Ghislain Fournier

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to say the least by the comments from the member for Laval West. She seems to be proud of and making a big deal about nothing. Coming from Quebec, she should be very familiar with Quebec's special needs, and those of all of the provinces. She spoke about responsibilities, but we all know that it is the provinces that have all of the responsibilities and it is the federal government that pockets the money.

Let us talk about health, education, labour, health, job security, legal assistance to name just a few. She touched on health. Does she know? I think she knows, but she did not say a word to defend Quebeckers and not one word about taxation. The federal government made a commitment to contribute 50% for health care; it contributes 14%. The math is simple. Why did she not talk about that? The Speech from the Throne contained not one word about this.

I could talk about employment insurance too, but I am being told that my time is about to run out. There is more than $40 billion that belongs to workers. As for labour, it is the provinces that are responsible.

What does she think about health care, labour, and the fact that Quebec is losing workers in droves?

[Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the unanimous consent of the House to again introduce my bill to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services).

[Gustave Blouin, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the member representing Manicouagan, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Gustave Blouin, who died suddenly on April 14, at the age of 89.

Mr. Blouin's political career began in 1963 in the riding of Saguenay, and continued later in the riding of Manicouagan when he was re-elected in 1968. Mr. Blouin represented his constituents with his characteristic energy until the end of his political career in 1979.

When I met him, he was the member of parliament and I was a municipal councillor in Sept-Îles. Despite our different political affiliations, I was impressed by his diligence at work and the energy he dedicated to ensure the development of the North Shore.

On behalf of the residents of the North Shore, I extend my deepest sympathies to the members of his family and to all his friends.

[The Environment, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week, when I asked the Minister of Transport about his inaction regarding the pollution problem in the beaches area of Sept-Îles, he not only said that I was wrong, but stated “there are only two households with this problem”.

It is the Minister of Transport who is wrong. It is not two families, but 24 residents who are forced to use bottled water because of the minister's inaction. Since he is the polluter, he is the one who should pay.

What is the Minister of Transport waiting for to act?

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, although Transport Canada has admitted its responsibility in the contamination of the water table in the beaches area, the Minister of Transport has just turned down a request for compensation from the town of Sept-Îles to cover the costs of hooking the airport up to the municipal water system.

Will the Minister of Transport admit that he has decided to slough off his responsibilities to the people of Sept-Îles by refusing to pay the $2.4 million it will cost to hook the airport up to the municipal water system? He was the one responsible for the pollution and he is the one who should pay.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will never accept umbrella legislation from the federal government in the form being presented at this time, when the Government of Quebec has already taken the necessary steps on the issue being addressed today, that is an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. I am therefore pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, which concerns species at risk.

I would like to make it clear that long ago, in 1989, the Government of Quebec long ago enacted legislation respecting threatened or vulnerable species. It also enacted legislation respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations. There can obviously be no question of the federal government invading areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it and telling Quebec how to go about protecting its wildlife species at risk, when Quebec already has legislation in this area.

First, I would like to briefly put the bill in context. The federal government must first ask itself if this bill will provide additional protection that is enforceable. Will this bill truly help improve the protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them? The Bloc Quebecois believes that the answer is no.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois fully agrees with the principle whereby our species must be given even greater protection, but we are opposed to this bill, because it constitutes direct intrusion into many of Quebec's jurisdictions and it directly overlaps the legislation enacted by Quebec in 1989. This bill could very well increase paper burden, instead of allowing for an efficient use of already scarce resources. As I mentioned earlier, the Government of Quebec government has already legislated in the area targeted by this bill. We do not think that the government's proposed measures will improve the situation of endangered wildlife species.

Even though the preamble of the bill provides that the protection of species is a shared responsibility, the bill is not worded accordingly and does not reflect the reality, namely that habitat protection is primarily a provincial responsibility. The whole bill is drafted in a way that leads us to believe that the minister will have the authority to impose on the provinces his own vision of that protection, if he deems it appropriate to do so. In other words, the minister's legislation will prevail over existing provincial laws, even though habitat is entirely under provincial jurisdiction.

Also, the federal government should have dealt properly with the control and evaluation of toxic substances, including, for example, the evaluation of the effects of genetically modified organisms on ecosystems. It could also have dealt with cross border pollution and migrating species.

Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the earth's evolution over more than 4.5 billion years. This process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. Together, they form the ecosystems we know today. Each one plays a specific role in the food chain and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.

However, in recent years, scientists have been warning about the disappearance of species in increasing numbers, as well as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or extremely vulnerable species.

This is a stark reminder that our planet's natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species are disappearing from our planet is an indication of the overall health of our environment and ultimately our own human health.

The Bloc Quebecois is aware that Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about protecting species at risk, about protecting and maintaining the environment generally. We recognize that the fragile balance of our ecosystems must be protected and maintained.

To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species in Canada as being at risk. Of that total, 12 are extinct, 15 others are extirpated in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 threatened and 151 vulnerable

Given the increasing rate at which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. Effective action is therefore necessary. But will this bill really help better protect our ecosystems and the endangered species in them?

Unfortunately, the government and the minister are wrong about what their real role is in designing a realizable plan to provide such protection.

The government is but one of the many stakeholders, and it has not yet figured out that its true role is to build bridges between the various stakeholders, not walls. That is what the true task of the government is when it comes to endangered species, a task at which it has failed. The bill on species at risk the Liberals have now introduced will polarize and divide stakeholders far more than it will unite them.

Every action plan to protect species at risk must be based on respect, that is on respect for the species living in our waters and on our lands, and respect for those to whom those waters and lands belong.

This bill is full of provisions providing discretionary power. In true Liberal fashion, Bill C-5 officially sets up COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, as the ultimate authority in determining which species are endangered. At the same time, the bill prevents COSEWIC, which makes decisions based on scientific data, from determining which species are in fact protected by law. COSEWIC determines which are the endangered species, but will not be allowed under the bill to take steps to protect these species and to draw up a list of them.

What threatens species most is the loss of their habitat, where they live, reproduce and feed. Habitat loss is responsible for 80% of species decline in Canada. Again, Bill C-5 fails in this regard. Under the provisions of his bill, the protection of a species is up to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment.

Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division of powers as set out in the Constitution and as interpreted over the years. This bill interferes directly in an area of provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the process.

The main problem with this bill, which seems to have been raised by all environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be made by the minister and his office, rather than by scientists.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois recognizes the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them. But we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go. We oppose the principle of this bill today. However, we will examine it more thoroughly in committee and we will then be able to better define our position on this issue.

[Petitions, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today being the six-month anniversary of the events of September 11, I am presenting in the House a petition signed by 544 young sixth grade students from my riding of Manicouagan.

In this petition, the students express their concern regarding the events that took place on September 11, and the subsequent events that we have been experiencing since then.

In the hope that the world will one day live in peace, these young people call on government leaders with the following words. “We young people believe that no matter what triggered them, the terrorist acts of September 11 are unacceptable. We ask the Government of Canada to take part in a diplomatic mission and to urge all the governments of the world to adopt political and economic sanctions capable of striking down terrorism”.

[Water Quality, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Sept-Îles have had enough; the beaches sector has no drinking water because the federal government has polluted the water table. Corrective measures would cost $2.5 million.

Will the Prime Minister require his Minister of Transport to do justice to the people of Sept-Îles and pay the $2.5 million required to clean up the mess of which we are the victims? He is the polluter and he is the one who must pay.

[Water Contamination, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Transport admitted that his department was responsible for contaminating the water table in the beaches area of Sept-Îles. He promised that he himself would ensure that his department would repair the damage and find a permanent solution to the problem of drinking water.

For three years now, families in the beaches area must drink bottled water and use it for bathing their children. This is absurd in the year 2001. Furthermore, these citizens have formed a committee to put pressure on the minister.

A few weeks ago, members of the Sept-Îles city council voted unanimously in favour of demanding $2.5 million from the Minister of Transport for expenses incurred in correcting the situation. We are still awaiting an answer from the minister.

The minister must resolve this urgent situation. The health of families in the area is at stake.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-36.

First, I would like to go back to the fact that the United States experienced tragic events for which there is no justification whatsoever. U.S. citizens were the victims of unspeakable and incredibly violent acts, the consequences of which, for them and the rest of the world, are numerous. It is therefore necessary and critical to ensure that such terrible acts never occur again.

We must be careful to come up with an act that will protect people from violent acts of an exceptional nature. However, we must not, through this bill, interfere with individual freedoms, which is what this legislation will do.

Before the events of last September, Americans, Quebecers and Canadians thought they were living in a world based on individual freedoms and respect for one another. Everything is changed now. Still, the Bloc Quebecois feels that even though we must protect ourselves against barbaric acts such as those committed in September, it is necessary to respect individual freedoms.

The Bloc Quebecois is convinced that the Minister of Justice did not take into account the balance that had to be maintained. Bill C-36 will interfere with freedom of expression. It will eliminate a fundamental freedom enjoyed by individuals and restrict people's freedom of expression. With this bill, the government will incite people to commit acts of violence.

At second reading, we said that we supported the principle of an act to fight terrorism, because we felt that framework legislation was necessary, but since the bill was unacceptable to us, we decided to put forward amendments, which were all rejected except for one.

Moreover, several amendments were moved after witnesses appeared before the committee, but the minister ignored them. The amendments by the minister are totally insufficient to restore the balance, to which I alluded, between freedom and security. The context of the September events was an exceptional one. These events were exceptional ones and they must be dealt with in an exceptional fashion. This means that Bill C-36 must also be exceptional in nature.

Should the threat of terrorism diminish, several measures included in the current bill would become exaggerated and unacceptable in a society based on individual and collective freedom of expression.

It is therefore important for a sunset clause to be added to this bill so that it will cease to be in effect after three years. That is what the Bloc Quebecois called for. We also called for an automatic review every year by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, after the tabling of a report by an independent commissioner.

When we think of certain elements of Bill C-36, there is reason for concern about people's freedom being curtailed. The definition of terrorist activity is too broad and might limit people's choices of self-expression—in ways that respect the rights of others—although these are not grounds for considering them terrorists

The minister has not listened to the recommendations made in committee, including the one on tightening up the definition of terrorist activity. A definition must be given in order to ensure that demonstrations or illegal strikes are not considered terrorist activities.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, some demonstrators could still be perceived as terrorists. In our opinion, any reference in the bill to strikes and demonstrations must be removed.

Despite an amendment to the definition of terrorist activity by the Minister of Justice, we believe that certain groups of demonstrators could still be included in the definition.

We oppose the fact that the minister could withhold information by avoiding applying the Access to Information Act, without any safeguard. The bill will be reviewed only in three years' time.

Furthermore, the government did not even consult the Quebec department of justice, although this subject is certainly of interest to it.

Although everyone should roll up their sleeves and work together to fight terrorism in the world, this government has ignored the government of Quebec and its minister of justice by not consulting it. This is really worrisome, especially since the government of Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of justice. It is by working together that we will put an end to terrorism.

Is the federal government's practice of deciding unilaterally not tantamount to dictatorship? What we lived through in September has certainly sown the seeds of concern, both here and with our neighbours in the United States. We are concerned about the future. We empathize with the Americans and are even trying to help them.

Here, perhaps, we should not only talk between levels of government in the context of decision making, but we should make decisions together in the best interests of our people. I think the bill concerns Quebecers and their minister of justice as well. People are observing us and count on this government to be effective and to work co-operatively to banish everything even remotely connected with terrorism forever.

We asked that charitable organizations and bodies have access to the information presented against them. There should be a legal process before listing occurs. The minister introduced no substantive amendment in this regard.

The expression “list of terrorists” would be changed to “list of entities”. Entities can be included in the list of terrorists, and organizations can have their charitable status withdrawn without being allowed access to the evidence against them. This is unacceptable.

Under this bill, an organization could be denied charitable status or have that status revoked on the basis of information that could pose a threat to national security. This bill has been strongly denounced by charitable organizations because of the secrecy surrounding the legal proceedings and the evidence provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

One must know what one is being accused of in order to be able to defend oneself. The Bloc Quebecois put forward amendments in this regard so that organizations that lose their charitable status will know what they are accused of.

They need to be able to have access to the evidence against them so that they can defend themselves. The result is that the minister has put forward no substantive amendment with respect to these provisions.

In conclusion, we are living at a time when everyone must help and support each other. How are charitable organizations, which help their fellow citizens, going to be encouraged if they are threatened at every turn, without explanation and without access to the grounds for the evidence against them? This is a good way to discourage them.

In conclusion, let us not forget that this bill, as drafted, will curtail the freedom of citizens and their right to express themselves. This is not the objective of the Bloc Quebecois, which would rather see a bill that will protect our constituents, not violate their rights. Security does not mean an end to freedom.