Paul Mercier

[Committees Of The House, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in his brilliant remarks, my colleague mentioned the 26 Liberal members opposite who are about to pass an anti-Quebec bill.

In this prebudget context, does he think the estimates should provide for their 780 pieces of silver, that is 30 for each one of them?

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

I did not even have the chance to ask for unanimous consent so why is this being denied?

I know my colleagues opposite are eager to learn so I ask for their unanimous consent.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

I had not finished, Mr. Speaker.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I draw the attention of my colleagues to an article from the October 2, 1995 issue of Le Droit , which says that the 50% plus one rule applies everywhere in Canada except in Quebec.

It seems to me that this article would enlighten my colleagues on the issue—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

I want to be heard to the end.

I am asking the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten the House. It is a—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the extreme importance of the comments I will be making, I would ask you to see to it that I complete them without being interrupted by catcalls and other noises.

Further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he intends to introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, and I think everybody understands what I mean, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House—

[Referendums, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for several days now, the Prime Minister has taken a veritable delight in quoting from the bylaws of organizations such as the CSN or the constitutions of political parties such as the Reform Party. With respect, we would like to remind the Prime Minister that there is a big difference between the constitution of a government and the constitution of an organization or a company, such as the Grand-Mère golf club, to take an example. Perhaps he did not know this.

The Prime Minister should know, and if he does not, we are reminding him, that the only justification for departing from the 50% plus one rule is when the vote is by elected representatives of the public, rather than the public itself.

When the public is consulted, here as elsewhere, the rule of 50% plus one applies. That is democracy.

[Member For Vaudreuil—Soulanges, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, so the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is very concerned that his own party could raise by 20% the number of Air Canada shares owned by a single shareholder, since, according to him, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec could increase its holding of shares of this company to the point of taking control of it.

Imagine, and cover your face. An organization under the thumb, as he put it, of a sovereignist government would control Air Canada.

As far as I know, this member, who is concerned today, was not in the least concerned when the idea of raising the percentage was to permit an American company to control Air Canada. Better foreign takeover than Quebec takeover is the opinion of this Quebecer. None of us is surprised. On the contrary, his behaviour in this is so Liberal.

Could I go so far as to say that I was delighted by this statement by my colleague, which will make it a little clearer to our fellow Quebecers just where the Liberal members are coming from.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction is starting to be routine in this country, under the present government.

With the blessing—as required by social union—of nine out of ten provinces, Ottawa now has legislated sticking its nose into places where it has no business being: our classrooms, our hospital rooms, our universities and so on.

Up until now, there was one area in which the power-hungry government had not interfered: the bottom of our waterways. No doubt that was an oversight. Now it has been remedied.

The bill before us corrects this surprising oversight.

In its principle and purposes, Bill C-8 meets laudable objectives, that is the conservation of animal and plant life in marine areas. We would have liked to be able to support it but, unfortunately, it seems that this government is incapable of coming up with bills that do not include clauses that I liken to worms in a nice apple, which encroach on provincial jurisdictions. It makes it impossible for any member who wants to uphold the Constitution to vote in favour.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-8 because it does not explicitly recognize the territorial integrity of Quebec, and also because it will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

At the Canadian heritage committee hearings, almost all coastal groups who appeared before the committee spoke out against this bill, arguing that the Canadian heritage initiative would duplicate what is already being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, create confusion, and so on.

Here is what my colleague for Longueuil said:

There is nothing in the bill or in the government's amendments that guarantees that, once the bill is passed, the territorial integrity of Quebec will be respected. In fact, we know that the federal and the Quebec governments do not agree about the ownership of some portions of the ocean floor, especially in the estuary of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Now, the bill provides that the government can establish marine conservation areas—and I quote the bill as amended—if the government is satisfied “that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area”.

There already was a good example the government knew about. They only had to rely on it to get our support. I am talking, of course, about the bill passed in 1997 to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. That legislation respects the jurisdiction of both levels of government. In co-operating to create that park, the federal government did not demand ownership over the lands that Quebec considers its own under the British North America Act of 1867. But things are different for the areas subject to Bill C-8. Ottawa wants to assume ownership over these lands, regardless of the Quebec legislation on crown lands.

And there is more. As a result of infringing upon areas of provincial jurisdiction, of walking all over the provinces, Ottawa is caught stepping on its own toes. We now have three federal departments who are suddenly and simultaneously interested in protecting the ocean floor. Heritage Canada wants marine conservation areas. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans want to set up marine conservation areas. And, not wanting to feel left out, Environment Canada now wants to create marine wildlife preserves. Under Bill C-8, each department will have jurisdiction over its own areas or zones. This promises to create a lot of grey areas, legal blur and jurisdictional conflicts.

Here is what project co-ordinator John Melindy told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:

Now, through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is empowered to declare marine protected areas to conserve species under threat. In view of this fact, we are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of legislation....Our position statement is that overall we feel Bill C-8 should be withdrawn. We cannot see any particular reason for making this bill into law. It is felt that this bill would undermine the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and transfer powers for marine conservation and habitat protection to Parks Canada, which has no management or scientific expertise in the marine field.

Mismanagement, confusion with regard to respective roles, waste of resources, contempt for the Constitution which guarantees provincial jurisdictions, Bill C-8 is a perfect example of all those things.

The only good thing about this bill, as in the case of so many other bills before it, is that it will hopefully help Quebecers understand that this system is corrupt and that sovereignty alone will enable them to get out of that mess.

[Apec Inquiry, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a few hundred years ago, there lived in Provence a greedy judge who decided one fine morning to lunch at an inn recommended to him. What should he see on arriving, there waiting for him, smiling, wearing his hat and carrying the spit? A litigant. The innkeeper was none other than one of the parties to a proceeding that he would hear. So, with a heavy heart and an empty stomach, the judge turned on his heel and got himself a sandwich somewhere. The judiciary, which does not associate with just anyone, will soon have to appear before it.

This is clearly not the opinion of the prosecutor at the commission of inquiry into the APEC summit, who is not afraid to be seen at a funding dinner along with the Prime Minister, whom he might call to testify at the inquiry. It appears that this is not the opinion either of the said Prime Minister, who saw nothing wrong with having the prosecutor contribute to his election fund the $400 cost of the dinner.

I recommend the Prime Minister and the prosecutor read this tale by Paul Arène. It will provide both with a practical lesson in professional ethics.