Mario Laframboise

[An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for her question. Her imagery does reflect a particular reality. It proves that the Conservatives are still speaking in double talk. They recognize the Quebec nation, but they do not want to allow direct negotiations with the government of Quebec about federal lands on Quebec soil, concerning the future, the sale or the purchase of those lands, or anything else. This is difficult because we are supposed to have moved on. We should be able to modernize the National Capital Act, to make the commission members understand that, no, they cannot make decisions about this. They are not elected, and when they are dealing with matters that relate to the territory that is constitutionally within the boundaries that were assigned and recognized for Quebec and Ontario in the past, they may not make decisions without the authorization of Quebec or Ontario.

Obviously, once again, what surprises me is that the government sometimes introduces a bill and then we say that we will improve it in committee. Well, we realized very early on that this is a strategy on the part of the Conservatives and that the New Democratic Party has fallen for it. Once again, we are debating this bill in this House, and as I was saying earlier, we are going to vote for it so we can improve it in committee, so that our colleagues in the NDP and the Conservative Party clearly understand what a mess they are getting themselves into.

[An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts. This is not the first time I have spoken to such a bill.

Bill C-20 was introduced following the prorogation, but had previously been introduced on June 9, 2009 under a different number, before Parliament was prorogued. At the time, important statements were made by the hon. member for Pontiac, because Gatineau Park borders the Outaouais region.

The Outaouais region includes four ridings, namely Hull—Aylmer, Pontiac, Gatineau and Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, which I represent in this place. I have one foot in the Laurentians and the other in the Outaouais region.

As the former chair of the Conseil régional de développement de l'Outaouais, I can say that Gatineau Park has definitely always been important to me. This park, which occupies more than 360 km², is a federal property on Quebec soil.

Everyone knew that, at some point, the National Capital Act would have to be amended and modernized. I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which received the June 9, 2009 version of this legislation. The committee will now have to review Bill C-20, which is before us.

I was in favour of modernizing this legislation, particularly since the community had set up a committee to make recommendations. I am not going to speak at length about this committee, which is made up of volunteers and which proposed interesting recommendations.

When I looked at the June 9, 2009 version of the bill, I had some reservations. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I was proud to welcome to the committee the member for Gatineau, whose riding is closer to Gatineau Park and is part of the territory covered by the National Capital Commission. I am a member from the Outaouais, but my riding is located outside the territory that is under the National Capital Commission.

We benefited from the nice contribution made by my colleague for Gatineau. He takes an interest in the land covered by Gatineau Park, because his constituents ask him questions on this issue. It is not just an area: it is a park used by the public.

So, it is important to see how the federal government, which owns the land, manages this park for the benefit of the community. I was keeping abreast of this major issue in the local media. I thought the bill would put to rest most of the concerns I had at the time, when I was chair of the Conseil régional de développement de l'Outaouais.

One of the main concerns was the presence of the Quebec government at the table. We cannot have a federal property managed by the National Capital Commission and make changes to the National Capital Act without taking into consideration the Quebec government, which must make important decisions regarding its whole territory.

In this bill to amend the National Capital Act, I was surprised to see that the government of Quebec and that of Ontario—since part of the land managed by the National Capital Commission is located in Ontario—are not involved in the discussions.

The NDP member said that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities works well, and it is true.

I have been a member of the committee since 2000. We have always been fairly pragmatic, and it is no secret that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities takes a logical approach to issues.

We need to leave partisan politics aside as much as possible and try to resolve issues and problems one by one, in a logical manner. Members are familiar with the good parent concept. What would a good parent do in a given situation? That is how I have always acted at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

If we are going to update the National Capital Act, why not do it right? When the time comes to once again discuss the acquisition of land, for example in Gatineau Park, why not consider what the provincial governments—of Quebec and Ontario—think, and consider the letters that have been sent to the member for Pontiac from the Government of Quebec?

I will not read out these letters written by Minister Pelletier, who was the minister responsible for the Outaouais in the Quebec National Assembly at the time. He was a Liberal minister who had no ties to the Parti Québécois or the Bloc Québécois. In 2007, he wrote a letter to express his interest in participating in discussions, because the bill provided for some very important additions, including the creation of a national interest land mass, which would allow the NCC to designate any land as part of this mass, and to proceed with the acquisition process. I am thinking of Gatineau Park and other land in the city of Gatineau and the surrounding area.

The same thing could happen in Ontario. The Bloc Québécois heard about a letter from Minister Pelletier, who was a member from Gatineau, in the Outaouais. He represented a riding at the National Assembly. Minister Pelletier wrote to the member for Pontiac, a member from the Outaouais, to say that the Government of Quebec must be involved in discussions regarding the national interest land mass. The Government of Quebec had to participate in these discussions and be involved in the decision. It was not simply a matter of consulting the Government of Quebec.

We are talking about land that is in Quebec. This Parliament has recognized the Quebec nation. Obviously, it comes up often and the Conservative members constantly repeat that they have recognized the Quebec nation. But the problem is that there is a world of difference between the recognition and applying this recognition. There is a world of difference and a sea of Conservatives that prevent these debates.

In committee I felt that we should have been able to make the Conservative members understand that we were updating the National Capital Act. And one way of updating the act would be to require that provincial governments—Ontario and Quebec—be involved in discussions about land acquisition and policies. The master plan will inevitably have an impact on land in Quebec and Ontario. Quebec and Ontario must be given a proportional number of seats at these discussions.

If we are talking about updating the act, we should actually do it. I can understand that the reporting committee was comprised of people from the area, citizens who participated in the debate. They were far removed from political concerns, but once the bill is passed and we want to update it, political concerns are obligatory, especially when the possibility of property or whatever being bought and sold affects land belonging to Quebec and Ontario.

Obviously, the Conservative representatives would not budge. Knowing my Conservative colleagues on the committee, I would say that this is not coming from them because they are usually open to negotiation. There was an official order.

We asked the National Capital Commission chair to appear and we will do so again when we examine Bill C-20. We realized that this bill represents the wishful thinking of NCC administrators who would like it to be a deciding body regarding federal land in Quebec and Ontario, even though they are not elected.

Understandably, we have many reservations. I think the Liberal Party also has many reservations. The NDP—we will see what happens when it is time to study Bill C-20—appeared to support it, but based on the speeches, I think the NDP members are beginning to have some doubts.

I was very surprised to see how reluctant the Conservative members were to enter into negotiations with Quebec or Ontario regarding lands within Quebec and Ontario. I was also surprised that those provinces were not given seats at the negotiating table or that a formal recommendation was not required from the Quebec National Assembly if there is to be any change to the total area or any land is sold. After all, we are talking about land that falls within the borders of Quebec and Ontario.

Quebec did not sign the Canadian Constitution, but the fact remains that the Constitution gives the provinces and territories certain rights. This bill ignores that fact. That is worrisome. The Conservatives say they want to update the legislation, so they introduced a bill to update the National Capital Act, to bring it in line with 2010, yet they are ignoring a slew of complaints and demands.

Through then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Benoît Pelletier, the Government of Quebec wrote directly to the hon. member for Pontiac, who was the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities at the time and responsible for the National Capital Commission. Mr. Pelletier said the act could not be amended in any way, especially regarding this new concept of “national interest land mass”, there could be no discussion and no decisions made without the consent of the Government of Quebec or the Government of Ontario.

No one is trying to take away any rights Ontario may have in that regard.

I thought this could have been negotiated easily in committee. Before prorogation, we were conducting the clause-by-clause review and we could sense that the Conservative government had many reservations. After the prorogation, the Conservative government introduced the new bill before us today, Bill C-20. I thought the government would have taken the opportunity to listen to us. We had already submitted our lists of amendments. We believed that, after the discussions, the government would have taken the opportunity to update the law or the new bill. That is not the case.

The Conservatives are digging their heels in, probably because they believe they may have the support of the NDP.

We are in favour of sending Bill C-20 to committee. Our objective today is to send Bill C-20 to committee for amendment.

I will take this opportunity to send a message to the NDP, often considered the centralizing party. If it decides to support the Conservatives and once again centralize the power to make decisions about Quebec or Ontario lands in the hands of the National Capital Commission, it will be maintaining its centralizing approach, which the Conservative Party wants to take advantage of in this matter.

I would like to say to my Conservative colleagues that, if they are not a centralizing party, they should not give the centralizing powers that it does not wish to give itself to an organization comprised of unelected officials, the members of the NCC board of directors. That is what they are doing. They are handing over the power to purchase and sell Quebec and Ontario land to an organization that is at arm's length from Parliament, without the say of the House of Commons and, even worse, without any authorization from Quebec and Ontario.

The CEO said that they would be consulted. They are consulted, but it is the commission that makes the decisions and its members are not elected. That was the message from the CEO of the NCC, a very nice Quebecker. She said that the committee established to make recommendations found that it was reasonable for the National Capital Commission to make the decisions because it was not a government jurisdiction. It seems that the members of the board of directors are experts and that they will make decisions about the purchase and sale of land.

With this new concept of national interest land mass, non-elected officials would make the decision to dispose of or acquire lands in Quebec and Ontario or do whatever they want with them, with no legislative decision by the House of Commons. It is laughable. Even worse, they would do so without the authorization of the governments of Quebec and Ontario, just because these people represent a federal agency that is not subject to provincial laws. The NCC, in addition to the members of the House of Commons, controls these lands. It is quite something.

Sometimes, democracy can be set back for a good cause. That is what the government is doing with Bill C-20, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts. The government is knowingly giving non-elected officials powers that belong in theory to elected officials. The NDP seems to be the Conservative government's willing partner in this.

This brings me to the minister, the member for Pontiac. That is not how I know him. When he was a member of the National Assembly, he always had respect for the laws of Quebec and Ontario, because they are important parts of Canada's Constitution. One can try to set them aside, which is what the National Capital Commission would like to do with the new powers it is asking for in this bill. These administrators can always decide to consult Quebec and Ontario, two provinces that, alone, account for at least half the people of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois will reach out as it has always done. I am glad my NDP colleague said the transport committee has always worked well. We have always taken a logical approach and tried to act as a good parent would. What would a good parent do in this case? I do not believe a good parent would give responsibility for lands in Quebec and Ontario to an agency run by non-elected officials who could decide to buy or sell them.

We are talking about lands as important as a park. I did not talk about the greenbelt in Ontario, but I am talking about Gatineau Park. We are talking about giving non-elected officials responsibility for lands in Quebec and Ontario, without letting the House of Commons have any kind of say.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for her question. I know that she cares deeply about everything to do with arts and culture. Here is a perfect example.

When we ask the government to give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation any time a program encroaches on provincial jurisdiction, we have one long-standing claim in mind with respect to culture. Quebec wants its own Quebec CRTC, or rather, its own Quebec RTC, so that it can control certain decisions. This week, the federal government refused to support the FrancoFolies de Montréal. What could be a better expression of the French fact than the FrancoFolies?

The federal government is spending that money instead of passing it on to Quebec by allowing it to opt out with full compensation. Opting out would enable Quebec to make its own spending decisions, but the federal government is taking that money and spending it in Quebec. It is taking a piecemeal approach for purely political reasons, but it has once again forsaken the French fact. Refusing to provide all of the funding that FrancoFolies organizers asked for will threaten an organization that promotes francophone culture on a global scale.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech before question period, I spoke of the rigour with which the Bloc Québécois was acting in every situation. At our seminar on the weekend, the person who introduced the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his speech was the president of the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick. He expressed to us his deep sympathy for the work of the Bloc Québécois in defending the French fact and his profound conviction that, if Quebec ever became a country, it would continue to extend its influence throughout North America—the only francophone territory in North America—and would help to win respect for the rights of francophones everywhere in North America.

I thank my colleague for the opportunity he gives me to speak about the way that the Bloc Québécois works together with francophone communities all across Canada. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has just conducted a tour on which he met with the senior leaders of the francophone groups of Canada, and the message was so clear that one of those francophone groups, the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, came to our seminar to talk to us about the support it is providing for our cause and for defence of the French fact in New Brunswick. The message from this association was that if Quebec were a country, it would have the chance to extend the influence of French throughout North America.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech before question period I was mentioning the results of a survey which the Bloc Québécois conducted with the Intellectuels pour la souveraineté du Québec, a survey carried out from March 18 to April 6. There were 1,001 respondents in Quebec and 1,007 respondents in Canada outside Quebec.

There continues to be a strong impression in Quebec. Many Quebeckers would like to see Canada reformed. About 45% of the population is in favour of sovereignty, but Quebeckers have a very strong desire to reform Canada. What we are trying to get Quebeckers and Canadians to understand is that Canada is not going to reform itself.

In the survey, when Quebeckers are asked whether a new division of powers and resources should be negotiated between Quebec and Ottawa so that Quebec is recognized as having special status, 73% of Quebeckers say yes and 71% of Canadians say no. When asked whether the Quebec government should have more powers to protect the French language and culture, 82% of Quebeckers say yes and 69% of Canadians say no. Should the Government of Canada respect in Quebec the provisions of Bill 101, which makes French the only official language in Quebec? To this question, 90% of Quebeckers say yes and 74% of Canadians say no. When Quebeckers are asked whether they are Quebeckers, French Canadians or Canadians, 67% say Quebecker, 21% say Canadian and 12% say French Canadian. In 1995, however, 47% of Quebeckers called themselves Quebeckers

Quebeckers must be made to understand that Canada is not going to reform itself.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward by our House leader, the member for Joliette. I will take the time to read it again for the members, for you, Mr. Speaker, and for those who are watching us.

That this House acknowledge that federalism cannot be renewed, since 20 years after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec still does not have the power to choose three justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, or to opt out with compensation from federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction, nor does it have a real veto over constitutional amendments and its status as a nation still has not been recognized in the Canadian Constitution.

It is important. Indeed, 20 years after the Meech Lake accord, we have to ask ourselves some questions, and that is exactly what the Bloc did. In fact, no one in the House has ever questioned the seriousness with which the Bloc approaches every issue. Obviously, the post-Meech analysis, 20 years later, had to be done properly, and that is what the Bloc Québécois did.

We conducted a survey and it is important that we report the results to the House to show the position of Quebeckers and their expectations 20 years after the Meech Lake accord, as well as the position of Canadians. The survey was conducted just recently, between March 18 and April 6, 2010. There were 1,001 respondents in Quebec and 1,007 in Canada, outside Quebec. The results from Canada do not include the results from Quebec. The margin of error is plus or minus 3%. I say it, but when one hears the results, one understands that the difference is so significant that the margin of error is not even an issue.

I am the chief organizer for the Bloc Québécois, which means that political structure is of great interest to me. So I am going to say very nicely that, for the last 30 years, federalist pollsters have used a particular measure to qualify Quebeckers. In their polls, they ask Quebeckers if they consider themselves Quebeckers, French Canadians or Canadians. It is important because many of my Conservative colleagues ripped their shirts in the House today to say they were Canadians. It would be important for them to hear what their constituents think about that.

In 2010, when Quebeckers are asked whether they consider themselves Quebeckers, French Canadians or Canadians, 67% say they are Quebeckers, 21% that they are Canadians, and 12% that they are French Canadians. In 1995, when the referendum was held, 47% of Quebeckers considered themselves to be Quebeckers. It is important that Quebeckers and Canadians listening to this debate understand clearly that as time goes by and Quebeckers change, more of them will consider themselves Quebeckers rather than Canadians, and their natural response will be that they are Quebeckers.

This is important because our questionnaire asked what Quebeckers and Canadians think of Quebec's place in Canada. Here are some of the questions asked in this opinion poll. Should the Canadian Constitution recognize that Quebec is a nation? A resolution was passed in the House of Commons to recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation. Should Canada's Constitution recognize Quebec's nationhood, and should that concept be enshrined in the Constitution? Seventy-three percent of Quebeckers think that it should, and 27% do not. In the rest of Canada, we have the exact opposite, with 83% of Canadians thinking that Quebec's nationhood should not be enshrined in the Constitution, and 17% thinking that it should. We have two completely different perspectives on Quebec's place in Canada.

Should Canada undertake a new round of negotiations to find a constitutional agreement that is acceptable to Quebec? Many Quebeckers think there are still three options: stay in Canada as it is, become a new country and separate from Canada, or modernize Canada.

This is what many Quebeckers think. Between March 18 and April 6, Canadians and Quebeckers were asked the following questions.

In response to the statement, “Canada should initiate a new round of negotiations in order to find a constitutional arrangement satisfactory to Quebec”, 82% of Quebeckers said a new round of negotiations is necessary while 61% of Canadians said the opposite.

Here is another question: “A new division of powers and resources must be negotiated between Quebec and Ottawa in order to give Quebec special status”. It is no surprise that 73% of Quebeckers said they want Quebec to have recognized special status within Canada while 71% of Canadians said no. Quebec considers itself to be a nation and was recognized as such by the House of Commons, which gives it special status.

In Quebec, language issues have been the subject of much debate. This gave rise to Bill 101, which was created to protect the French language. That is why one cannot poll Quebeckers on Quebec's place in Canada without asking a question about language. In response to the statement, “The Quebec government should have greater power to protect French language and culture”, 82% of Quebeckers said yes and 69% of Canadians said no.

Once again in the last few months, the Supreme Court thwarted Quebec on the subject of bridging schools. These are the schools that were created to allow Francophones to access the English school system, which by law they are not permitted to do. Once more, 69% of Canadians said Quebec does not need more powers to protect its language while 82% of Quebeckers said the opposite.

In response to the statement, “The Canadian government should respect the provisions of Bill 101, which makes French the only official language in Quebec’s territory”, 90% of Quebeckers said yes and 74% of Canadians said no.

There is another question—

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member used the word “wisdom“ when he talked about the motions adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly. Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Finance, along with a majority of representatives from the Quebec business sector, denounced the creation of a centralized securities commission based in Toronto.

I would like to know why, with all his wisdom, he is about to impose a measure that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously denounced. Now, it is the business sector which opposes the move. How can the member justify taking a stand against what Quebec wants?

[Agri-Food, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a good policy that no one agrees with it.

With its unrealistic rule for defining products that are “Made in Canada”, the Conservative government is hurting the agri-food industry by creating uncertainty and by imposing additional fees. The 98% rule is ridiculous. Not even grandma's apple pie would meet the minister's requirements. It is shameful.

When will the minister get on with it and implement the 85% rule the entire industry is calling for?

[Agri-Food, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the priceless Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture announced an umpteenth consultation process to solve the problem of labelling products as “Made in Canada”. If the government had waited for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's hearings on the subject to end before imposing the 98% rule, it would have avoided making our food producers and processors pay additional fees.

Why is the minister imposing a new industry deadline when everyone agrees on the 85% rule?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for sharing his perspective on this issue. As he said, members of his own family were or are in the Canadian Forces. He understands that if we want to renew our armed forces, if we want the qualified personnel we need, we have to offer better working conditions and support for mental health needs. We need to prioritize support for problems caused by accidents or physical problems because that is part of the working conditions.

We have to be able to tell our young men and women that we know they are risking their lives, and that if anything bad ever happens to them, they will get help. We need to stop buying them war toys and make sure that these young men and women get the same working conditions as other workers. All other workers, whether they are in the construction industry or some other industry, are covered by workplace accident laws. Those workers get support. We have to do at least that much for our military personnel or nobody will want to join the armed forces.