Gérard Asselin

[Petitions, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition for the member for Manicouagan, who is detained at home due to illness, for the member for Chambly, who is critic for Canada Post, and for the many signatories from the Sept-Îles--Port-Cartier area and so on.

We are tabling in the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition bearing a number of signatures with respect to Canada Post and rural route mail couriers. These people often earn less than minimum wage, and the Canada Post Corporation Act denies them the right to collective bargaining.

The petitioners are asking parliament to repeal subsection 36(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which they consider unfair and discriminatory against rural workers.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

That was not long ago. I will point out, for the benefit of our viewers, that this was last Friday.

Last Saturday, the Prime Minister learned that it was no longer the case, that things had changed. Even the minister misled the Prime Minister. There were elements which he did not consider important but which actually were important under the code of ethics for ministers. He should have informed the Prime Minister. On Sunday, the Prime Minister took his responsibilities, perhaps to sweep the scandal under the rug.

Who got the axe? The Minister of National Defence did. He made an error of judgment by giving a contract to his ex-girlfriend; this was unacceptable. Such a thing cannot be tolerated, because it amounts to patronage. The government is managing the taxpayers' money.

Public affairs have to be managed properly, by calling for tenders and going with the lowest satisfactory bidder. This is complying with the requirement for transparency. The fact that bidders are party members, former or future contributors to the party or are close to the organization is irrelevant. Such things should not be taken into consideration.

When reference is made to controlled access military zones, the Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, comes to mind. The Government of Quebec, the Quebec government machinery, was very close to the site. Hon. members will recall the demonstrations that took place during that summit.

Why? Because the public has become more aware of globalization, and wants to know what is going on at such summits, to know what will be discussed, how it will affect them, and what will happen as a result. The texts were not made available, which created frustration. I supported their actions resulting from those concerns about decisions often taken by only one person.

If at some point a controlled access military zone were to be declared, emergency measures could also be declared and any citizen found in that zone could be arrested. This would be the case even if that person's home, workplace, school, or other place he or she generally went to happened to fall within this zone.

For a certain length of time—reduced from the original 90 days to 45—they could arrest and imprison young people, women, men, seniors, anyone who happened to find himself or herself in the wrong place, because the federal government, the defence minister, had decided that, in connection with a given event, a given area would become a controlled access military zone. The minister can determine that this zone will cover x square kilometres around the site in question.

Had this been the case during the Summit of the Americas, it might have had the effect of immobilizing the population of Quebec City. This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois deems it unacceptable.

Then there are the interim orders. The minister may decide—a little correction has been made, changing the 90 days to 45—their initial duration. Then they need to be confirmed by the governor in council.

The other thing, which we see as minimal, is that these interim orders must then be tabled in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days following the decision.

Should the Minister of Health decide tomorrow morning, as my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has pointed out, that everyone needs to be immunized because of some bacteria or other substance, what would happen? What if the Red Cross or Héma-Québec had a blood shortage and the decision was made to require everyone to donate blood to replenish the supply?

In closing, I would like to point out that I come from a region that is far away from the federal government. My riding of Charlevoix is on the north shore. Bill C-55's $24 air travel surtax is unacceptable. It is harmful to the people in the regions, it is harmful to the carriers, and it should be taken out of the bill.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill C-55.

Bill C-55 is a reincarnation of Bill C-42. Why was Bill C-42 not approved unanimously, or at least by the majority of parliamentarians in this House? Why did they not support Bill C-42?

First, because of the Bloc Quebecois' performance. MPs from every opposition party did what they had to do to make the government aware of the mistake it would make if Bill C-42 was passed as drafted. Naturally, opposition MPs tried repeatedly to ask questions of the government during oral questions period. In committee, they tried to do their job as parliamentarians and asked those who would be affected to various degrees by Bill C-42 for their input. The majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee said clearly that the federal government was on the verge of making a major management mistake by passing this bill as drafted.

The Bloc Quebecois was not satisfied to just state its position and speak up against Bill C-42; it did its part by participating in the debate to make the government aware of the problem, and putting forward amendments to fix the bill, which smacked of dictatorships and gave responsibility to just one person, for which the government could have suffered some serious consequences should one minister make an error in judgment.

As a result of the Bloc Quebecois' position and the quality of the speeches made by the Bloc Quebecois' leader, the parliamentary leader, various critics and the work done by party staff—we put forward some worthwhile and quality amendments—the government had no choice but to say “This makes sense. What they are saying is important. We are on the verge of making a mistake. We must change our bill”. This is how Bill C-55 came about.

However, Bill C-55 does not get to the bottom of things. The government put back in the bill part of what the Bloc Quebecois' amendment had modified, it removed what lobbyists did not want to see in Bill C-42, what was bothering or intimidating them. We are talking about those who have connections, or have access to various ministers on the government side. The government did not want to disappoint them. This part of the bill was eliminated.

The bill before the House has been improved, but I believe it is still unacceptable. Why? Because it would give extremely dangerous powers to a single minister who, since he may act in a moment of panic or exercise responsibilities without consulting cabinet, might make an unfortunate decision.

Of course, if it were Friday, the Prime Minister would defend his national defence minister, as he did for the public works minister. On Friday, he defended the minister. What happened on Saturday? On Sunday we learned that the two same ministers were gone. Yet, on Friday, they were considered to be good ministers. They had done what they had to. The decision they had made was important. On Friday, everything was fine.

[Infrastructure, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has dragged his feet for so long regarding the port transfer policy that he let the docks of Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins deteriorate, which resulted in the interruption of the ferry service between the two towns, thus depriving the North Shore and the Lower St. Lawrence of this service.

Does the minister intend to authorize the urgent repair of these two docks, which are essential to eastern Quebec's economic development and tourism?

[Lumber Industry, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Bloc Quebecois proposed a realistic assistance plan for the workers and the companies. Is it not high time the minister assumed his responsibilities and announced immediate assistance measures?

[Lumber Industry, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the tariff to be placed on Canadian and Quebec exports of softwood lumber will be 27.22%. Unfortunately, the Minister for International Trade has been dragging his feet on this issue.

With the letter from Quebec minister François Gendron, is the minister going to finally agree that it is high time the government put in place measures to help companies and workers in the softwood lumber industry, as the Quebec minister is urging it to do?

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke for his speech, Indeed he showed how inefficient the member for Outremont, in charge of regional economic development for Quebec, was.

The reward he got from the Prime Minister was to be appointed Minister of Justice. Unfortunately, I do not have his picture to show as I cannot name him.

I cannot understand the federal government's lack of action in the auto industry, which needs financial help and technical support.

Right now, we are having a problem in Quebec with GM. I believe the Liberal federal government should offer its unconditional support as it did to the United States following the September 11 events. In the meantime, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen are expanding in Quebec at the expense of the industry that is not getting support from the federal government.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

The member for Outremont.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

The member for Outremont.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Martin Cauchon.