House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 24th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is 5.25 p.m. I know the member for Louis-Hébert would be ready to begin her speech on this issue, but you would interrupt her after four minutes. As we all know, she is entitled ten minutes.
It is your privilege and that of the House to call it 5.30 p.m. Therefore, I am asking you if it would not be preferable to proceed in this fashion.
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 24th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting the Title.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting the Preamble.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Schedule 2.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 is entitled, as hon. members will remember, “an act respecting marine conservation areas”. It was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and its purpose is to provide a legal framework for the creation of 28 marine conservation areas representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but is not governed by this legislation since it has its own legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment. More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government of its support for the government when it proposed passing legislation to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor.
The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation with the federal government, as evidenced by the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill for two reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and of the environment.
The second reason is the fact that Heritage Canada is proposing to establish a new structure, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans Canada's marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine protection zones.
As you know, committee hearings were held on this bill, and many witnesses were heard. After hearing these witnesses and looking at the amendments put forward by the government and the other opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois wants to tell the House that its position has not changed with regard to this bill. We are still opposed
Indeed, there is duplication of responsibilities between Fisheries and Oceans and Heritage Canada. Also, it is unclear whether marine conservation areas could be established based on the same principle that guided the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
We support the spirit of the bill, which is to preserve sample marine areas for future generations, and we believe this should be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I remind members that, in his testimony, the director general of Parks Canada, Mr. Tom Lee, in response to a question asked by a government member last February, stated that, in Canada, oceans are the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
To date, every coastal community group that has come before the committee spoke out against this bill. These people, whether they were fishermen or natives, all said in their own way that this bill duplicates the work of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Recently, the advisory committee responsible for conducting the feasibility study on the establishment of a marine conservation area in Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay, in Newfoundland, ended its work because, and I quote from the news release issued by Heritage Canada in March, “a large number of residents, particularly fishermen, are concerned about the impact of the establishment of a marine conservation area on their way of life”.
Perhaps what would be necessary in order to achieve the objectives of creating marine conservation areas would be to broaden the concept of marine protected areas as currently defined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It seems to us today, as it did when all this began, that this avenue would be far preferable to bringing in new legislation, a new structure, new regulations, which to all intents and purposes have been rejected by all population groups affected who came to speak at the committee hearings.
I know that a Reform Party colleague is proposing an amendment to restore to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the responsibility for these marine conservation areas. Alas, his amendment to make the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responsible for marine conservation areas would not be enough, on its own, to avoid the duplication between marine protected areas and marine conservation areas.
What would have to be amended to include the concept underlying marine conservation areas would be the Oceans Act. The Reform member's amendment does not integrate the two responsibilities. It keeps them distinct from one another, and merely gives them both to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Members must understand that we do not find this sufficient.
Finally, there is no provision, in either the bill or the amendments moved by the government, to guarantee the territorial integrity of Quebec will be respected, once the bill has been passed.
As we know, the federal and Quebec governments do not see eye to eye on the ownership of certain sea floors, particularly in the estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence Gulf. It is therefore quite obvious that this bill will end up in a collision of jurisdictions between the interests of the federal government and the clearly legitimate ones of the government of Quebec.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-8, because it does not give explicit recognition to the territorial integrity of Quebec and because it constitutes duplication of what is already being done with the marine protected areas by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Bloc Quebecois in opposing Bill C-8 is clearly giving expression to what the people of Quebec indicated as their best interests and to what the many witnesses appearing before the heritage committee indicated as their best interests.
I would like to add a personal note. All too often, as it has done in the past and still does now, the federal government, with the best intentions in the world, decides it has exclusive knowledge and authority to put forward bills that have merit, but that do not meet the expectations and needs of the people concerned. Worse, the government tends often to duplicate efforts, structures and responsibilities.
We are once again facing a similar situation. It is unfortunate that the government, once again with good intentions, has failed to realize that the opposition to this bill is not on the merit of things but rather on the way they are treated. It is often said that approach is all.
The federal government could, in the light of what went on in committee, reorganize the bill to reorient it toward the proper authority, especially, to combine two concepts, by extending the prerogatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. At the same time, the government should make specific provision in this bill for the respect of Quebec's territorial integrity and its authority in a certain number of jurisdictions including that of the floor of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I hope that the government will understand my remarks and take them into account.
Speech From The Throne November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, young people are indeed leaving our regions and people who need medical care are moving to the city.
The solution is simple, however. Let us give the regions affordable telephone access everywhere. Let us eliminate long distance charges within an area that forms a single social and economic environment, such as the Portneuf area. That would solve a lot of problems. It is possible.
Feasible proposals have been made by Quebec Tel and Télébec, among others. One such system has been implemented in the United States. The government must take action in this regard.
Speech From The Throne November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an important point. Let me tell you about my riding of Portneuf and in particular the Portneuf RCM.
In the Portneuf RCM, there are a lot of exchange areas. And within some of these exchange areas, there are long distance charges to call from one community to another, even if there are no long distance charges to make a call to Quebec City.
Do you see what impact this has? The Portneuf RCM is a social environment. People have lived in these communities for generations now. And since there are long distance charges, for instance, from Saint-Raymond to Saint-Marc-des Carrières, some people will forgo making phone calls.
I know some older people who have lived all their lives in the Portneuf area, who have worked there, have raised their families and are now retired. These people can no longer afford to call their children, who live in another community only 20 or 30 kilometres away, because of the long distance charges.
Should the CRTC regulations not ensure that the people living in a social environment like Portneuf have the opportunity to call members of their own family? Or is their only purpose to allow major corporations to lower their long distance charges?
Something does not make sense here ,and the government is not addressing the issue, and I think my colleague shares my concern.
Speech From The Throne November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the throne speech and to respond to a number of statements made in that speech.
Let me point out first off that the session started four weeks late. According to the government, that time was used to prepare the Speech from the Throne.
I should let you know at this point that, like my colleagues, I will be sharing my time. I will be sharing it with the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. We will both speak for ten minutes.
As I was saying, it is unfortunate that the government delayed the beginning of the session by four weeks in order to draft this Speech from the Throne which, as we all know, could have been prepared over the summer.
The speech is timid and lukewarm in terms of substance. While it is rather lengthy, the speech does not have much substance. It lacks substance.
Of course, there are a few interesting things in there, but there are also serious omissions. Take telecommunications for example.
With respect to telecommunications, the throne speech says that the government will adapt its programs to reflect the socioeconomic realities of rural communities and that it will intensify its efforts to ensure that those communities and all regions of Canada can take advantage of the opportunities created by the new global, knowledge based economy.
We understand what that means. It means that the government wants to connect all rural communities. I am all for it, because it is important. Between you and me, many people still use the phone to talk. Computers are not the only ones to use phone lines. In our rural communities, there are still ordinary people made of flesh and bones who like to pick up to phone to have a conversation.
What is the government doing for these people? Let me tell you what it is doing, or rather what it is not doing for them. In urban areas, the government allows for competition to decrease the cost of local residential phone services. In rural areas, the phone bill has been going up year after year. In some cases, it increased twofold over six years. This represents an impressive inflation rate.
Why is that? The problem is simple. Businesses operating in rural areas have higher telephone bills than those operating in urban areas. The message to these businesses is very clear: if you want to save on communication costs, get out of the rural areas and into the city. I am sorry to say that is an unacceptable message. Rural communities have a right to life as well.
When a company or individual in a rural area wants to have telephone service, the first thing needed is quality service. There are some areas in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere that are still in the party-line era, with two households to a line and with exchanges that cannot handle electronic signals. In short, they are still in the dark ages, telephonically speaking.
Then there are the long distance costs. There are big savings to be made by major companies with high calling volumes. But an individual—a man or woman who is not just a single user but a rural user on top of that—may find, believe it or not, that he or she is in a municipality where calling city hall is a long distance call. Imagine that.
The throne speech has nothing to say on any of this, but I would go even further. Very recently, just a few weeks ago, the CRTC brought down a decision on high service-cost areas, which to all intents and purposes means the rural areas. The assumption was that telephone companies charge reasonable amounts to their subscribers and therefore there was nothing to worry about.
The telephone companies have raised their monthly rates for local calling beyond a reasonable level. Some families have discontinued phone service. Others, however, cannot and will not, but will give up some other essential instead or will deprive their children of some other essential. It seems that the Speech from the Throne has no consideration for these circumstances, which are worsening poverty.
The government and the Minister of Industry, in particular, through the CRTC, have totally abandoned the rural community. In Quebec the situation is even more tragic. Most of rural Quebec is served by Québec Téléphone, known as Quebec Tel. This company is 51% American owned.
For this reason, the CRTC has denied Quebec Tel the right to expand within Quebec or Canada, but is permitting Canadian firms and even new companies from the United States—AT&T and Sprint— to eat away at the territory of Quebec Tel.
Consequently, Quebec Tel is being eaten away from the inside by this competition, which, to all intents and purposes, is unfair. The Minister of Industry could, with a simple decision, accord Quebec Tel the rights the other telephone companies, including the American companies, enjoy on Canadian soil. This puts both the company and its subscribers, including myself, at a disadvantage. The situation is intolerable and unacceptable and is not even mentioned in the throne speech.
This speech does not deal with the real challenges in telecommunications, challenges that concern the rural community. The country is big. Quebec is big, it is vast. There is air and great open spaces, but the government is literally mocking the people who live in these spaces and who need telephone service.
Wherever I am in Quebec, my hydro bill is always the same: distance is not a factor. The cost of my car registration is the same for a given class of vehicle. My drivers' license costs the same, whether I live in Montreal, Quebec City or Portneuf. So why, tell me why, does the cost of my telephone vary according to where I live?
We had the choice for the telephone of the hydro approach or the airline route approach. The choice was the airline route approach, and the cost has become prohibitive for those who live far away.
National Capital Commission November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, a magnificent booklet entitled Canadians on the Hill: a continuing tradition published recently by the inaptly named National Capital Commission is curiously silent about historic events and politicians of the last three decades.
In this publication, history comes to a dead stop in 1967. There is therefore no mention of the official signing ceremony marking the much-hated patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Through omission, this booklet rewrites history.
However, members will recall seeing the Queen, Mr. Trudeau and the current Prime Minister at this distressing historic signing ceremony.
Now, the incriminating event has simply been swept under the carpet. In fact, if we are to believe this booklet, since 1967 Parliament Hill has been little more than a festival venue and sightseeing attraction.
Quite some propaganda to gloss over the risks, and the lessons of the past with respect to the Canadian federal system.
World Trade Organization November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I find the minister very quick to admit that the provinces are unanimously on side with him on this. Let him make the effort to check that, and to do so after there has been some negotiation.
Similarly, can the minister make a commitment to respond to Quebec's demands and to ensure that there is no negotiation with the WTO on culture?
World Trade Organization November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if the European Union negotiates on behalf of the European countries, the Minister of International Trade must realize that it cannot require any of its member countries to be committed without its explicit consent.
Are we to understand from the minister's response just now that he is prepared to conclude nothing relating to health and education without the explicit agreement of each of the provinces, Quebec included?
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act November 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Devco a few months back. I was thus able to become familiar with this extremely unfortunate issue. I would like to make a comment and then ask the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to respond.
The people I met with told me clearly that the miners who are now losing their jobs are the same ones that the government encouraged, a number of years ago, to settle with their families and make a career with Devco. These people are now being abandoned.
They are being abandoned at a time when they are extremely unlikely to be able to find a new job in the region. They are being abandoned at a time when they are not yet entitled to a pension but very nearly so. They are being abandoned along with their families, their children. They are being abandoned in a region that is not one of the richest regions, quite the contrary. They are being abandoned and the government is turning a blind eye.
As I see it, this is irresponsible, and I would like to hear what the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys thinks.
Governor General's Awards November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, today there are some important visitors here in Ottawa, the recipients of the Governor General's Awards: Michel Tremblay, Denise Filiatrault, Ginette Reno, Louis Quillico, David Cronenberg and Mavor Moore. They are not the only ones with us, however.
Look carefully and you will also see Thérèse and Pierrette, Laura Cadieux, Marcel, Édouard, the Fat Lady, and all the other wonderful characters created by Michel Tremblay and so skillfully portrayed by Denise Filiatrault and Ginette Reno on stage or screen.
All of these honorees have given us such pleasure, as we read their works, hear them in concert, see them on stage or screen. Once again, their contributions are being recognized today far beyond the borders of Quebec.
The international renown you all enjoy is a source of pride to Quebec and to Canada. Bravo to each and every one of you.