Ghislain Fournier

[Water Contamination, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I rise in this House to talk about the terrible problem of water contamination by the Department of Transport around the beaches of Sept-Îles.

The Secretary of State for Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec came and promised residents of Sept-Îles that the Minister of Transport would meet them.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Considering that mothers must wash their babies with bottled water, does the government not realize that mere talking is no longer enough and that immediate action is required to repair the damage it has caused?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-32. However, I am sad at the same time, because we need only think—and I know whereof I speak—of the federal government's miserable performance at managing the environment for many years now.

I can give you striking examples from my riding. I was a municipal councillor for four terms over a period of 14 years, and God knows how many times we had to deal with the federal government, on the matter of the erosion of river banks for example.

In the town where I served as councillor, there are four beaches and I can name them for you: going from west to east there are the Monagan, Ferguson, Routhier and Lévesque beaches.

They are fine beaches and have a fine shoreline. People worked very hard building houses, clearing an area where they could enjoy life and resorts would flourish. Through dredging and other operations by the federal government, by rockfilling, they affected the tide. It destroyed roads, infrastructures and houses.

There is another fact I remember very clearly. In the fall 1994, I asked for a meeting with officials from Environment Canada and representatives of the Sept-Îles airport, which was held at the airport. At that point, I warned the airport authorities that the product used to de-ice airport runways was noxious and contaminating the soil. There were serious consequences.

The airport is on a cliff. The Routhier and Lévesque beaches lie just below. I warned them that they were polluting the water table. Four years later, after various tests were done, the Department of Transport acknowledged that, by using the material they spread on the runways to de-ice them, they had polluted the soil, that they were responsible. They contaminated the water table, they contaminated the sources of drinking water the public had invested in, had created.

For the last two years, the solution has been to provide people with bottled water. I personally asked questions in the House to hurry the Minister of Transport into finding an appropriate solution. Indeed, the solution is quite simply to extend the Sept-Îles pipeline to bring drinking water from downtown to that population.

I have met with Health Canada officials and a medical officer of the Quebec health ministry, who have told me that the most dangerous thing is not to drink water, since our body can eliminate it. Actually, the most dangerous thing is to take a shower or a bath in contaminated water because skin pores cannot eliminate it. Mothers are forced to bath their babies in bottled water, which is totally ridiculous.

We ask the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment to take action. Public health is at stake. This is an environmental issue. It seems as though this government could not care less about the health of people, allowing issues as important as this one to go unresolved.

Here is another example. During the night of March 22 to 23, an ore carrier, the Gordon C. Leitch , collided with a wharf at Havre-Saint-Pierre and spilled more than 40,000 tons of fuel in the waters of one of the most prized attractions of my riding, the Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve.

Hundreds of birds were contaminated and nearly 80% had to be put down. New traces of fuel are now showing up as ice melts. Incalculable damage has been caused to this extremely fragile ecosystem.

Ridiculous as it may seem, the environment minister never made any commitment to the people of the Minganie area concerning what she could do or should have done most urgently, despite the representations and letters from the people. She had the responsibility to reassure the residents of the archipelago, these pioneers who have worked so hard over the years. She should have done something then to protect the archipelago in which they have put so much work because it is a unique tourist attraction.

When we talk about the people in the Minganie area, we talk about the Mingan archipelago. We also talk about the people in Havre-Saint-Pierre, Sheldrake, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Rivière-au-Tonnerre, Baie-Johan-Beetz, Aguanish, and Natashquan.

All these people have been working very hard to develop this archipelago of which they are so proud, and which is also an economic asset because it is a great tourist attraction. The minister never did anything. She never bothered taking serious measures to solve the problem and clean up the oil slick that was spilled on that night in March.

Let me remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois moved the following motions at report stage. One was to remove the paragraph in the preamble dealing with the establishment of national environmental standards, and environmental quality guidelines and codes of practice. Without those changes, since the environment is not an exclusively federal jurisdiction, this sub-clause was unacceptable to us.

We also want to remove the paragraph of the preamble where reference is made to the presence of toxic substances, which is a matter of national interest. Once again, the federal government is looking for an excuse to meddle in the environment from coast to coast.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling upon the federal government to amend the preamble so that Quebec may speak for itself internationally when its interests are at stake, particularly in the areas of culture, education, health and the environment. The federal government boasts about recognizing Quebec's distinct nature. It should let us speak for ourselves when our interests are at stake.

In clause 2, we wish to delete the words “endeavour to” in reference to the federal government's acting in co-operation with the provinces. In our opinion, the federal government must always act in co-operation with the provinces, and with their approval. The use of “endeavour to” gives the federal government a loophole we do not wish it to have.

We are calling on the federal government to do away with the matter of uniform environmental standards from coast to coast, because this ignores our specific situation. Here again, we want the words “endeavour to” deleted in order to have assurance that the federal government will act within the spirit of the intergovernmental agreements on the environment concluded with the provinces. This amendment eliminates the federal loophole.

Finally, I would point out that we are proposing the same amendment several times, requiring the federal government to obtain provincial approval when assigning the power to adopt regulations and implement legislation. The federal government must obtain provincial approval when adopting regulations relating to the environment.

For all of these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois, including the member for Manicouagan of course, will be voting against Bill C-32.

[North Shore Highway Accident, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, in my riding of Manicouagan, a terrible automobile accident took the lives of four young students from the Cegep in Sept-Îles.

These young women, who were full of life and plans for the future, were on their way to write an exam. They leave behind them parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends who loved them and who are now facing a huge void.

The families and friends of Stéphanie, Marie-Ève, Julie and Fanny now realize how fragile life is, and they will live through difficult moments in the days and weeks to come. Only courage, time and solidarity can help them overcome this tragedy.

On behalf of my colleagues and all the residents of Manicouagan, it is with deep sadness that I offer my most sincere condolences to the families and friends of these four young women.

[Air Transportation, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the present time the air traffic control tower at Sept-Îles airport is providing air control services to the airports at Havre-Saint-Pierre, Natashquan and Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon. With the change proposed by Nav Canada, this service will in future be provided by the air traffic control tower at Quebec City airport.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us whether he believes that the savings thus realized will be substantial enough to justify such a decision, which represents a potential risk to airport users in my riding?

[Voisey's Bay Nickel Project, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hear members say that the Voisey's Bay project could find minerals in my riding of Manicouagan. I am referring to Sept-Îles.

I am pleased to speak to this motion regarding the problems of the nickel project in Voisey's Bay, Labrador.

The motion recommends that the government become actively involved in this project; on the one hand, to speed up the settling of land claims from aboriginal communities present in the area and, on the other hand, to ensure that all environmental studies necessary for implementation of the project are duly completed.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. In order to explain our position, I will give some essential background and history.

Inco Ltd., the main backer of the Voisey's Bay nickel project, has its eye on lands in the far northeast corner of Labrador. But the Inuit and Innu in this region have lived on these lands for thousands of years. Clearly, these are their traditional hunting and fishing grounds. They also grow certain medicinal plants there.

What is important is that these northern communities have, from time immemorial, maintained a close relationship with the land and its resources. Their traditional economy is based on the bounty of nature and the land, for instance boots made of skins, bone and ivory needles, food-gathering, trapping, and so forth. In addition to providing for the material needs of the Labrador Inuit and Innu, the land is at the heart of their relationship with other works of the Creator, and their spirituality.

In fact, in its 1996 report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identified the land as one of the four fundamental themes of the northern first nations' culture. In other words, the land is extremely important for the culture and the soul of a northern aboriginal.

But let us get back to the issue before us. The Innu and the Inuit have important land claims in the Voisey's Bay region. These claims obviously concern traditional lands that are filled with memories and that have been used by generations of Innu and Inuit. These claims are still not settled and now there is this nickel mining project.

It goes without saying that the federal government and the Newfoundland government must sit down with the Innu and Inuit communities to settle their claims, this before allowing Inco to begin mining operations in Voisey's Bay.

This is, in my view, a basic issue of respect for the aboriginal community that lives there and for which these lands are literally their living environment, one that also reflects their cultures. In short, these lands are their universe.

This mining project is a good development opportunity for Labrador. It could even, based on my information, benefit communities as far as Sept-Îles. For the moment, I cannot say any more on the subject. However, we must not forget that it will also, in all likelihood, have a negative environmental impact on that region.

It is therefore imperative that the federal government try to settle the claims of the Innu and Inuit, so that Inco's arrival in Labrador can take place in a climate of mutual co-operation between those involved, and in the respect of the aboriginal community living on that territory.

Therefore, the Voisey's Bay mining operation must necessarily include guarantees and a significant compensation package for the first nations directly affected by this mining project. The motion before us generally goes in that direction.

Incidentally, a few years ago, the federal government, the Newfoundland government and the Innu and Inuit communities in Labrador appointed a group to examine the impact of the Voisey's Bay mining project. The group tabled its report on April 1.

It recommended, among other things, to settle the issue of land claims and to arrive at an agreement between the company, the governments and the aboriginals on the sharing of benefits—we are talking billions of dollars—from the mining project. Indeed, this is the way we will have to go, it would seem.

While the land claims issue is still not resolved, particularly in the case of the Innu, there is also another basic issue that remains unresolved, namely the environmental impact of the mining project.

In fact, at this time, the Inuit and the Innu of Labrador still do not know where the smelter will be located and what will happen to the slag it will produce.

There are a number of contaminants contained in this residue, and the wind may carry them to adjacent soil and water. These vital problems are still on the back burner. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling upon the federal government, as the motion proposes, to become actively involved so that all of the environmental studies will be completed in order for the aboriginal population, and all other individuals or groups affected, to have the proper information on environmental impact.

To summarize, if this development project, which is of importance for Labrador, is to be given the green light to proceed, first the native land claims by the inhabitants of this area, the Innu and the Inuit, must be settled. It must also be ensured that the environmental consequences of mining operations are analyzed in depth and that the information relating to this, which is of such vital importance, must be made publicly available. In other words, the project is a good thing, but not at any price.

What is required first of all is to sit down, put all the pieces of the puzzle together, scrutinize all the implications of the project, while maintaining harmony, good faith and respect among all partners associated in the project.

It is certain, indispensable even, that the federal government must get actively involved in resolving the major problems I have raised here. There is much still to be done, so it is very much in the federal government's interests to roll up its sleeves and get cracking.

Since Motion M-194 is along the same lines as my own observations, I support it.

[Air Transportation, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in order to justify the government's failure to do anything about the troubling issue of air transportation, the minister announced that the Transportation Safety Board was now conducting an investigation into the situation. We checked and found out that the results of this investigation will not be available for at least a year.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. How many planes will have to crash before the minister realizes that his cost-benefit approach to Nav Canada is endangering people's lives?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to blame you, but I rose four or five times to speak. I am very anxious to tell the House what our feelings are with regard to the conflict in Kosovo, but I will content myself with the one minute I am allowed to put a question to the member who just made some good comments.

Today I would like this debate to be non partisan. I would like to know whether we can co-operate. Just as we talk about globalized markets, could we not talk about globalizing peace, and work together with all concerned states at making it long lasting?

I would like to ask the member whether he shares our view regarding the globalization of peace.

I will have the opportunity to speak again during the course of the day.

[Port-Cartier Penitentiary, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the part time employees of the Port-Cartier penitentiary learned that their work contract would end on March 1.

A number of these employees have worked for this institution for many years, without ever obtaining permanent status.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As new permanent positions will be created in this institution in the short term, can the Deputy Prime Minister say that is fair and just to offer the new jobs becoming available to these former employees of Port-Cartier on a priority basis?

[Water Contamination, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on October 20, the Minister of Transport acknowledged his department's responsibility in polluting the water table around the beaches in Sept-Îles.

To date, he has offered only weak excuses and bottled water.>

What is preventing the minister from making a firm commitment to resolve quickly and completely the problems his department caused? People's health is at risk.

[Nunavut Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as an associate member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to speak again today on C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other Acts in consequence.

My position and impressions with respect to Bill C-57 are really no different than the comments made at second reading. We were favourable then, and we are favourable now. Ever since this bill was introduced in the House, we have wanted to see it passed as promptly as possible.

The purpose of Bill C-57 is to amend the Criminal Code so that it reflects the realities of the new territory of Nunavut and to make it possible to establish an operational government before April 1, 1999, the territory's official launch date. It is therefore very important for this bill to be passed so that the people of Nunavut may be prepared and equipped with all the necessary tools to be equal to the challenge of this new government.

Bill C-57 is part of the process that began in 1992 with the territorial land agreement setting out the legal and political framework of the new territory of Nunavut. Approved in 1993, the creation of Nunavut is supported by Bill C-39, which we debated in the House last year and which provides for the holding of a legislative election, while facilitating the transition and legitimizing the process. Bill C-57 is part of this ongoing process. It is the last building block, as it were, in the political and legal structure that will allow the inhabitants of this territory to at last be ready for April 1999.

We are on the threshold of 1999. It is high time to give the inhabitants of Nunavut all the political, and more particularly in the case before us today, all the legislative instruments they will need. This will enable them to have a court that meets their needs and that is closer to them. The creation of a trial court, as provided in Bill C-57, is vital to full government autonomy.

Since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949—I said “Confederation” but I should have said “federation”, because we know that the successive federal governments, without any consultation, threw out Confederation and replaced it with a federation.

Since 1949, Canada's borders have not been changed. This indicates clearly just what a historic moment the creation of Nunavut represents and also explains the importance of its creation to the people living there. The Northwest Territories will therefore be divided into two separate entities.

Nunavut covers some two million square kilometres and is north of the 60th parallel. It is divided into three regions and includes 28 communities. Eighty per cent of the population is Inuit. “Nunavut” is a lovely word from their language meaning “our land”.

Needless to say, life in the Canadian far north is very different from life as we know it in our big cities. The size of the territory alone explains the need to pass legislation more suited to these northern communities' needs and realities. I firmly believe Bill C-57 meets that need.

With the establishment of a single level trial court and the broader powers accorded it, the judges will be more versatile and better able to meet the specific needs of the people of Nunavut.

I would like to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-57, which enables thousands of native people to move closer to solid, viable and more relevant self-government.

Bill C-39 passed in the House last year permits the Inuit in Nunavut to administer their land through a legislative assembly elected by universal suffrage. We supported the bill at the time. It gave form to more than 25 years of negotiations and enabled the Inuit, a great people within Canada, to take their place on the continent by controlling their own destiny.

Bill C-39 provides for a transition period and for the powers of the federal and territorial governments to be devolved to the Nunavut territorial government. This legislation also amends the Constitution Act, 1867, so that the people of this territory will be represented in the House of Commons and the Senate.

It ensures that representatives of the Inuit of Nunavut will be able to serve their constituents in an operational legislature as soon as their territory is officially created.

While Bill C-39 dealt with many issues, some of them must still be addressed to ensure the proper functioning of the new territory at the political and legislative levels. Indeed, much work remains to be done between now and April 1, 1999. That is why it is essential that Bill C-57 be passed as soon as possible to complete the establishment of the territory's legal and administrative components.

In order to be ready by April 1999, Nunavut must have at its disposal all the necessary legislative instruments now. This is what Bill C-57 is all about, and we support it. The transfer of certain territorial and federal jurisdictions to Nunavut is not a simple matter, but it is nonetheless vital and meets the needs of the far north.

This bill establishes a single level trial court system for the territory of Nunavut. This tribunal, to be known as the Nunavut court of justice, is established to provide an efficient and accessible court structure capable of meeting the unique needs of Nunavut, while at the same time maintaining rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.

In concrete terms, this means that the new Nunavut territory will now have its own court of justice. This court of justice will replace the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories as the superior court, and the territorial court as the lower court. Bill C-57 makes further amendments to the Nunavut Act, passed in 1993, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power.

The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut court of justice

The senior judge of each of the three territories must be a member of the Canadian Judicial Council. Indeed, given the expanded jurisdiction of that tribunal, it is important to make sure that the judges will be competent to hear cases from the lower and superior courts, with the exception of those cases that come under the jurisdiction of specialized and administrative tribunals.

The bill also amends the Criminal Code to provide for new procedures for the court of justice and it includes a whole range of legal considerations. The creation of this court of justice will ensure a flexible and efficient legal process for the whole territory of Nunavut. By making the court competent to hear any case, whether it involves a minor wrongdoing or a serious criminal offence, we give the people of the territory access to a service that is more consistent with its reality.

From now on, when a judge travels to some small community in Nunavut, he will have broader powers. It must be understood that the multiplicity of jurisdictions, in other words a multifaceted court system, useful in high density urban centres, is not necessarily useful in the proper administration of justice in a territory such as Nunavut. This is why legislation must be passed on this issue and to permit the necessary changes to be made to the various laws that, up to now, have granted various jurisdictions authority to hear various cases.

Bill C-57 provides the changes needed for the establishment and operation of this court of justice, and it also meets the wishes of the promoters of self-government.

I add that we support the bill and that we will continue to support the principle of actions that, like Bill C-57, enable peoples to find the tools they need to reach their full potential.