Jean-Paul Marchand

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

Mr. Speaker. it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to a bill as significant as this one.

This bill does not deal with the issue of endangered species such as the members of the Progressive Conservative Party or the NDP. As a matter of fact, it deals with endangered wildlife species, an issue that is extremely important.

Today, we are debating Bill C-33. This is a very significant bill. Its content and purpose meet a desperate need. As hon. members are aware, there are some 340 wildlife species at risk in Canada. A number of these species are already extinct. Others are in a rather critical state. There are 87 species that are considered endangered, while 75 are threatened and 151 are vulnerable, for a total of some 340 wildlife species at risk in Canada.

We know that this is an important issue not only in Canada, but also all over the world. There were several conferences, including the 1992 Rio Summit, which brought together representatives from different countries who looked into the issue of endangered species.

Environmental pollution, combined with all the issues related to water and atmospheric pollution, plays a role in the extinction of animal species. We ought to make every effort to ensure their preservation. That is why there was a summit in Rio in 1992 and why Canada signed the convention on biological diversity.

In fact, that is what prompted Canada, in 1996, to hold a conference to reach an agreement on the environment with the provinces. This was the agreement on the protection of endangered species, which led to the introduction, by the Minister of the Environment, of Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

This legislation formed the basis of the bill we are examining today, Bill C-33. It is more or less the same bill with a few changes. In fact, this is the first time that the federal government has tried to pass legislation to address the issue of endangered species.

This is the government's first bill, but it completely misses the mark. We even wonder why the federal government introduced such unclear legislation which has drawn so much criticism from all sides.

Even when the former version of the bill, Bill C-65—and the federal government was aware at the time of criticism that the bill was inadequate—was introduced, opposition to it came from all of the provinces, not only from Quebec, but also from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Everyone in fact was opposed to the principle that seems to be reincarnated in Bill C-33, namely the lack of harmonization with the provinces.

The bill represented an approach that did not respect provincial jurisdictions and lacked harmonization between federal and provincial jurisdictions. We do know that the federal government has powers in this area, it has legislated this area, but so have the provinces. The provinces have the tools to better protect the habitats of endangered species.

The federal government does have some degree of jurisdiction, but the ideal would be of course to have some degree of harmonization between both levels of government. However, once again the federal government seems unable, even when it would be very important to do so, to agree with the provinces. Quebec is not the only province to criticize the approach of the federal government under Bill C-33. One must wonder whether it is not always trying to create federal-provincial conflicts, as illustrated by this piece of legislation.

There is a fair amount of opposition to this bill. Without referring to all the clauses—there are 141 of them dealing with various definitions—I can say there are two major issues that bother us, and that bother all the opposition parties, all the environmental groups and even some Liberal members. The federal government wants too much power to enforce this law, and this puts into question the effectiveness of the law and may even threaten wildlife species at risk.

The federal government wants to impose its vision, a vision which, once again, does not respect provincial jurisdiction and which seems to imply that the federal law will take precedence over provincial jurisdiction.

The government is off to a bad start, obviously, because a law cannot be effective when it is creates a problem in federal-provincial relations. It is obvious that the government is not at all on the right track. This is not a political matter. It is a matter of responding to a need other countries have been aware of for years. Time is of the essence. The more we wait before enforcing such legislation, the more endangered species will vanish. That is the problem.

Once again, in this bill, the federal government does not respect provincial jurisdiction, is seeking too much discretionary power and even, which is totally absurd, wants to let cabinet rather than experts, people who know this field, determine which species are endangered. It is totally crazy to play politics with a bill that deals with very scientific data.

It is good to involve people who are familiar with the situation. People who are in the know about environmental issues and the protection of endangered species are opposed to this bill. All, or very nearly all, environmental groups are totally opposed, because it is ineffective. It is useless, even dangerous, they say. It is dangerous in the sense that it does not respond to the need to effectively protect endangered species because instead of protecting them it creates a federal-provincial conflict once again.

Even stakeholders such as the pulp and paper industry and the mining association are opposed to this bill as well. Imagine, there are even Liberals on the government side who have examined this bill, and not just any old Liberals. The member for York North, for instance, was one of them. On June 12, 2000, she said “We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless this bill leaves committee as a good, effective piece of legislation”. However, the minister has already said he had no intention of making changes to the bill.

The hon. member for York North, who is incidentally very involved in environmental issues, also said “The House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective and makes biological sense. Unfortunately Bill C-33 is wanting”. These are the words of the member for York North.

That same day, June 12, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis who, in another life, served as Quebec's minister of the environment under Premier Bourassa, said “Instead of being recognized as being the final list produced by scientists of the highest repute who have worked tirelessly over the last two decades, the list will now be subject to the discretion of cabinet”. What business does cabinet have interfering in these decisions, which must obviously be based on scientific experience? It is only common sense that the experience required should be scientific in nature.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis went on to say “I find that terribly ironic—We are not even starting with the roll of the list of the 339 species identified.”

That is a glaring fault in the law. Without a list, there can be no protection against this approach, which was why the Sierra Club said that, if the bill were passed, it would be an international embarrassment to Canada. I would also point out that all the opposition parties are opposed to the bill, as well as the government of Quebec obviously. Once again, we feel there is duplication and interference. The federal government does not seem to know where its jurisdiction ends. This bill must be killed.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition organized by rural route mail carriers who are calling upon Parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, because it deprives them of their collective bargaining rights and allows Canada Post to keep their wages and working conditions at an unfair level.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who spoke on Bill C-5 to explain how well tourism is working in Quebec and our concern that this bill might establish a Canadian tourism commission that could create problems for agencies that are now working very well.

In Quebec, the agency known as Tourisme Québec was established and is working very well. Of course, we want to fully encourage tourism because it is now one of the primary industries, if you will, in Quebec. We have considerable attractions.

Quebec City, where I am from and which is in my riding, was recognized by UNESCO as part of the international heritage.

Tourism in Quebec has grown considerably in the last few years, partially because of the attractions, but also because of the involvement of the Quebec government. Indeed, I could mention a series of actions taken and of mandates reinforced by the government for Tourisme Québec.

These actions were successful. I must say that Tourisme Québec has consolidated the efforts. Tourisme Québec is comprised of almost all tourism associations in Quebec and several private interests to take joint action in the development of this sector.

Indeed, this is a sector that does not necessarily require the involvement of the federal government. Of course, since this is an extremely important industry, any effort to improve tourism is appreciated by those who work in this sector. What concerns us is that the establishment of the Canadian tourism commission will be another form of intrusion in sectors that are working well in Quebec.

Not only is this an intrusion into the activities of an agency that is working well in Quebec, but it could also be an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction over tourism. Why bother an agency that is working well? I fear that the federal government wants to expand this commission's mandate—because it already exists with more limited powers—and through Bill C-5 to expand its spending powers, among others.

We know very well that its basic purpose is more propagandizing in Quebec. Of course, Quebec is considered as a threat to Canada because of its sovereignist vision. In fact, the federal government has, for some time now, not responded to Quebec's justified demands. Quebec has long been asking for recognition within Canada, which should have gone without saying and should have been given a long time ago, but was refused. On the contrary, a whole series of agencies have been set up essentially to promote the federal government.

That is all this commission is. Certainly, it can have some beneficial effects, but essentially its purpose is to invest more in areas where federal visibility can be ensured.

I would like to make two quotations, including one by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He said “One way to offset the attraction of separatism is to use time, energy, and vast sums of money to promote federal nationalism”.

Mr. Trudeau believe in using English-Canadian nationalism, federal nationalism, to thwart Quebec's nationalism. He used this attitude, these means at the federal level to counter Quebec nationalism. In fact, the idea was to set up agencies spending as much money as possible to give great visibility to Canada and its flag and to show that, in fact, Canada is working well.

I have another quotation from the current Prime Minister who, quite recently, on February 16, 2000, said “It is very important in every riding in Canada that the people of the ridings know, when there is a subvention coming from the taxpayers of Canada, that the money is coming from the taxpayers of Canada, particularly in areas where some people want to quit Canada because they do not know the good that this government is doing for its citizens”.

First, the money that the government is using comes from Quebec taxpayers; it is Quebec's money that the federal government is using. There are huge amounts of money sent back through programs. In this regard, Quebec receives more than its share. If there is one area where Quebec receives more than its share, it is for propaganda on national unity.

It is a well known fact that in other areas, such as research, job creation, industry, et cetera, Quebec does not get its fair share, but in that area we receive a lot.

For several years now, since 1993, the government has worked relentlessly to set up agencies such as the CIO or Canada Information Office, which every year gets $20 million, most of which, namely 60% to 70%, is spent in Quebec.

There is also the one in a million flag project launched by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Responsibility for this propaganda campaign focused on Quebec was removed from that minister. The Department of Public Works and Government Services is now responsible for this project and, because of that, the spending authority has been increased in several areas, including in public works.

In addition to this, there are also a series of agencies and offices. It is unbelievable. It is mind-boggling to see all the money spent by the federal government specifically for Quebec. Again, this is money for propaganda. All this money is being spent to create an image, not jobs. This money is being spent by agencies close to this government.

For instance, what does Attraction Canada do? It makes signs that can be seen here and there, such as along highways. These signs, and there are many of them in Quebec, suggest a nice visit to a national park.

In fact, of the $12 million allocated for 1999-2000, 60% was spent in Quebec. One wonders why 60% of Attraction Canada's publicity was spent in Quebec. It is to attract people to anything that symbolizes Canada.

For instance, the Council for Canadian Unity has spent most of its $6 million budget in Quebec.

Why was 65% of the budget for Canada Day, which is organized by Heritage Canada of course, spent in Quebec? Of the $5.5 million spent last year for Canada Day, $3.5 million was spent in Quebec.

The list goes on and on. We could add the spending by the Canada Information Office, by the Council for Canadian Unity, as well as the one in a million flag project. The amounts are huge. There is also Operation Unity. If we were to add up all the money spent on propaganda in Quebec, the amount would be staggering. It is unfortunate, because that money could have been spent for a good cause instead of being used to create an image in Quebec.

We have the same fear with regard to the establishment of the Canadian tourism commission. By establishing this agency, the government has found another way to spend millions of dollars in Quebec to pitch national unity.

[Government Response To Petitions, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be a quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[Voice Mail Service, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of today's motion by the hon. member of the NDP that the federal government should encourage the CRTC to establish regulations that require telephone companies to assist community agencies with providing affordable voice mail service to Canadians who cannot afford or do not have access to telephone service.

The Bloc Quebecois member responsible for this issue being on official duties outside the country, I will merely offer my support to this motion in his absence.

Access to the telecommunications system is not a luxury these days, but a necessity. In fact, the Telecommunications Act states clearly that access to telecommunications is in the public interest.

In these times of technological revolution, it has become indispensable for everyone to be connected to the world, in one way or another, via the telecommunications system.

The CRTC has adopted certain measures, including those to enable schools to have access to Internet services at lower cost. It must see that all Canadians and all Quebecers have access to the telecommunications system. Where community initiatives have been developed, particularly those to connect the homeless and the disadvantaged, these must be studied.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore open to the motion by the NDP.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my gratitude to the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for all of his efforts on this issue.

For quite some time, for a number of years, he has formed a coalition of people from the shipbuilding industry, unions, builders and industrialists in the sector to draft Bill C-213. I think the government should support it if only to help this major industry.

At one point, the industry was thriving in Canada. It had considerable potential for creating good, high end jobs. To think that this government was elected on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, and that today, at least according to my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, it appears to be wanting to smother this industry.

Bill C-213 contains some extremely constructive proposals that have none of the wastage found at the Department of Human Resources Development and in other departments, as is being shown increasingly these days. There is no wastage. On the contrary, it is a framework, solid support, similar to what already exists in the United States under title XI, which, since its passage, has not wasted a single cent. In fact, all the projects, all the programs set up in the United States in the context of title XI, the guaranteed loan, have paid off handsomely.

Why not institute a similar program here in Canada? Because the government lacks confidence in the shipping industry and lacks vision and does not have its heart in the right place to want to create jobs of this calibre.

The fact that in a country such as Canada, which opens onto two oceans, which has a seaway among the finest in the world, the government does not want to go to the trouble to support this bill, I find quite deplorable. I find it deplorable that the Liberals do not want to support this bill as it should be supported, because it is an excellent bill.

It could go a long way toward helping create jobs in this sector. Once again, I would like to close by congratulating my colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on all the work he has done in preparing this bill.

[Division No. 819, March 13th, 2000]

There is something going on in this place which concerns me deeply and which—

[Division No. 819, March 13th, 2000]

In fact, there is something very disturbing and spine-chilling that is happening in this House and that makes me believe that we may possibly—

[Division No. 819, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, something very disturbing and spine-chilling is happening in this House and makes me believe that maybe—

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for Motion No. 98, which suggests that all Senate proceedings be televised.

Since the hon. member is in favour of the abolition of the Senate, knowing him as I do, I think his aim is mostly to get Canadians and Quebecers to see, through television, how useless the Senate is, how absurd what is going on there is, and how archaic and even undemocratic that institution is.

Basically, the hon. member wants to ensure that people understand that the Senate must be abolished. He said so himself in his remarks. My Bloc colleagues and I are in favour of the abolition of the Senate. But televising proceedings would be a waste of money, I believe.

Indeed, we know that the Senate spends over $60 million every year. This is a waste of money, because we know very well that the Senate, even though it has many powers, which are equal to those of the House of Commons, unfortunately exercises these powers in a partisan way. They are exercised by people who often use this money and these powers for personal and partisan reasons.

If we want more Canadians to be aware of what is happening in the Senate, we should ensure that its budgets are more transparent and that the auditor general can examine the Senate's books. I think people would then be much more aware of what is happening in the Senate.

We know that only one auditor general's report, the 1991 one, dealt with the Senate. The auditor general found that the Senate lacked transparency, that it was trying to hide what goes on there. Indeed, my Reform colleague pointed out how it is difficult to get a precise account on Senate attendance. All the information on the Senate is very difficult to access, or they are trying to hide it.

Senators have no benefit in being known to Canadians. Nevertheless, ensuring transparency on spending and budgets would be sufficient for people to call for the abolition of the Senate. Ultimately, this is the only solution: the abolition of the Senate.

We know, for example, how the money is badly spent. We know that the Senate costs more than $60 million a year. Public accounts show an amount of only $47 million. However, if we add the services provided by a range of federal departments and organizations, the cost of the Senate exceeds $60 million a year and could even reach $70 million.

No one knows that. At this time, no one in Canada and not a single member of this House knows exactly how much the Senate costs. If only we knew the exact amount, we would be getting somewhere. We do not know how much the Senate costs because, unfortunately, this kind of information is not disclosed. About two years ago, the House of Commons invited the Senate to appear before the House's standing committee to explain its expenses and cost increases, which had reached 16% over the two previous years. Well, the House of Commons was not allowed to know how the Senate had spent its $47 million budget which, as we know, actually exceeds $60 million.

We also know that senators do not work very hard. They sit an average of 65 days a year, for about three hours a day, and half or at least a third of the senators are absent half of the time. I did a calculation of the efficiency of senators and if you take all those factors into account, the cost of a senator reaches between $3,000 to $6,000 an hour. Those people, who spend $60 million of the taxpayers' money, do not account for what they do and, furthermore, some of them may even use their position as senators to advance private interests, to become members of boards of directors or to get involved in many partisan activities.

For example, people should know that senators use their status, their offices, their funding, their privileges and their frequent flyer points for partisan purposes, either for the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. I find it utterly immoral and unacceptable. However, it seems that here, in Canada, such practices are accepted in the Senate.

Moreover, senators can sit on boards of directors, which opens the door to potential conflicts of interest. Senators who sit on such boards are required to disclose the names of the companies.

I know that one senator sits on Power Corporation's board of directors as vice-chairman. Last year, just for sitting on that board, he received $430,000. Add to that what he gets for sitting on other boards of directors, his salary as a senator and all the benefits he gets as a senator.

I have no problem with people who sit on the boards of large corporations being paid $1 million. However, I find it immoral that they also sit in the Senate and use their privileges as senators to lobby officials in various departments. It is not illegal, at least not for now, but it is highly immoral.

When one looks closely at the Senate, when one sees how undemocratic and archaic it is, one realizes that it should have been abolished a long time ago. The longer this kind of institution is kept in place, the easier it will become to see how rotten it is, or so I hope. It is not necessary to put cameras in the Senate because I think that it would only be money wasted over and above what the Senate already wastes.

I suggest that my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton go directly to the heart of the issue. As a Liberal member, I find him very courageous to voice his opposition to the Senate and to work for its abolition. I think that we must go all the way and simply abolish the Senate. That would be doing an excellent service to everybody.

We would save the $60 million given each year to that institution. That money is wasted each year. This is not money that we waste once in a while but money that is thrown out the window every year. Over ten years, that adds up to $600 million.

If that money were invested in job creation or in constructive projects, I think it would be a lot more useful to Canadians than to give it to tired old politicians who are there only due to patronage.

If the Liberals, among others, had the courage to do so, it would be very easy to get rid of the Senate. All they have to do is vote against the Senate's budget in June. That is what I suggest they do.