House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 60% of the vote.
Environment October 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is on the issue of climate change with a practical application of how Canada can deal with this issue. The Government of Canada, this government, reported in the estimates of 1994-95 that it would be consulting with stakeholders on economic instruments. It made a commitment in the red book to do so.
Can the government report to us today what work has been done on economic instruments so there will be answers to this very important problem of climate change?
Fisheries October 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the groups that I met with on Friday are not interested in the minister's hot air and rhetoric about this issue. What they want to know is what the government is going to do. It is their livelihood that is at stake.
Can I suggest something constructive to the government and to the Deputy Prime Minister? At the APEC summit that will be held in November in Vancouver, the Prime Minister will meet with President Clinton. Will they give a mandate to the two envoys, Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Strangway, to report to them at that time so that they can bring a solution to this very important issue for the livelihood of fishermen on the west coast?
Fisheries October 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last Friday in Vancouver I met with representatives of the Community Fisheries Development Centre, the Coastal Community Network and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. All of these groups said to me that the government's Mifflin plan for the fishery was an unmitigated disaster, that the government is not listening and that if the government has a plan for the fishery, they have no idea what it is.
Can the government tell us today what its plan is for the fishery on the west coast?
The Late Rodrigue Bourdages October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who did not know Rodrigue Bourdages, or who did not have the pleasure of meeting him, let me say that Mr. Bourdages was a major builder of the City of Laval, in addition to having been a Progressive Conservative member of Parliament under the leadership of John Diefenbaker. Mr. Bourdages was elected for the first time in 1958. Unfortunately, he passed away last weekend, at the still young age of 73.
Today, I want to begin by offering my most sincere condolences to Mr. Bourdages' family, his wife, children and grandchildren, and his party colleagues. I also want to pay him a well deserved tribute.
While it is not usual for us to do so, I wish to mention that some members of his family are here in the gallery. Johanne and Raymond Bourdages, as well as Rodrigue's sister, Thérèse, are here to relive fond memories of a father and brother who served in this House.
Mr. Bourdages, who was of Acadian descent, was born in Halifax, in 1924. As I said earlier, he became known in part for his central role in the building of Quebec's second largest city, Laval. At the time, Laval was made up of a number of cities and villages that were experiencing spectacular growth and needed someone who could bring them together, so they could be in a position to provide modern services. Rodrigue Bourdages was the one who rose to the occasion and provided his leadership for this extraordinary effort. He was indeed at the centre of one of the greatest achievements at the municipal level.
In addition, he decided as well to run as a candidate in the 1958 election. Pierre Sévigny, who was the organizer for the Conservative Party in Quebec at the time, recounts a rather funny story that well illustrates Mr. Bourdages' character. When he contacted this person he did not know, Mr. Sévigny had a candidate in mind for the riding, but Mr. Bourdages said that he would be the candidate and the next member of Parliament. And in fact Mr. Bourdages did run in the election and became the next member of Parliament.
He served in the House of Commons until 1962. Subsequently he continued his political activities serving as an organizer for our party in Quebec. After that he was, of course, very active at the municipal level.
Some of his achievements in the House still give food for thought. He accomplished things that are noteworthy today, because they are relevant to the debate on our future.
He was, for example, the first French Canadian to respond in French to the Speech from the Throne in January 19, 1962. That is not so long ago. I should remind those in this House and elsewhere in the country who feel that French is taking up too much room that 1962—the first time a member rose to respond in French in the House of Commons—is not so long ago.
He instituted simultaneous interpretation and bilingual government cheques. It was a real revolution at the time: bilingual federal government cheques, when francophones had founded Canada and lived there. He got Mr. Diefenbaker to agree to the idea of Expo 67, which was being considered at the time, thus enabling Montreal to become an international city a few years later.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Bourdages then became an organizer for our party. And he was an exceptional one. He later worked as a property administrator for the Quebec department of public works.
Mr. Bourdages has left us something, fortunately, an autobiography. Written in 1988 with great sincerity and warmth, it describes a past that is not so distant and pays tribute to all those who, like him, wanted to do things, to build things, to make a contribution.
I have an indelible memory of Mr. Bourdages from election time. You will pardon a little partisanship. The year was 1988. He was on the podium. In 1995, during the referendum, he was there to give us a hand and in 1997 as well. I even proposed to Mr. Bourdages that he run again, but he cited his family. He said: “You know, Jean, I don't think my wife would agree to it. I have done my bit”. Rodrigue Bourdages, in fact did a whole lot.
Today, on behalf of us all, I thank him and his family.
Fisheries October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the Chair and for the House, I will withdraw the word.
Fisheries October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would actually want to withdraw.
Fisheries October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government will also know that thousands of Canadians on both coasts, east coast and west coast, are dramatically affected by the dwindling stocks, by the situation that we are in today.
If the Reformers do not care about this issue and will not ask questions, maybe they will want to listen to what happens in this House. I want to know from the government, when will there be a national policy on fisheries, one that has as its cornerstone the issue of sustainable development for this country so that these Canadians will know that there is a future for the fishery in Canada.
Fisheries October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, thousands of jobs in the fishing industry on the Pacific coast have been lost in 1996 because of a bad season, but also because of the government's policies.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to make some funding available, funding that has since dried up, to help the coastal communities, and whether the government is preparing an adjustment strategy for those coastal communities so that the families affected can be helped?
Supply October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I travelled extensively in the Gaspé area. Actually, I worked very closely with someone he knows well and a very respected person in the Gaspé, namely Dr. Charles-Eugène Marin, a former member for Gaspé. I can see the hon. member nodding his head in agreement. I think that Dr. Marin has made extraordinary efforts for fishers in the Gaspé.
I think that one of the changes made and imposed by the federal government that have affected them the most and hurt them the most—and I am sure my hon. colleague will agree with me on that—is the unemployment insurance reform, including the fact that their benefits were cut by $33 million. That is what I was talking about earlier.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint John, New Brunswick, circulated a petition asking that a debate be held in this place on this issue. I think that approximately 40 signatures were needed. She was unable to get a single member of the Liberal Party of Canada from the Atlantic region to sign. This explains in part this government's arrogance and contempt for these men and women.
Seasonal workers depend not only on fisheries but also on forestry. Let us not forget the Eastern Plan, which was important to our region as it created jobs. Forestry is also important in the Gaspé region.
The federal government may cut left and right but try as it might, it cannot cut seasons. They can certainly not make winter disappear and privatize seasons in Canada. And unless they can cut one season, we will continue to live in a seasonal economy where these needs must be recognized. Our party, which, I hope, will form the next government, is committed to ensuring through the employment insurance legislation that these realities are recognized so that these people can earn an honest living.
I will finish with a little word of poetry. There is no position coming from the Reform Party. I will quote for Reformers the official position of their party in regard to the fishery. This is a direct quote from their leader in response to a question about TAGS. He repeatedly said that displaced fishermen and their families in the TAGS program were receiving “the last big social megaproject engineering thing to come out of Ottawa”. I quote the Leader of the Opposition's plan for the future of the resource, “All you can do is say it is over”. There is the plan of the Reform Party for the fishery of Canada.
Supply October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for announcing that the Reform Party will support our motion. I sincerely appreciate that.
I have to regret that he gets up and makes my point about one of the problems we have in this place. He started by saying he did not know how they would vote on it. He lives in British Columbia. This is a motion that is tabled today and he does not know how his party will pronounce. He is from British Columbia and he does not know what his critic's position is on this.
One would think that being from British Columbia where this is one of the main issues discussed over the last few months the member for Kootenay—Columbia would have a position. I am disappointed he does not. I imagine his constituents will be equally disappointed that he did not take the time to make out his position.
What we got instead, I do not want to comment on it. We have heard it a thousand times. It is the grandstanding. Notice the style, pointing the finger and saying it is the Tories' fault or the Liberals' fault. I can only imagine that the people who are affected by all these decisions today cannot be feeling very good. I do not understand what that does for them. For any unemployed British Columbian today, the member has offered zero in terms of any kind of hope for the future.
Instead, I would like to speak of what I would like to see the government do, contrary maybe to their approach. Who knows, maybe the Reformers during the day will give us come concrete ideas of what the future should be about.
First, in the case of the Pacific salmon fishery, what I think is important is that the government and the Prime Minister give very real instructions, strict instructions to his ministers to raise this issue at every opportunity with their American counterparts.
When I was Minister of the Environment, every time we met with a minister of another government we systematically, no matter what the issue was, no matter what the responsibility of the minister may have been, whether it was trade or transport, would raise the issue with our counterpart of the other country. Why? Because we wanted to drive home the point that this was a very important issue for Canada. By forcing that issue and by raising it at every opportunity we were successful in doing exactly that.
I would like the government today to make a commitment to do that and to have every minister of the crown opposite raise the issue with every American counterpart. No matter what the circumstance or the issue of the day is they should take that opportunity to raise the issue. That would be the first thing to do. In other words keep the issue on the table.
Second is the matter of the treaty. This is a treaty which our government signed in 1985. No treaties are perfect. The member was alluding to what had been done. In 1985 the government of the day was able to secure this treaty. In the years that followed there was a management plan. It has only been in the last four years that there has not been a management plan. That is even more important.
The principle of equity that is found within the treaty is extremely important. We need to secure that principle, to press it. We need to keep it front and centre in everything we do to ensure that as we move forward with our American counterparts that the principle of equity will be front and centre with respect to any agreements we make in the future.
The third thing we need and which is sorely lacking is an industrial adjustment strategy. I regret that the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia did not speak about that because it actually affects the people of British Columbia. What about the men and women who do not care about Liberal, Tory, same old story, and the huff and puff of the House of Commons? They have kids in school. They have bills to pay. They would like some help. This government should have an adjustment strategy which would allow them to make the transition into new jobs and give them some training. Some money should be put toward that end.