Yvan Bernier

[Fishery Resources, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The European Union does not accept NAFO's decision regarding turbot quota allocation between NAFO member countries. If no agreement is reached, turbot stocks could be decimated, like other overfished species in the past.

Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans see that urgent measures are needed to protect fishery resources in the Atlantic and does he intend to do all in his power to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs convince the European Community that protecting this resource makes good sense? What does he intend to do?

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, do you want me to start right now? It is not on MIL Davie but on fisheries.

Excuse my English. I was just trying to maintain a good relationship with my colleagues. I hope the people will forgive me. I want to reassure French speaking Canadians, I am not

being assimilated. I was just practising my English. After all, at least 15 per cent of my constituents are English.

I am pleased to rise this evening to address a question I have asked in this House concerning the repatriation of fisheries management. This question was put to the Minister of Fisheries on December 6. As usual, I was not satisfied with the answer and, therefore, intend to ask the question again this evening.

On November 16, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whether or not he intended to make changes to administrative responsibilities regarding fisheries, as requested by the Quebec fisheries minister at the federal-provincial conference of fisheries ministers held in Victoria on November 1.

I also asked the minister if he intended do comply to this request along the lines of what Quebec is asking for.

The minister's answer was very clear. On November 16, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that he had been asked this question by several provinces weeks or even months earlier.

The minister understood the demands made by the provinces in order to improve administration of this resource and to eliminate unnecessary overlap in the fisheries sector.

Indeed, Quebec had reached this conclusion several decades earlier. Unfortunately, since another Liberal government was in power at the time, in 1983-84, it decided to repatriate management. Today, in 1994, we still have to enter into negotiations merely to recover what was taken from us.

The minister went on to say that he intended to respond directly to reorganizing the fisheries sector and that he looked forward to continued good dialogue and discussion with all of the provinces. He even added, "including Quebec". You will understand why I was anxious. Finally, we had someone who was willing to take action.

I raised the matter again on December 6. At that time, I asked the minister why he had not responded to the request from the Quebec government, because the Quebec government had expressed, through a letter, its desire to make official the claims that had been made at the federal-provincial conference.

The minister responded to me in a way that I would qualify as boastful. I expected something else from a minister. He said that it was a shocking thing that fully 35 days had passed. But when a minister is getting ready to table a fisheries plan that will affect all the Atlantic provinces, I think that 35 days is a long wait.

Thirty-five days of silence, it is a long time, when Quebec is putting forward a serious and important proposal, asking the minister to start the negotiations.

My message is: Does the minister intend to table in this House a planned schedule for meeting with his provincial counterparts, and to inform the population of Quebec and Canada of it?

He has been a minister for 14 months now, and nothing is happening. All I am asking him is: Does he have a plan, an agenda to meet with his counterparts from Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia?

[Social Program Reform, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that regions which depend on industries such as forestry, fishing and tourism, such as eastern Quebec, will be the main victims of his reform and will become second class regions with second class jobless?

[Social Program Reform, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Eastern Quebec's main social, community and labour organizations have asked the federal government to take seasonal workers into consideration, rather than let them down, in its social program reform. According to the minister's estimates, close to two thirds of unemployed people who would be considered frequent UI users are seasonal workers.

Will the minister recognize that, since seasonal workers represent close to two thirds of those whom he defines as frequent users, his project to implement a two-tier UI system would essentially target these workers?

[Fisheries, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

At the last federal-provincial Conference of fisheries ministers, on November 1, the Government of Quebec ask the federal government to transfer a portion of the fisheries management function to the province. Soon after, the minister of fisheries announced in this House that he intended to reorganize fisheries, stating that he was looking forward to pursuing productive exchanges and discussions with all the provinces, including Quebec.

Why has the minister not yet responded to the request from the Quebec fisheries minister, when he is about to table a fisheries plan that will affect the entire industry in the Atlantic zone? Why?

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. The point I want to make to the hon. member from western Canada is that we are not only separated by distance: We also have diverging views on economic development.

Economic development in the east means something specific, whether it is in Quebec or in the Maritimes-I do not want to speak for the Liberals, they are quite capable of digging a hole for themselves. It is a development tool to help people; for example, instead of providing transfer payments and social assistance, you give people tools to look after themselves.

In this respect, I wish the hon. member would be careful when addressing easterners.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I only have one very simple comment, since unfortunately I must admit that I missed the beginning of the speech by my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister.

Since he is responsible for fisheries, instead of talking to us about big infrastructure programs, I would have liked him to tell us, in his area, his department, what he will suggest to his boss, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to be reorganized, what kind of reorganization does he foresee? The provinces are expecting cuts but also policies.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by the deputy whip. I wish to draw my colleague's attention to a point: she talked about the finance minister's budget, about the red book's objective of 3 per cent of GDP. She repeated what people in her riding told her. I would like to remind her that someone in my riding said that the Liberal Party's objective of 3 per cent of GDP was like being in a sinking ship and worrying about peeling paint.

With this comparison in mind, my question to my colleague is this: What does she think of the lifeline thrown by Premier Jacques Parizeau regarding areas of overlap? There are firm proposals on manpower training, so that we can make rational use of your surplus public servants. What do you think of transferring job training to the provinces? That is a nice lifeline.

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I believe we are allotted only five minutes.

One of the remarks that caught my attention in the speech of my hon. Liberal colleague is the one to the effect that perhaps civil servants are too well paid, unless I misheard because I was listening to the interpreters. I find this is shifting the blame onto someone else than oneself.

They are the ones, the Liberals, in charge of administering government finance. They are the ones in charge of giving instructions to civil servants. As far as I know, civil servants listen and do as they are told. Personally, I always asked my boss for pay increases when I was in the private sector, but I would assure him at the same time that he would get his money's worth.

The problem-and it is easy for the Liberals to put the blame on the civil service-is that employees are not given clear orders. They are not given a mission. They are not instructed to listen to what the public has to say. The message they get is: "Do as you are told and when you get on my nerves, I will beat you over the head". As I said, I think that using civil servants as scapegoats is cheap. They should instead be given clear instructions and mandates so that they can make savings. But you cannot put the blame on they if you did not listen to what they had to say earlier. This baffles me.

[Severance Pay, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we well understand, the minister's answer shows that he cannot deny that the amount of severance pay was at his discretion.

How can the minister, who preached virtue when he was in opposition, take refuge behind Treasury Board's lax rules to explain such generosity to his friends when the government is not ashamed to cut unemployment insurance for those who quit their jobs voluntarily? That is what bothers us. How can he do it?