Gérard Asselin

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will agree that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is giving a fine speech on the important subject and bill relating to finances.

I would ask you to note that there is no quorum. You will see that there are seven times more Bloc Quebecois members than Liberal members in the House.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am tabling in the House today a petition signed by 2,000 constituents in the riding of Charlevoix.

In the light of past events, the number of passengers and the amount of traffic annually at the Baie-Comeau airport, the petitioners ask Parliament for a reassessment of the safety criteria and the construction of a control tower or flight information station to ensure greater air safety.

Federal government cuts to regional airports must stop, because they jeopardize passenger safety.

[Work Accidents, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on this national day of mourning for people who have been killed or hurt at work, the Bloc Quebecois would like to point to the amount of progress that has been made in recent decades in work accident prevention and victim compensation.

However, accidents of varying degrees of seriousness continue to occur often. These accidents are always dramatic.

The measures and actions taken to prevent such accidents must be strengthened. In this regard, the wind of deregulation blowing across the world, including Canada, should give us cause for concern.

As regards financial compensation to accident victims, we regret that the federal government has yet to adopt a fairer universal system, like the one adopted by Quebec a long time ago. An effective prevention policy and a fair compensation system are the solution for the future.

To the families that have lost one of their members and to workers who have been in an accident and their families, we offer our sympathies.

[Committees Of The House, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member who just spoke gave an excellent speech. He has a lot of experience in the House of Commons.

Whether they vote for the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the Progressive Conservative Party, the people have the opportunity every four years to elect parliamentarians to the House of Commons to assume their responsibilities.

I think it is up to the House of Commons and to each of the members present to assume their responsibilities. One of our responsibilities is to know whether the government supports all NATO's decisions. If that is the case, it is a bit worrisome.

If NATO decides for the Government of Canada, and we as parliamentarians have no part to play other than to bow and nod in agreement, as the Prime Minister does without even consulting the House, it is worrisome.

This week, the Bloc Quebecois presented a motion asking the government for the opportunity to exercise a very democratic right in the House of Commons: the members' right to vote and give the government the mandate to takes its responsibilities in terms of honouring commitments made to NATO.

If NATO decided tomorrow to send 200,000 soldiers, would the Government of Canada have the resources and materiel to respond? Things are getting complicated. Are civilians going to be called on to meet NATO's standards?

In closing, I want to ask the member a question. I do not know whether he agrees with me, but I am sure the Prime Minister does not have the backing of his own government and he cannot take a vote, because he is afraid his own government will vote no, when decisions have to be made in the war in Kosovo.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, time has a way of arranging things.

When the Bloc Quebecois formed the official opposition, its members were making the same comments that Reformers are now making. We said the same things in 1997.

Reformers are talking about overlap, duplication and federal intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. That is what the Bloc Quebecois was condemning, and continues to condemn.

The problem is that the federal government is making increasingly deeper cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, while intruding in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as health and education with the millennium scholarships. When the federal government intrudes in our jurisdictions, this adversely affects regional development.

The Bloc Quebecois has been condemning such intrusions since 1993. Could it be that Rodrigue Biron influenced the Reform Party during the united alternative convention? Is the Reform Party motion the result of the convention to establish a new united alternative party?

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the words of my colleague. I believe he is absolutely right. There are particularities to the west as there are to Quebec, but I believe the Liberal government would be well advised to announce its intentions when it is travelling in the regions, particularly in Quebec.

I have an anecdote to relate in this connection. Over Easter, a minister decided to come to the Charlevoix region, one of the loveliest regions of Quebec. Did he come to the casino, or to visit his relatives? Of course, in order to justify his travel allowance, the minister had to meet the press, or a mayor, or visit an arts centre.

He ought to have given the MP for Charlevoix a call to say “I would like to consult your area of the riding, I would like to meet with local unemployed people in order to see whether the $27.3 million in cuts in Charlevoix are doing much harm. I would like to meet the people of Charlevoix in order to see whether they are frustrated by our unkept promises made in 1997. I would like to meet the people of Charlevoix to see what effects our transfer payments to the provinces have had on health and education”.

I would have liked to have got a group of women together so that they could tell him how the President of Treasury Board is refusing to give public servants pay equity. I would have liked to have got a group of young people together to tell him how the federal government is refusing to withdraw from collective agreements the orphan clause which penalizes very young workers.

But no. When ministers travel to the regions, they do so solely to raise their profile. We have seen that the problem is the same in the west, as the Reform Party pointed out this morning. Quebec is recognized as a region. I believe that Quebec has been calling for that right for some years now. The Bloc Quebecois has been doing so in the House of Commons since 1993.

There is a problem of duplication and overlap, and I would like the hon. member for Témiscamingue to give us some other examples. He has already mentioned the millennium scholarships, to demonstrate that the Government of Quebec is acknowledged by the Canadian government as a region, as a kind of board.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how happy I am to learn, from the remarks by my hon. colleague from North Vancouver, that in his second term as a member of this House he has realized that the west is neglected by the Canadian government.

During the first referendum in Quebec in 1980, we consulted the people to inform them that the Canadian government saw the province of Quebec as a region and that Quebecers were recognized by Ottawa only as taxpayers but that no services were being provided to Quebec.

This is why in 1980 the then Premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, and, in 1995, Mr. Parizeau, told the people “We should be masters in our own house, we should manage our own affairs and stop being considered as a region by the government”.

I am delighted that today the Reform Party member in his speech is beginning to take a view similar to Quebec's position and that he realizes the Canadian government is doing nothing for the west. While it may be doing nothing for the west now, it has not been doing anything for Quebec for a very long time.

That is why one day Quebec will assuredly achieve sovereignty, or independence, and then it will govern itself with its own money, its own taxes and its own powers, and will no longer depend on the Canadian government.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member who just spoke could inform the House and, consequently, the public, as there seems to be a communication problem.

People who are watching us at home have a right to be informed. They heard about the possibility of a world conflict. Could the hon. member inform the House, because he told us he was opposed to sending in ground troops? Could he tell us if the 18 days of air strikes have shaken Kosovo enough to make it possible to negotiate and avoid having to send in ground troops?

Having sent planes in for 18, 19 or 20 days, we look a bit ridiculous. It is vital that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, or NATO inform the public, at least the Canadian public, so that we know what we are up against. What will become of the refugees?

In the course of numerous conflicts, Canada's role has been primarily that of a peacekeeper.

Canada's role in the war in Kosovo is a far cry from putting up tents and distributing bread to the hungry. The F-18s have been brought out and now there is talk of even more advanced weaponry. I would like the member to inform the House and therefore the public, which is undoubtedly listening to this debate in the hope of being better informed.

Does the member think that Kosovo has been sufficiently rattled by the 18 to 20 days of combat to bring President Milosevic back to the negotiating table in the very near future, or is a ground war inevitable?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party member asked our Liberal colleague an excellent question.

Since Canada decided, in a show of unity, to support the objectives pursued by NATO, should the allies decide to send ground troops, would the Canadian government endorse NATO's decision to immediately send 200,000 troops to Kosovo, yes or no?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not to know whether or not we are going to vote. The opposition had indeed asked the government to hold a debate to better inform the public, because those who do not watch any of the reports on the news networks do not know what is going on.

We know that Canada is supporting the UN to defend the Kosovars in that war-torn land. But while we are debating this issue here tonight to better inform the public, how many children will die? How many women will be raped and killed while we have this debate tonight? How many seniors will die?

The question I would like to put to my hon. colleague is the following: what part will Canada continue to play if NATO decides to dispatch ground troops? If this decision is made, we know that 200,000 soldiers will have to be sent to Kosovo tomorrow morning. Is Canada prepared to take part in ground operations and meet all the requirements? We are part of things right now, we are caught up in the system. How far will we have to go?