House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 41% of the vote.
Magdalen Islands Ferry December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on November 22, we also pointed out that the federal government had failed to follow up on recommendations made in a 1992 report ordered by Transport Canada, which revealed that the Lucy Maud Montgomery urgently needed repairs to be up to safety standards.
At the very least, until a new ferry is finally purchased, can the minister guarantee without a doubt that the Lucy Maud Montgomery is perfectly safe to operate?
Magdalen Islands Ferry December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
On November 22, when asked why people in the Magdalen Islands had been waiting since 1994 for the federal government to buy a new ferry, the minister refused to reply, claiming he was not aware of the case. However, over two years ago, his department set aside $30 million to replace the ferry, and the minister is now sitting on this money instead of responding to the needs of the people in the Magdalen Islands.
Now that he has had two more weeks to read a file that has been on his desk for two years, could the minister tell us why he does not go ahead and buy the new ferry as requested by all groups in the Magdalen Islands?
Fisheries Act November 27th, 1996
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Before we start debate on Bill C-62, I would like some clarification about what happened when members were called to the House to vote. Our television screens showed 20 minutes remaining before the vote. Then the bells suddenly stopped ringing and the House resumed debate on Bill C-62 without giving members any notice. What is happening exactly? I would like to understand. How is this government being run?
Coast Guard November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, from what I hear the industry saying, I would be inclined to believe that perhaps the minister is not tabling his study because he is embarrassed.
Does the minister recognize that he cannot go ahead with his plans to raise an additional $20 million in fees in 1997, since such action could obviously have serious consequences on the businesses and jobs affected by this fee hike?
Coast Guard November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Canadian Coast Guard was to release last Thursday the impact study on its new fee structure for commercial traffic, but the tabling of this study was cancelled at the last minute. Yet everyone knows that the study has been completed. The consultants' contract ended two weeks ago.
Will the minister admit that he is refusing to release his bogus study at this time because most of the findings are being strongly disputed by all stakeholders in the St. Lawrence shipping community, including almost every business analyzed in the study?
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Your first name? Ah, yes.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have mentioned, but I will say it again for the benefit of those who may have just joined us, the bill before us, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, is now at report stage.
People at home may wonder why a bunch of MPs are talking about gender and date of birth today. It is because we are discussing a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act.
My colleagues are making comments that may lead to various interpretations. I will try to remain calm and to tell you what I set out to say.
The reason why the date of birth should be included, as was explained by the hon. member for Bellechasse who tabled the motion, is that this information is already on Quebec's electoral lists. Why? It is to provide those in charge of an election with a tool to correctly identify people. As a number of my colleagues mentioned this morning, there may be several people with the same name, but they are rarely born on the same day.
It is a tool we feel is of great importance. Some people will say: "You are going to use this information so that you can categorize voters". Political parties have other tools they can use for this purpose, and the first thing that comes to mind is that when you want to know people, you must first live in their region and see them every day, which I do each week when I go back to my riding. That is the first tool a member has to work with.
I am therefore not in the slightest worried that they want to mention date of birth in the new bill. Quebec already has this tool, and I think it could also be important for the rest of Canada to include it in the Canada Elections Act. Everyone would then be on an equal footing.
As for the other addition, I think that gender is already mentioned in the bill.
I do not have a copy of the Quebec statute in front of me, but I believe that it is included. With respect to the objection by the member of the Reform Party, although we could debate it a bit longer, I see no problem with mentioning gender as well, for the very same reason as that given by the member for Verchères, which is that an "e" can be misleading. Although one look at him and there is no doubt at all that you are dealing with a Man, with a capital "M".
I do, however, insist that gender be indicated. I would remind all of the hon. members and all of the electorate that 52 per cent of voters are female. When women are, for once, in the majority and can signal their presence, I think the voters' list is how they should do it.
There has long been criticism that women are not represented adequately in this House. This would be a good reason to retain in the Elections Act the requirement that gender must be indicated, precisely to force us as legislators to realize that more than 50 per cent of the electorate are women. These, then, are two tools which we see as indispensable.
I would also add, in connection with this group of motions, as my colleague from Matapédia-Matane has also said, that we have experienced considerable changes with respect to the redrawing of electoral boundaries. I wish to mention this, so that people clearly understand that this is not what we are talking about here this morning, for it could be misinterpreted. We are talking about the act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which is not the same thing as what was done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
My colleague from Matapédia-Matane has described the upheaval in his riding. I, who represent the riding of Gaspé, will have to face the hon. member for the present riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the next election.
In passing, I and my colleague from Bellechasse would like to thank the people who are here in the House today, particularly the Government Whip, for their support. Last week we adopted a bill at all stages to change the names of electoral districts. This is another achievement and I wanted to congratulate these two people. I would like to thank them and also point out to all members present in this House that the reeves of the RCMs in the Gaspé are very pleased that hon. members agreed to include all RCMs in the new designation of the new Gaspé riding which will be called Bonaventure-Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Paboc.
All four RCMs are very pleased, they thank you and they want to say that this will give them a sense of belonging, because all four will be identified with the new riding. They will be working together. As a geographical entity, it is still rather scattered, but they are prepared to do what they can, and we will see what will happen in the future.
I may add, and I say this personally, as long as the riding of Bonaventure-Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Paboc will remain part of Canadian history, since I hope that some day, we will have another referendum on the sovereignty issue, that we will have an opportunity to deal with the situation at that time.
That being said, I will get back to the group of motions now before the House. We said that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to ensure that age would be mentioned. We also wanted the gender of the voter to be indicated, as it is now. This will be useful as a reference for members and make it easier for the returning officer in a given region to identify people.
Where I live, there are people with the same first name and the same last name as mine. My father had the same experience. By the way, you will recall that formerly in Quebec, although that is no longer the case, after they were married, women were known by the name of their husband. To my mother's astonishment, when she went to the doctor for a minor problem, she heard the receptionist say she was pregnant. However, this was another Mrs. Laurent Bernier. So you see the kind of confusion that can arise, even if this situation was funnier than most.
We must have the assurance that no one can use someone else's name and especially that the individual who wants to vote will be able to do so. The Bloc wants to make sure that the government understands these situations. There is no warfare intended here. We hope we can reach an agreement soon.
However, as many of my colleagues have indicated, the fact that we are at report stage indicates that we went a little too fast earlier on. Had debate been allowed, and the content of the bill shared with the opposition parties, these details could have been resolved earlier.
My colleague from Bellechasse mentioned this as well at the start of his speech; we are at the dawn of an election campaign. So the emotional reaction of the government is understandable, since it is in a hurry to change the Canada Elections Act. We would have expected that changes to the Canada Elections Act would be made at the start of the 35th Parliament, that is, when all the members of Parliament arrived. At that point, we would have had five years to debate this matter. We should have assumed that the government wants to do it faster for election or partisan reasons.
We have a fait accompli before us. The bill is now at third reading. To be sure there is no partisanship and no question of pushing things along too fast and to ensure everyone understands, we expect the government to let us have our full say.
Several members speak to a group of motions to be sure that the government gets our message, takes note and incorporates the points we make so that everyone's opinion is reflected in the bill. It will then be used in the election of all members. All voters, whatever their allegiance, must feel comfortable. That is what democracy is about. You have to believe in the tools we acquire in order to be able to move things along.
I conclude on this point. I will return later, when we discuss other groups of motions.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House on a nice Friday afternoon, after the hon. member for Verchères. I was going to mention his name, but this is not allowed.
Lucy Maud Montgomery Ferry November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, while the minister is looking into the matter, let me remind him that the people of the Magdalen Islands have been waiting since 1994.
While he is thinking about the problem, since he has the required funds, what is the transport minister waiting for to approve the purchase of a ship, as requested by all the stakeholders on the islands?
Lucy Maud Montgomery Ferry November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the transport minister.
The Bloc Quebecois has just received copy of a 1992 report produced for Transport Canada showing that there are so many flaws in the ferry running from Magdalen Islands to the mainland, the Lucy Maud Montgomery , that it would cost close to $12 million to refit that ship which could otherwise be the cause of some major incident, and even the loss of lives. This morning local stakeholders informed us that, since 1992, only $4 million have been invested in the refitting of the ferry.
Does the minister intend to publish the coast guard report on the safety of the Lucy Maud Montgomery and does he intend to go ahead with the plans for replacing that ferry, in accordance with what was asked by the round table on transportation for the Magdalen Islands in a letter sent to the Prime Minister and of which he received copy yesterday?
Fisheries Act November 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I must say it had been a while since I had last heard my hon. colleague from St. John's West speak.
I will be as brief as possible, but I just could not let what the hon. member for Vancouver South said at the beginning of his remarks pass without comment. We are hearing speeches from Liberal members from coast to coast, from Newfoundland to Vancouver.
The hon. member for Vancouver South said that fish does not know boundaries. I would like to start my speech by stating that, at present, under the existing legislation and the proposed legislation as well, if we look at the situation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, around Newfoundland for instance, live cod falls under federal jurisdiction. But when it is dead, regardless of where it is-be it in Newfoundland or in Gaspé, Quebec-it becomes the responsibility of the province, because the provinces have jurisdiction over processing plants. They are the ones that issue licences. That is why the current minister and his predecessor have had and still have all kinds of problems. Nothing was done about streamlining.
Why do I raise this issue? Because my hon. colleague has been a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the past two years, yet, as far as I can see, this bill does not contain any guidelines as to the direction the industry should take in the future. We have heard about Brian Tobin's plans to limit fishing capacity, but there is not a word in here about future directions.
Worse yet, while partnership agreements are provided for, they may only be entered into with the minister's approval, based on the opinion of the minister. I refer the hon. member to paragraph 17(1). It clearly states that the minister may enter into an agreement with any organization that, in his opinion, is representative of a class of persons or holders. We do not know who will be part of such a group. It would be very important to specify it.
Another thing is very clear, and I wonder how the hon. member will be able to sell this to her constituents. I also wonder how Nova Scotia members will do it. It is clearly stated and the hon. member said it: to be part of a management agreement, one will have to pay new management fees, in addition to the fishing rights that people began paying in 1995. Such is the heritage left to them by Mr. Tobin.
I see that the Minister of National Revenue is with us. I hope we will hear from her this afternoon. This is another bonus for the government. Once again, it will take money from the pockets of fishers. I thought we had only one tax system in Canada: a person works, earns money and pays taxes. However, in the case of fishers, and the hon. member for Nova Scotia said so literally, she makes no bones about it, there will be two tax systems. How will she sell this to her constituents?
I say this in the presence of the revenue minister, and I am very comfortable doing so. Maybe she will provide a reply. It was just indicated that Canadian fishers will be subject to two tax systems. They will pay when they file their tax return, but the government will also take money from their pockets. I would appreciate a reply from the hon. member.