House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Air Transport June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who told us last week that his government was taking decisions in the best interests of all Canadians. Once again, we have to face the fact that what is good for Canada is not good for Quebec.
Will the Minister of Transport admit that, by refusing to allow Air Canada to fly between Montreal and such lucrative markets as Milan, Mexico City and Rio, it is penalizing not only Air Canada but especially Dorval and the entire Montreal area?
City Of Terrebonne June 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the City of Terrebonne is preparing to mark the 325th anniversary of its foundation with grand celebrations.
A seigneury under the reign of Louis XIV, a village under the municipal government, Terrebonne became a city in 1880. It has been developing harmoniously ever since, and its charm was never affected. It now has a population of more than 40,000.
As a thriving city with historic structures and vibrant people, Terrebonne is prominent in Quebec thanks to its talented artists, its aggressive business people and its diverse economy.
All Quebeckers are invited to experience or experience again, as the case may be, the hospitality of this friendly city and join in the celebrations, which will start on June 23, the day before Quebec's national holiday, and will continue until the day before Christmas Eve.
Happy anniversary, Terrebonne. We love you.
Air Traffic Control May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the safety of air travelers is currently being threatened.
This fact was reported by Nav Canada, the organization responsible for air traffic control, in a document released yesterday by the CBC. In a memo to the Canada Labour Relations Board, Nav Canada states that the ongoing labour dispute presents a threat to passenger safety and operational efficiency in terms of air navigation.
Let us not forget that Nav Canada is the product of privatizing air traffic control, a government decision which has cost the taxpayers $1 billion. And now Nav Canada is not even able to ensure passenger safety.
Beyond the labour dispute, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that passenger safety is maintained under all circumstances, and we call on the government to do so.
Budget Implementation Act, 1998 May 13th, 1998
Madam Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who spoke before me had an opportunity to express all of their objections to the millennium fund and, since the subject provided lots of fodder, they had lots to say.
To be objective, all of this should be weighed and some acknowledgement made of the fund's positive aspects. The millennium fund to its credit advances the cause of sovereignty. It will bring home the truth to Quebeckers that the federal system, regardless of the party in power, will never change, that it is incorrigible.
We sovereignists know that many Quebeckers are not sovereignist because they still hope that the federal system will change. Now, the pretentious millennium fund, which is infringing provincial rights, has revealed the true colours of the federal government, and we hope that many Quebeckers, who up to now have not understood, will now understand that federalism, regardless of the party in power, will not change.
Such disdain for the people of Quebec to have thought that they would swallow it holus-bolus because it meant money.
Madam Speaker, you are as familiar with the Bible as I am. You know that Esau gave up his birthright for a dish of lentils because he was hungry. We will not do the same for the dish of lentils the millennium fund represents. We in Quebec have not stopped advocating and claiming provincial rights because the federal government is infringing them.
It was wrong to think that we would give up our rights for a dish of lentils. I understand that it is a rude awakening for the Liberals to discover that their proposal did not slip through and that Quebeckers are protesting and indignant at this unfair fund.
The neat thing in all this is that it is not just the sovereignists who are complaining. All the various communities in Quebec are protesting this fund. I have a few examples. First those from the educational community, obviously.
The CEQ stated that the millennium fund was not the way to provide young Quebeckers with improved access to a university education.
Let me give another example among many. The Fédération des étudiants des collèges du Québec said that student debt was a big problem, but that the millennium fund was not the answer. We should not forget that this fund was supposed to lure young Quebeckers, most of whom are sovereignists. Obviously, it did not work.
I could go on and on. We also have the general manager of the Canadian Institute of Adult Education. Here is what he had to say: “The federal government's budget and tax decision over the last few years have contributed to the erosion of the standard of living of students and of the provincial public education systems. The package contained in the last budget may well go against what provincial governments have been trying to do”.
I could give so many examples, but the one that takes the cake comes from a federalist, John Trent, from the University of Ottawa. He told us: “The millennium fund will necessarily be a source of federal-provincial duplication and overlap with existing programs. Bill C-36 which provides for the millennium fund is a direct attack against the principles of federalism.” That is a federalist talking. The millennium fund is an abuse of the very principles of federalism. It shows contempt for the parliamentary resolution, proposed by the Prime Minister, to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec society. One of the advantages of the millennium fund is that it has shown people that this distinct society resolution is pure window dressing.
The educational sector is not the only one putting up a fuss, so is the business sector. This is worth noting. The Finance Canada experts have estimated that the administrative costs for the foundation will be around the 5% mark, or twice what they are in Quebec. The comment by the Alliance des manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec was “Duplication must be avoided, and the millennium fund is definitely one example of this. Existing provincial structures must be taken advantage of.” That is the reaction of the business sector.
As for the Canadian taxpayer, the comment by Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation was that this showed “contempt for accounting standards”. It is unbelievable. Need I go on?
The arrogance of Ottawa's desire to trample over the rights of the provinces is nothing new, but until now Quebec had managed to block it as far as student loans were concerned. Earlier on, one of my colleagues recalled that, back in 1964, the Pearson government proposed student loans for which it would cover the interest. In response, Mr. Lesage, who was not a sovereignist, said that Quebec would have to go to court in order to have its constitutional rights respected in this matter. Mr. Pearson then had to acknowledge that, if a province preferred to have its own loan program, it would be entitled to an equivalent amount in compensation. It seems to me that the federal federalists were brighter than they are now.
This time, the scandal is even greater, because it comes in the wake of cuts to education which have forced the provincial government to slash budgets, particularly those allocated to universities and colleges, which have done them real harm. The Liberals have, therefore, cut provincial education budgets, to then use the money merely to increase their political visibility through the millennium fund, which does not meet any real need in Quebec. This is outrageous. The Liberal motto is “Make political hay while pretending to serve the public”.
This arrogant government, with its contempt for provincial jurisdictions, thought it could once again pass off as a service something that was totally focussed on gaining political popularity. It did not work and, as I have said, it will help show Quebeckers that the federalist cause is no longer sustainable. The arrogant, authoritarian, overbearing federal regime, which is also disrespectful of provincial areas of jurisdiction regardless of which party is in power, is simply hopeless. Thanks to the millennium fund, more Quebeckers than ever now understand that there is but one solution for Quebec, and that is sovereignty.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague refer to Marx, and I am glad he did, because I myself have based my speech on something Marx said that is one of the reasons I am obviously supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion. I will explain.
Marx—or Engels, but I think it was Marx—said that the gap between rich and poor would only widen under capitalism. With the introduction of communism, the system he founded, it became clear that, despite what he hoped, this gap between rich and poor continued to widen, with the disproportionate wealth of the nomenklatura.
Bearing in mind what the leader of our party said earlier about the gap between rich and poor also widening in our capitalist society, I wonder whether it has something to do with human selfishness, with the powerful doing what they can to become increasingly wealthy, even if it means trampling the poor. One might think it was inevitable.
I support the motion just introduced by the Bloc Quebecois, because I think that, if capitalism is not to prove Marx right, this debate on growth must go hand-in-hand with a debate on everyone's right to share in the fruits of that growth.
I therefore support the motion because, although I am not a Marxist, I do not want his prediction to come true.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, since my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean would like to speak, I will give him my spot.
Access To Information Act April 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with special interest that I rise today to speak to Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.
This bill provides more severe sanctions against any person who improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an attempt to deny right of access to information under the Access to Information Act.
The 1980 Access to Information Act does not provide sanctions severe enough for this type of offence. Section 67 currently provides the following:
(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
Bill C-208 makes it an indictable offence to destroy, falsify or not keep required records. The punishment for such an offence would be imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.
This bill is timely since people from every walk of life are becoming increasingly interested in public life, and this is good. Whether they are artists, professionals, intellectuals or labourers, they all want to know how their interests are being taken care of. It is critical to understand that citizens want to take an active part in the development of government policies.
However, this legitimate demand requires that the policy development process be accessible. Therefore the process to disseminate government information must be effective and, above all, transparent.
Does the current act meet these expectations? Do information policies allow every citizen to really know how the government works?
According to the member for Brampton, who introduced this bill, the answer is no. According to the member, we must review the Access to Information Act to punish more severely any person who improperly destroys or falsifies official records.
I totally agree with the member. Public servants who commit such destructive acts must be punished more severely. As lawmakers, we must protect the right of our fellow citizens to be adequately informed of their government's actions. And I am not the only one who thinks so. On several occasions, the Information Commissioner criticized the lack of teeth in the Access to Information Act.
In his 1995-96 report, he condemned the three following cases.
First, at Transport Canada, a senior official directed his assistants to destroy all copies of an audit report concerning a refurbishing project which he knew was the subject of an access to information request.
Second, at the Department of National Defence, a reporter claiming that certain documents had been falsified before being released to him requested an investigation, which showed that the allegations were founded.
Third, there was a similar case at Health Canada. Testimony presented before the Krever Commission revealed that recordings of meetings of the Canadian committee were fraudulently destroyed in the late 1980s.
In his 1996-1997 report, the commissioner reaffirms his position that the law as it stands now does not provide for effective enforcement mechanisms.
On the specific issue of the tainted blood scandal, the commissioner once again sent a message to the lawmakers, saying “These lamentable incidents of wilful actions taken by public officials for the purpose of suppressing information have been a wake-up call. As recommended in last year's annual report, there should be a specific offence in the access act for acts or omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. At a minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison”.
In his last two reports, the commissioner warned us that the legislation was not effective. In 1996, he said and I quote “After 13 years of operation of this Act, it is unfortunate to have to report several very disturbing manoeuvres to hinder the right of access to government documents, including destruction and falsification”.
In 1997, for the second time in two years, the commissioner stated “These lamentable incidents of wilful actions taken by public officials for the purpose of suppressing information have been a wake-up call. As recommended in last year's annual report, there should be a specific offence in the access act for acts or omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. At a minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison”.
It is obvious that we need to legislate according to the recommendations made by the commissioner. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, has introduced Bill C-286. He too urges parliamentarians to solve the problems related to the enforcement of the Access to Information Act.
However, his bill differs from the one now before the House, because it deals with various aspects of the destruction of documents. The bill before the House does not seem to deal with that particular issue.
As my colleague from Laval Centre said, when we address the issue of the destruction and falsification of documents, we cannot disregard some considerations specific to our public administration. Documents requested under access to information are rarely destroyed by the individual who would really benefit from their disappearance. Very often—and the bill must have provision for this—it is senior officials or senior public servants who have ordered this to be done, although they have not done it themselves.
That is why the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is introducing Bill C-268, which forbids any employer in a position of authority from taking reprisals against anyone refusing to destroy or falsify a record when asked to do so. This shortcoming in the present legislation would be remedied by the bill of my hon. colleague for Berthier—Montcalm.
There must be severe penalties for those who use their authority to order destruction of a document and who threaten someone who refuses to go along with this. Unfortunately, Bill C-286 makes no mention of this.
In closing, it must be recognized that the bill attempts—albeit only partially—to solve a very significant problem in our information policy. It is therefore our party's duty to support it.
The Access to Information Act does, however, deserve to be reformed far more extensively. I am therefore inviting you to discuss Bill C-286, which addresses access to Privy Council confidences, with my colleague soon.
In conclusion, although this bill is praiseworthy, I must draw attention to some of its shortcomings. One of these is that it calls upon parliamentarians to resolve only some of the problems. It must therefore be made clear that this reform remains incomplete in many ways.
For example, we need to be aware that documents, and I repeat myself here, are rarely destroyed by the very person for whom their destruction would be advantageous. The Access to Information Act must, therefore, prohibit any reprisal, or threat of reprisal by an employer or a person in a position of authority.
The complete bill, in conjunction with Bill C-286, should therefore provide for three kinds of offence: destroying or falsifying documents; ordering the destruction or falsification of documents; retaliating against a person who refuses to destroy or falsify documents.
We therefore believe the intent of Bill C-208 to be commendable and that is why we are supporting it. Much more extensive amendments are in order, however. That is why we hope to have the opportunity at some point to discuss Bill C-286, which will be a useful adjunct to the bill before us today.
Employment February 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Lower Laurentians is a disaster-stricken area, hit by job losses in various industries.
After the problems with Kenworth and the transfer of international flights out of Mirabel, now the GM plant in Boisbriand has not only undergone further downsizing but it may well close down because the models produced there do not sell.
Years ago, Ottawa gave this company a $110 million grant to create and maintain jobs. Now these jobs created at public expense are seriously threatened. Their loss would be disastrous for the region.
GM will be investing $14 billion in its plants as part of a worldwide re-equipment plan. But not one cent was earmarked for Quebec, even though refurbishing the assembly line would enable the plant to build different models.
The public is expecting the federal government to look into this issue, which causes much anguish and on which the future of our region depends, and to make representations to GM before it is too late.
Canada Shipping Act February 19th, 1998
Madam Speaker, Bill S-4 was first debated in the Senate, as its name indicates. I can therefore think of no better way of opening debate than by going over what was said at third reading in the Senate on December 16.
This bill will improve our liability regimes for maritime claims. The proposed legislation consists of two sets of amendments, those relating to limitation of liability for maritime claims in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act, and those relating to liability and compensation for oil pollution damage in part XVI of the same act.
In both cases, the amendments will provide implementation of international conventions of which Canada is a signatory. First, our current legislation concerning limitation for maritime claims is contained in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act and is based on the international convention adopted in 1957.
The limits of liability set out in that convention and, by this very fact, in our legislation, are very low, too low. This helps neither claimants nor shipowners. In fact, current limits are so unsatisfactory that, most of the time, claimants have had to take legal action to try to go above the limits to obtain adequate compensation. This has often resulted in long and protracted litigation with uncertain results for both the claimants and shipowners.
It is very difficult for a shipowner to assess his potential liability. With higher realistic limits of liability as proposed in Bill S-4, it will be much easier for all parties involved to settle claims amicably.
The new regime of liability for maritime claims is based on an international convention adopted in 1976 and its protocol adopted in 1996. The 1996 protocol to the convention contains a new procedure, for future amendments of limits of liability, which responds to concerns raised in the past that the method of revision of the limits was too cumbersome and costly. It will now be easier to amend the limits in the international convention.
In addition, as with the regime of limitation of liability for maritime claims, it will now be feasible to increase the limits of liability for oil pollution damage by order in council.
The adoption of Bill S-4 will enable Canada to follow many other countries which moved rapidly, more rapidly than we did, to the 1992 regime and, as a result, terminated their membership in the old regime in May 1977, with effect from May 1998.
I will now give a brief description of the articles designed to achieve these objectives, beginning with those having to do with general maritime claims, as implemented by the Convention on Limitation of Liability.
Article 1 defines those persons entitled to limit liability under the convention. They are the same as those in the current legislation, i.e. shipowners, charterers, persons having an interest in or possession of a ship, and managers and operators, but the benefits of the convention are extended to salvors who are not operating from a ship.
Very briefly, article 2 defines the types of claims subject to limitation of liability under the convention.
Article 3 defines the types of claims excepted from limitation under the convention. These are primarily claims for salvage, etc.
Article 6 sets increased limits of liability for all claims other than those mentioned in article 7, covered by the convention and arising on any distinct occasion.
This now brings me to claims for pollution by oil or other pollutants. The definition of “Convention ship” is extended to include ships with persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil from an earlier cargo, and the definition of pollutant is amended to include aquatic organisms and pathogens.
Clauses 4 and 5 also amend the definition of “ship” to indicate clearly that it applies to vessels navigating Canadian or inland waters.
Clause 6 extends the application of part XVI to Canada's exclusive economic zone or that of any other party to the Convention.
Finally, clause 10 significantly increases the responsibility of the owners of Convention ships by setting the limits prescribed in 1992, which were amendments to the Convention of 1969. This means an increase of 326% over the limits of the 1969 Convention and of 125% over the recovery permitted under the 1971 Convention. This is a very significant increase.
In order to achieve the objectives set, the bill implements, as I said, the conventions of 1976 and 1996. It also implements, I should point out, the 1992 protocol amending the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.>
Finally, this bill amends various provisions pertaining to the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund. It is therefore a total overhaul to ensure compliance with the Convention signed by Canada—a slightly tardy realignment of Canadian legislation with these conventions.
The Bloc Quebecois is happy to see that the government, hounded by the obligation to implement the conventions it has signed, must concern itself with making shipowners more responsible. We are obviously in favour of increased responsibility. We still have the memory of the unfortunate Irving Whale episode fresh in our minds. It cost the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec over $30 million to raise that barge, which makes it seem that the people of Canada and of Quebec were more responsible for the shipwreck than the shipowners themselves. One can see how ridiculous it all got.
Such situations must be avoided in the future. It is not up to the government to compensate for the laxness of certain irresponsible companies. Legislation must be therefore put in place to avoid such incidents in future. Hydrocarbon pollution is not the taxpayer's responsibility. We support the polluter-pay principle, precisely in order to stop companies causing serious environmental damage from getting away scot free.
There is, however, a need for a clear differentiation between the government implementing a user-pay system and a polluter-pay system. Where user-pay is concerned, we remember all too clearly the bad decisions made recently by the federal government concerning charges for Canadian Coast Guard services. The government did not agree to carry out impact studies before the new rates were set, thus refusing to heed 75% of the people consulted.
The government divided Canada into three zones: west coast, Atlantic coast and St. Lawrence—Great Lakes, for which it set different rates. As a result, Quebec is disadvantaged because it is charged more in order to cover part of the costs of the services to Newfoundland, the province of origin of the minister behind the bill.
Moreover, charging for Coast Guard services will impact heavily on Quebec and Canadian ports, because United States bound vessels using the St. Lawrence and the seaway but not putting in to any Canadian port do not pay for Coast Guard services. This measure detracts a great deal from the competitivity of Canadian and Quebec ports.
The current government decided to pass on the bill to shipowners and to local port authorities, without first doing something about the management of the coast guard.
It is not easy to apply the principle of financial and environmental accountability to shipowners. The government will have to maintain its principles, while keeping an open mind to make changes in the application of the act, should it trigger some perverse effects.
The Minister of Transport must not act like his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, who remains so stubborn. He has to be open to change, while preserving his goal of making shipowners and their creditors accountable.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle underlying Bill S-4. However, we look forward to the next stages, when we will hear those most concerned by the bill and, if necessary, use their comments and reactions to make it a better act.
Reference To Supreme Court February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, here is a poem on the reference to the Supreme Court:
Nine justices speaking as oracles all, In answering as one to Jean Chrét-i-en's call, Will decide if the Constitution doth give Us the right to depart this old country, to leave.
No doubt, they will tell us with faces not bright, That to break with the past, we have no such a right, That while freedom at last is the call we might sound, Such action cannot in their papers be found.
And so as will tell us these justices all, While most of us wish to give heed to the call To freedom for all in this country so right, We must hasten away and go off fly a kite.
Dear Justices there is no need for such fuss. Quebec's future rests really and truly with us. Though high you may be in your privileged pew, Remember the people are higher than you.
We honour your wisdom given freely and well, But respect does not yet put us under your spell. No never before a nine-member wigged band Shall kowtow all the seven million tuques in the land.