Diane Bourgeois

[Afghanistan, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, does the government intend to make a proposal that would tie a substantial part of the aid provided to rebuild Afghanistan to the development of infrastructures that would help improve the status of Afghani women?

[Afghanistan, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with the Bonn meeting coming up, the personal representative of the UN secretary general said that it was very important that women be involved at the highest level in the political process leading to the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what measures Canada has undertaken as a partner in the anti-terrorism coalition to ensure that Afghani women do indeed take part in the process?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to express my concerns about the legislation respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, Bill C-10, which brings back the former bills C-8 and C-48 introduced during the 36th parliament.

Of course, I was not in the House when these bills were introduced during the 36th parliament. However, this legislation easily attracted my attention and should be studied in-depth because Quebec was among the first to ensure public access to its waterways, as it so desires.

Protection of the environment has been a constant concern for the Bloc Quebecois. I remind those listening and the government that the Bloc Quebecois supported the government when it introduced its legislation to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park in 1997. That legislation provided for the creation of the first marine conservation area of Canada.

Unfortunately, this time, we cannot support such a legislation. I will only give three reasons why the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree to this legislation.

First, in Bill C-10, instead of focusing on working together, as it did in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the government is giving itself the right to establish marine conservation areas with no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and environment.

Bill C-10 does not respect Quebec's territorial integrity. My colleagues from Manicouagan and Châteauguay were saying that it is under the Constitutional Act, 1867, that we have this territorial integrity. At the time, the provinces, including Quebec, were guaranteed exclusive jurisdiction over the management of crown lands.

At the same time, Quebec legislation concerning crown lands applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including the beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

However, according to the notes provided by Canadian heritage on this famous bill, marine conservation areas are planned for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as the river and estuary, three areas where the seabed comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.

This is a very clear example of federal meddling in a provincial jurisdiction. I find it terrible that, as Quebecers, we are once again subjected to provocation and lack of respect by the government, which wants to do only what it wants.

It is clear that this government is working to create almost voluntarily an explosive climate for Quebecers. It continually infringes areas exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction and is endlessly trying to impose unreasonable legislation, whose content and effect Quebecers consider an insult to their intelligence.

There is another reason why we are not supporting this bill. Canadian heritage as is its practice all too often is proposing to put a new structure in place, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate the marine wildlife reserves of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the marine areas of Environment Canada.

Canadian heritage has done a poor job protecting ecosystems. Its decisions will take precedence over regulations already established under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Aeronautics Act.

It will be readily understood that this practice can only lead to a whole raft of problems with respect to marine protected areas, marine wildlife reserves and marine conservation area with regulations for each and other regulations superimposed by Canadian heritage.

We might quote from the testimony of Patrick McGuinness, the vice-president of the Canadian Council of Fisheries, who totally opposed this initiative because it is “ineffective and encumbers the administration of public affairs”.

Third, we could talk about Canadian heritage's great achievements in protecting the ecosystems of existing national parks and its expertise in the field along with its role as leader in protecting our ecosystems.

They are far from brilliant. I will quote a few of the findings reported by the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. This panel released a public report and urged the government to make the ecological preservation of parks a priority once again.

The same panel found that, in some national parks, the stress on the resource was so great that some species were disappearing. In Fundy park, in New Brunswick, three species have disappeared since the park was created. Only one of the 39 national parks of Parks Canada does not experience this stress. The situation is worse than what the panel of scientists expected. To make matters worse, there is a dramatic lack of scientists in national parks to evaluate ecosystems.

Allow me to doubt that Parks Canada and Canadian heritage can preserve marine conservation areas, since they do not have the minimal resources needed to protect national parks today.

A sensible and responsible government would have adopted a more logical approach, that is ensuring that only one department deals with the protection of our ecosystems and that departments involved arrive at an agreement in which they would transfer their responsibilities to the department in charge. Would that not make more sense?

In this case, I believe it would have been better to centralize all activities in one department, to give it the necessary resources to do its task and to ensure an adequate protection of marine conservation areas, administered and implemented by expert and competent people.

Moreover, the government is not only intruding unduly into provincial fields of jurisdiction—something that is extremely important for me—it is also squandering the money of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers in a tangle of complicated and endless legislative and administrative measures.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill. It is an act that is unrespectful of Quebec, legislation for which there has been no real consultation with stakeholders and that does not take into account the recommendations made by the government's own experts, who advised the government to solve the more urgent problems before doing anything else.

[Parti Quebecois, November 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on November 15, 1976, as at the beginning of the quiet revolution, we felt the energy and dynamism of Quebec society focus on the political arena.

On that autumn evening in 1976, Quebecers took their destinies in hand and chose a new political vehicle, the first sovereignist government, in the hope that their energy and their dynamism would again be transformed into innovative and effective policies.

The first PQ government, and those that followed, have responded with determination and creativity to the expectations of the Quebec people.

Today, 25 years after that historic day in November 1976, although Quebec society has changed and become more diversified, it is just as dynamic and full of energy.

The government led by Bernard Landry is a responsible government that listens to what Quebecers have to say. I have no doubt that it will take up the challenge from the people of Quebec—

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke mentioned consultation. He said that the bill allows for broad consultation and that he trusted the government to consult.

Is the member aware that there were consultations in 1998 about the Saguenay marine area? At that time the government had reportedly met with 3,000 groups, and it seems that there was a lot of responses.

However, when we asked, under the Access to Information Act, for the responses that were provided and that were communicated to the government, we realized that the report had only 70 pages. The report should also have contained the submissions made by the groups that the government reportedly met or consulted with.

Does the government not find that there is something unusual here? Have there really been consultations or are they bogus consultations?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition member is naive or whether he honestly believes in harmonious relations between the federal government and the provinces in connection with this bill.

First of all, under the British North America Act, each provincial legislature has exclusive jurisdiction over conservation and management of natural resources. How then can the member sit by while the federal government takes away any power, however small, from his own province of residence?

Second, this bill involves a number of departments, namely Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, which reports through Canadian Heritage, and Environment Canada. Does he not think that the bill could result in duplication, in an increased paperburden for public servants?

Finally, he spoke about consultation and progress. This bill called for considerable progress. Does he not think that progress also means being able to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces?

[World March of Women, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the first anniversary of the World March of Women. This march, which took place in 158 countries around the world, set forth demands to improve living conditions for women, including women in Quebec and Canada.

Could the Secretary of State for the Status of Women give us an update today on what steps and action the government has taken to respond to the World March of Women demands?

[Quebec Municipal Elections, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was election day for more than 330 Quebec municipalities. More than 4,000 municipal representatives and mayors were entrusted with the responsibility of representing their fellow citizens.

Voting day is never a commonplace occurrence, but yesterday's exercise of democracy was a historical event for many cities. Montreal, Quebec City, Longueuil, Sherbrooke, Lévis, Trois-Rivières and Gatineau, to name but a few, were electing the mayors and councillors for their new cities for the first time.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate all the mayors and councillors who were elected yesterday. Quebec's cities are an important part of our lives. We are certain that these elected representatives will continue to contribute to the development of their respective cities and of Quebec as a whole.

[Pay Equity, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that, after delaying the appeal for over nearly a year, the federal court will finally hear the case of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is trying to obtain recognition of the right of some 6,000 public servants to pay equity payments.

Will the President of the Treasury Board stop using legal means to prevent her own employees from being entitled to pay equity and does she intend to see they get justice by paying them their due?

[Status of Women, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are celebrating Persons Day. On October 18, 1921, thanks to Emily Murphy, Canadian women were recognized as persons.

Because of their fight, women's equality has been recognized, and women who make an exceptional contribution are given a Governor General's award in commemoration.

Vera Danyluk, the chair of the Montreal Urban Community, who, through her involvement in politics and in community groups, has advanced the cause of women, will receive this honour.

Despite considerable progress, women are still fighting for equality: Bell Canada telephone operators, who have been calling for wage parity for the past 12 years; the Réseau des femmes en entreprise familiale, who pay EI premiums, but are not entitled to benefits; rural letter carriers, who do not receive the same benefits as other letter carriers; all these women who are entitled to decent parental leave, and the first nations women who are discriminated against.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling on the government to actually do something to show that it truly considers these women persons.