Yvan Bernier

[Marine Safety, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the trawler Rally 2 , which belongs to a company named Madelipêche, recently experienced serious mechanical problems which endangered the lives of its crew members. These problems seem similar to those which, in November 1990, resulted in the sinking of a sister trawler, Le Nadine , and in the death of eight crew members.

Will the Minister of Transport confirm that the federal office responsible for transport safety is conducting an investigation on the mechanical problems experienced last week by the Rally 2 in the Magdalen Islands? Otherwise, will the minister pledge to shed light on that incident?

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to make it clear that I do not question your ruling on this subject. I think it was good for the whole House that this issue was raised. I note that the debate has been going on longer than we think. You mentioned 1958. The Speaker at that time said it was "rude".

The last thing I would like to say for our listeners and hon. members is that if he wants to use the word "separatist", it has an emotional connotation; if he wants to speak objectively, the recognized term in international law is "sovereigntist".

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pardon me for interrupting the debate, but I call upon your wisdom with regard to the use of the word "separatist".

I know that we are allowed in this House to use terminology which may not be recognized in international law. However, I would like to know whether the term "separatist" should be allowed to be used to excess? More specifically, for your guidance in considering this point, Mr. Speaker, how can we be referred to as separatists when we were involved in building this country? Why is it that our right to consider getting out of it is not recognized? That is the point of order I wanted to make.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor.

I would like to start by telling my colleague from the Reform Party that, if he is going to attack the separatists, as he calls us in his speeches, he could at least make sure to give us a little time to reply.

I have two comments. First, the term "separatist" does not exist in international law. That is why we use the word "sovereignty" and its derivatives all the time. We make no secret of the fact that we want to become a "sovereign" nation. That is the first point I wanted to make.

Second, the question before us-and the minister can confirm it because he said so himself earlier-has been under review for 21 years, I think.

So, Bloc members who want Quebec to become sovereign as well as Liberals-while holding opposite views-are capable of looking at this and saying: "What the natives are requesting in here makes a lot of sense and after 21 years, it is about time that we delivered". Let us not get sidetracked by lip service. That is what I wanted to get across to my colleague.

[Overfishing, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I think that as fishing enthusiasts, we will understand the issue better. He might also enlighten the Deputy Prime Minister; he knows the Bloc Quebecois strongly supported the bill at second and third readings.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is this: How does he intend to convince the French government of the validity-the Deputy Prime Minister is taking note, I hope-of the provisions of Bill C-29, when France believes that this piece of legislation is not in accordance with international law and the law of the sea? Can the minister explain now how Canada is going to make France see reason?

[Overfishing, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, upon the recent return of the Minister of Foreign Affairs from a trip to Paris, the government claimed that relations between France and Canada had never been better. And yet, Mr. Alain Juppé, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said in the French National Assembly that Bill C-29, which Canada had just passed to control overfishing, was unacceptable and that he intended to challenge it with the help of other European countries.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how it is that the recent visit to France of her foreign affairs minister has resulted in a vigourous and open challenge of the measures proposed by Canada to control overfishing?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a minister who just spoke, and I hope all ministers in this government are not the same. However, I would like to say that I am glad it is this minister who spoke this morning because he represents the kind of federalism Quebecers reject. This minister was there at the time of Prime Minister Trudeau. This minister was there when Quebec suffered all those rejections.

I will try to lower my voice, Mr. Speaker, because it irritates my friends across the way to hear the truth. The first thing I wish to say, and I noted two or three points, of which the minister should also take note, because you must not forget that this morning Quebecers are watching you, Mr. Minister, and they now see what the Canada you represent is really like.

A little while ago, you said that the figures on manpower training were not right, etc. I would like to remind the minister that it is Mr. Bourbeau, a federalist in the Quebec Liberal Party, who mentioned the figure of $250 million. Am I to understand that the Liberal minister in Ottawa is calling a federalist minister in Quebec a liar? Is that what I must understand?

The other point I would like to underline is that this minister was there during the Trudeau years. I would like to give him an example of duplication between Quebec and Canada. In my riding, the province built a $23-million fish plant when there was fish-you will recall that before 1984 Quebec shared in the administration of fishing permits. Do you know what the federalists in those days, who are still across from us, did? They built a $16-million plant right beside the one built by Quebec. That is what they did. That is their kind of regional development. They come and undermine Quebec initiatives.

I have a few more questions. I have devastating figures about my riding which I would like to quote for the benefit of the minister of employment and immigration, even if he does not like to hear them. In my riding of Gaspé, the unemployment rate is 27 per cent. The labour force participation rate stands at 42 per cent. That means only four people out of ten are either working or looking for a job. What happened with the other six? The federalists discouraged them. What does this Liberal government have to offer? The recent budget froze the funding for help centres. We cannot get any money to promote the innovative suggestions of people in Gaspé and the whole province of Quebec. The minister is considering reforms, and, meanwhile, he cuts the funding. It does not make sense.

What about the Employment Development Program? I remind you that my region, with a 27 per cent unemployment rate and a 42 per cent participation rate, should be considered a disaster area, and should get enhanced EDP funding to put people back to work. Well, this funding has been cut, and is now reduced to 20 per cent of what it was before. The Federal Office of Regional Development has been subjected to a 25 per cent cut by the Martin budget, by the colleague of the minister who just spoke. Where are we going? What kind of logic is this? They wonder why we move a motion on regional development during an opposition day. They are slashing whatever help was left and they would like us to believe in federalism. I am sorry, but if the minister keeps talking the way he does, things will only be easier for us, come the referendum campaign.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since we deviated a bit from the normal process by allowing the Liberal Party to take more time than usual, I hope that hon. members will be given enough time to make their comments in a few moments.

Since the Liberals were given a five-minute extension, I would like the same extension to be given to the opposition for questions and comments.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is no insult for me to be called the member for Témiscamingue, but I will let him speak for himself shortly.

I am pleased to speak on the third part of the omnibus bill concerning the CBC's borrowing authority. As my colleagues just said, the Bloc Quebecois is not here to gum up the works. The Bloc Quebecois presented a motion for more openness in the management of the CBC, but since we are good managers too, we understand that the Crown corporation needs borrowing authority to be able to operate. Whether this borrowing is on a line of credit or they have to acquire more assets to finance new things, we will support it.

What bothers us, though, is the lack of openness in CBC management. Although management has done certain things and revenue is rising and some things are being cut, they still have a deficit. It is a structural deficit and it is like a cancer constantly eating away at the CBC.

Why am I talking about cancer, Madam Speaker? It makes me think of a loss we had in the Gaspé. As a result of this lack of openness and this unwillingess to listen to the people, the CBC closed three television stations in our region, in Sept-Iles, Rimouski and Matane.

I am criticizing it for lack of openness; it is as though the government asked or allowed the corporation to do its dirty work. "You be the one to do it." It is as though they wanted to cut the means of communication of people in eastern Quebec, especially in the Gaspé peninsula.

This time, we might say that the government is a little ashamed to come and borrow money itself. It is telling the CBC to go and do it this time. I am sorry; as long as Quebecers are in this federation and part of Canada, we pay taxes and we have a say.

They took from us what was our pride, that is our means of communication. Now, we are asked to close our eyes and to say: "Okay, you will allow CBC to borrow up to $25 million", but we will not be allowed to knowthing any more. The purpose of this motion is precisely to make sure that we know what will be done with that money, and particularly how CBC intends to repay such loans because, as I said, as long as Quebec remains part of Canada, we will have to pay part of that loan and part of the deficit. We can argue later about what that part will be. In the meantime, however, as long as we are here, we will ask for greater transparency.

Canadians and Quebecers certainly deserve some explanations from the Parliament of Canada. People can understand. They are not dummies, to use a common expression, and this is demonstrated by the fact that news and information programs get the best ratings. People want to understand what is going on. They want to know what is happening and, as a parliamentary institution, the House must be receptive. But I do not think it was receptive enough in the past.

We are concerned by the fact that the government is prepared to give a blank cheque to the corporation, without knowing what it will do with the money. If I was told that the corporation needs authority to borrow $25 million because, following the mistake made by closing regional TV stations, it now has to recapitalize regions and part of that $25 million would be used to that end, I would say fine, because I would at least know what is going on. But here we are only told: "We borrow $25 million". What will those millions be used for? This evening, some people will listen to the parliamentary channel, since they do not always hear directly from their MP on the local news.

So this evening, they will hear their own member, the member for Gaspé, say that he wishes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would seriously consider reopening the regional stations it closed down, which was a big mistake; that it would indicate, as any good manager would, how the $25 million would be spent; and that we as parliamentarians could see how the money is allocated.

If the CBC's requests were sufficiently detailed and included the proper justification, the Bloc québécois would be among the first to say: Well, your request is very reasonable, and since your $25 million authority is not sufficient, we would be willing to increase it. But you must understand our concern. A blank cheque for $25 million is out of the question. This is 1994, and the public has a right to know.

Why this emphasis? I referred to the stations that were closed, and I said that we would agree to give them the $25 million borrowing authority they want, but the problem is lack of transparency.

I would be the first to acknowledge the excellence of the performers on Radio-Canada. We all have our favourites. We have Marylin who discusses municipal politics at 7 p.m., and we have newscasters like Bernard Derome. I think we can say that Quebecers, and I imagine Canadians generally are like that, enjoy a variety of programs. They want entertainment but they want the news. I realize that getting the news costs money. Through these administrative measures, Parliament enable the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to fulfil the mandate it was given by Parliament. However, as far as news programming is concerned, people in the Gaspé and Eastern Townships, and I said this before, feel left out.

Today, we get local news bulletins from Quebec City. I do not mind getting the Quebec City news, because I have some good friends in Quebec City, including the members for the local ridings, but news from these areas is not as interesting as our own local news. That kind is just as important. I am sure, Madam Speaker, if you had to listen to the local news from the Gaspé, you would say: What a wonderful region! But you would not be as interested in the local news from that area. Oh, sure, at the end of the news bulletin they give you two or three minutes worth about your own community, but that is not much. And in our case, that is what happen.

And that is why, as a member of the Bloc québécois, I wanted to say in the House today that from a manager's point of view, I agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation needs management tools. However, I am outraged at the lack of transparency in the government's proposals, and I want to make it clear that if all Canadians are supposed to be involved, I think we should not forget that the people in the Eastern Townships and the Gaspé are very upset about the fact that their regional stations were closed, and if the government wants to convince me that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has come of age, then it should do something about correcting these mistakes.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question but first I want to make a brief comment. This morning, I have the impression that Reform Party members have, in their press clippings, a lot of articles taken from Photo Police . I do not know if this kind of weekly exists in Western Canada, but this is the impression I get when I hear these descriptions of the terrible things that are happening.

I cannot agree with them. The Bloc's position was presented earlier and will later be explained in further detail by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. As far as I am concerned, making criminals of younger children will not solve the problem. Does the member agree that we should have a proactive approach and provide support to young people, so that they do not end up doing things like that?

The question raised earlier by the hon. member was a call for the Liberal government to provide assistance and create direct employment programs to keep our young people busy and give them jobs. Again, I do not think that we will solve the problem by making criminals of younger children. I would like to see the two opposition parties work together and convince the Liberal government to take proactive measures instead of sending young people to jail.