Jean-François Fortin

[Bill C-38, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, that is a strange response from a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Over the past few hours, the focus has been on the marathon voting session in the House of Commons. Now, we must direct our focus to the very real consequences that the budget will have not only for citizens, workers, employers and the unemployed, but also for the environment and the regions; all will pay the price for the forced passage of this bill.

My colleague talked about the closure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' brand-new laboratory at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, which will be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, even though it plays a key role in environmental issues.

How can the Conservative members from Quebec shut their eyes to the damaging consequences that Bill C-38 will have for all Quebeckers?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives tried to seduce Quebeckers by making promises about an open federalism that would respect their differences. But now, the only federalism Quebeckers are seeing is fraught with contempt and arrogance.

The Conservatives with Bill C-38 are like pyromaniacs with a can of gas. They are torching relations with Quebec, in particular by exempting major banks from consumer protection requirements; trampling on the Kyoto protocol; reducing health care funding even though our population is aging; and proposing employment insurance reforms that, quite frankly, will harshly penalize workers, employers and the regions of Quebec.

While the Government of Quebec is stepping up its legal recourse to ensure its rights are respected, the federal government insists on saying that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Quebeckers will not put up with being treated with contempt.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which sums up the Bloc Québécois's position on Bill C-38 very well.

I also want to ask him about his views on the proposed employment insurance reform. This reform is a direct attack on the regions, because it does not take into consideration the reality of seasonal workers in the forestry, tourism, fishery or agriculture sectors. The approach ignores the way the regional economy is structured. The bill attacks the regions by forcing workers to relocate over an hour away from their homes, and by forcing them to accept much lower wages, somewhere around 70% of their of their previous income.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on this issue.

[Search and Rescue, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to speak to the motion introduced by the member for St. John's East.

First, I can announce that the Bloc Québecois will be supporting this motion. I also invite all parliamentarians in the House to support this bill, which goes beyond any type of partisanship and will necessarily help all pleasure boaters, fishers and all people who go to sea in our waters.

The motion as worded states that the government must take all such measures as may be required to achieve the international readiness standard of 30 minutes. That standard is essential to the survival of our people who go to sea.

Far from promoting progress toward the response time target, the government is making a decision that does not reflect the importance of this service, which must be quick and effective.

As I said earlier, every minute counts when action is taken at sea. In a country whose motto is “From Sea to Sea”, the government seems at times not to realize that the motto means more than words; it requires an understanding of reality and some concrete actions.

The government can no longer disregard that reality: we have a large marine area to cover and thus the responsibility to ensure that the people who navigate in our territorial waters are protected by high-quality services and a rapid response.

Fishers and pleasure boaters are entitled to service that meets the international 30 minute standard. Why not aim for a shorter response time?

But what is the government doing? The Conservatives have announced the closing of the Quebec City marine rescue centre. They have also announced the closing of the Rivière-au-Renard maritime radio station, which is at the port of entry to the gulf. This means that 15 jobs will be lost in our region. The closing of that station increases the danger to shipping in the gulf. Les Escoumins maritime radio station will now have to cover all of eastern Quebec, which will increase the workload of the people there. They are already doing an outstanding job, but an even greater burden is being placed on their shoulders.

Knowledge of our territorial waters is crucial in responding appropriately to the captain of any type of vessel navigating in Canada's territorial waters. People are concerned, both fishers and pleasure craft operators.

I enjoy sailing myself. I have a pleasure craft licence and have sailed in different situations. Sometimes conditions deteriorate very quickly in our waters; there are a number of dangers. So, if the need for help arises—and we hope it never does—it is important to be able to count on a service that is able to respond quickly and efficiently in order to save lives.

The Commissioner of Official Languages also expressed concern about the transfer of the emergency centre to Trenton. When people get into situations that lead them to call for help, they sometimes become nervous, because it is an emergency for them. For French-speakers—most of the people in Quebec waters—getting a response from someone who does not fully understand their language can increase the danger. The language barrier can also reduce the ability to respond appropriately to a specific emergency request.

That is why the search and rescue sub-centre in Quebec City must be maintained and why the government must support the motion introduced by the hon. member for St. John's East, which calls for the achievement of the readiness standard of 30 minutes.

I urge every member of this House to set aside all partisan differences and to meet the needs of fishers, pleasure boaters and anyone sailing anywhere in our waters.

[Governor General, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate on the motion made by my hon. colleague. It must be understood that the only Canadian citizen who paid no taxes, the Governor General, must be subject to the same rules of fairness that apply to all Canadians.

In that regard, and in a spirit of fairness, the motion made by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour makes sense both for parliamentarians and for the public.

The amendment that my colleague, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, has just proposed logically blends this desire to tax the Governor General with the addition that his salary will not be increased. That is to say, he will maintain the same income that he had before. If we make an amendment that makes the Governor General's salary taxable and then we double that salary, there is no effect. The fact of adding an amendment that maintains the spirit of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour allows us to keep the essence of the motion as originally moved, given that, in the budget, the government has doubled the salary.

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the comment I would like to make is about the unanimous consent that has just been asked for.

You will have noticed my comment that the Bloc Québécois was not in agreement with the unanimous consent. I make no judgment about the basis for the motion; it is just that we were not consulted before the motion was moved in the House.

[Artifacts, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment told us yesterday that the government was willing to enter into discussions with the Gaspé community about returning to the Gaspé items belonging to people expropriated in Forillon, nothing has yet been confirmed. All the same, it is novel to see the government open to dialogue.

But what is the minister waiting for to put a stop to his plan to store artifacts that are part of the history of Quebec and New France far from their place of origin? He should keep them where they currently are, in the care of experts. And what is good for Forillon is also good for Saint-Maurice, for Fort Saint-Louis and for the Quebec Service Centre.

[Parks Canada, May 30th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment responsible for Parks Canada for her answer.

Despite her answer, however, I still have a number of concerns about the conservation of Quebec's artifacts. It is important to understand that the most common approach in archaeological circles is to keep artifacts as close to their place of discovery or of origin as possible. Keeping collections from Quebec or Forillon in a warehouse in Gatineau will not make these relics of our history and our past more accessible to the community.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment to think about whether it is appropriate to house this collection in places that are not accessible, when the collection is important to the history of Quebec. The minister should respond to the request made by the Musée de la Gaspésie to repatriate these artifacts from the Gaspé to their place of origin, in Forillon.

[Parks Canada, May 30th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, something truly frightening is happening within Parks Canada, which is also responsible for many historic sites.

We have heard about the government's decision to eliminate nearly 1,700 jobs at Parks Canada. As a result of this decision, across Canada and especially in Quebec—where 300 positions are being eliminated—there will be an irreversible loss of fundamental expertise in the understanding of our past.

Archeologists, historians, conservators, interpretive guides, specialists in the understanding of our past—from New France to the Forillon expropriation. Some will see their jobs disappear, while others will have their ability to do their jobs seriously undermined.

As pointed out by the archeology professors of the Université Laval in an open letter:

The Government of Canada—as the owner of this research and conservation infrastructure and these historic sites that play a central role in our Canadian identity—must assume its responsibilities. It must not limit itself to merely the static management of these sites, but it must renew their heritage content by documenting them, studying them and animating them, based on new knowledge so that Canadians can become more familiar with them.

The Association des archéologues du Québec shares those sentiments:

Following a Canadian government accounting procedure based, in our opinion, on a narrow interpretation of what heritage represents, Parks Canada conducted a self-mutilation exercise that is having a profound impact on the qualified and dedicated staff... This is an attack against Quebec's identity. We can only empathize with them over the inhumanity of these cuts.

This makes me think of the people who were forced out of Forillon when Forillon Park was created in 1970, who had to leave their homes and their villages to make room for a national park. This park, leased to the federal government for 99 years, was still full of items belonging to the former residents, objects that have been kept in Quebec for the most part. The Conservative government is now adding insult to injury by taking these objects and sending them to storage in Ottawa despite the fact Gaspé Peninsula residents had asked that the objects be transferred to the Musée de la Gaspésie, which already has an exhibit on the Forillon expropriation.

Again, according to the archeologists:

When the time comes, we will be there to remind elected officials of this dogmatic management based on a clear lack of knowledge and vision. Parks Canada made an unexplainable decision to centralize all the collections in the Ottawa area, including those kept at the Service de la Gare maritime in Quebec City... Faced with the real possibility of a confrontation with the Government of Quebec, the [federal] government has backed down to some extent and is now saying that the collections of artifacts and items of ethno-historical significance will not leave Quebec and will be stored on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River.

This clarification may have somewhat defused the possibility of a conflict between Quebec and Ottawa, but this situation remains a terrible injustice for the regions of Quebec, particularly Quebec City, which is being stripped of its own material culture. Is it normal for researchers who are interested in collections of precious pieces of world heritage to have to travel over 400 kilometres to consult or study them?

Well, Madam Speaker, allow me to respond to the Association des archéologues du Québec. No. It is not normal. The federal government is stealing Quebec's historical artifacts. The CBC even reported that the government was trying to sell artifacts to collectors and private museums. It is outrageous.

Back home in the Gaspé, the Musée de la Gaspésie called for the repatriation of artifacts to do with the expropriation of Forillon. The Quebec government, which has other fish to fry—as we all know—was concerned about this decision and requested a meeting with the minister. Here are my questions for the minister.

Did the minister intend to meet with Quebec’s Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women? Can he commit to keeping the artifacts in their current location, surrounded by the appropriate experts? Will the government entertain the request by the Musée de la Gaspésie and leave the Forillon artifacts in a place that suits the people of the Gaspé? Finally, when does he intend to stop attacking Quebec's history?

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010 the Conservatives legalized the looting of $57 billion from the employment insurance fund. By 2016, another $16 billion will have been taken away from employers and employees. The government is now proposing a reform to reduce benefits for workers who lose their jobs. Let us be honest: the employment insurance program has become a cash cow for the government.

Since the government is treating employment insurance as no more than a tax on working, why does it not transfer responsibility for it to Quebec, which former chief actuary Michel Bédard says would be better able to protect its workers, at a lower cost?