. I think I will only skim over the other one. I will not read from it, but comment on it. I will defend the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

In this morning's issue of Le Droit , we see that on air transportation “The Liberals do not agree with each other”.

But where are the Liberals? During the last campaign, a Liberal delegation came in my riding and told us not to stay behind the boards, but jump on to the ice instead. Where are the Liberal members for Quebec now, when they should be jumping in and exposing the unfairness of this government? We know for a fact that, in this government, only one vote counts, the Prime Minister's vote. If he votes yea, all Liberal members vote the same way. If the votes nay, they all say nay.

They do have a spokesperson. But the parrots all keep repeating what their boss says. They have marching orders. That is how the government views democracy. Did members ever see the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges stand up for Quebecers in the House and disagree with the government? Where is he? He keeps repeating the same old story and he tries to come up with a defence for the transport minister.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to my party's motion to maintain the provisions of section 6.1(a) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act limiting ownership of the capital stock of Air Canada by any person or group to 10% of the voting shares.

I want to say that this government's conduct is disturbing.

Everywhere I have been—last night, I attended two meetings and 200 people came to the first one—I can tell you there was unanimity within the community and among groups, and the Bloc Quebecois is leading a fierce battle and will continue to do so. Looking at what the government is doing today, I would never have believed a democratically elected government could stoop so low in its loyalty.

I think transparency is being dealt a terrible blow and this government does not have notion of what justice is. This is purely and simply a dictatorship. I indicated earlier that there was unanimity within the community and the business community in particular, but the media are unanimous as well.

Anyone who paid attention to the media, both print and broadcast, this morning, noted that they were hard on the government. I would like to quote two articles, because if I had to quote all those I read this morning, I could go on all afternoon, and if we had to record everything that was said on television last night and this morning, we would not get out of here tonight.

The article I will quote is from the Journal de Montréa l and is written by Michel C. Auger. It is entitled “Alas, he is a minister.” It reads: “If David Collenette were a judge, we could easily—”