Michel Guimond

[Petitions, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by rural mail couriers. These people often earn less than minimum wage.

They are calling for their working conditions, which are reminiscent of another era, to be adjusted.

[Tax Credits, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, two most unfortunate occurrences took place as a result of totally legitimate questions that were asked by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. First of all, in order to maintain decorum in this House, I would like clarification from you on something before we continue.

In response to a question from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the mnister of public works said, as you heard very well, that the hon. member should not “play with the truth”. I would like to know whether the expression “play with the truth” is parliamentary.

If you are not in a position to give me a response today, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to get back to us on that. If the expression is deemed unparliamentary, I would like the minister of public works to withdraw the expression “play with the truth”.

Second, reacting to another legitimate question from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik clearly, and those of us on this side heard it, called the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie a liar. I would therefore ask the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to withdraw the word.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

That hurts, Mr. Speaker.

The minister does not know in advance what the question will be. When a member of the Bloc Quebecois rises to defend Quebec's interests, the ministers opposite do not have the questions.

It is important to inform the public about that. When a Liberal minister is asked a question by a member of the Liberal majority, let it be known that the question has been forwarded to the minister ahead of time. The answer is written by the minister's assistants. It is known in advance.

I would like my colleague from Champlain to comment on that.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you are not too disappointed that the Montreal Canadians lost last night. We know that your son, Chad Kilger, wears jersey No. 25 for the Montreal Canadians. You will understand that, as a resident of Quebec City, I do not really cry when the Montreal Canadians lose a game.

That being said, I want to congratulate my colleague from Champlain who travelled all through the province last autumn and winter to galvanize the community into action and to raise public awareness.

The whole issue was addressed in an unanimous report tabled by the committee; there was no dissenting opinion. Who is the member who set out on a tour of all the regions in Quebec, pilgrim's staff in hand, and what party does he belong to? He is my colleague in the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Champlain.

I remember when he came to Beauport, in my riding, last March, on his 65th birthday. He is very much concerned about the situation of the elderly, since he can now say: “I am part of that age group”. You could never tell by his mental agility, because I believe that age has nothing to do with it. We sometimes see very young people who are not as keen minded as 75- or 80-year old people. Age has nothing to do with mental agility. I remember wishing happy birthday to my colleague for Champlain.

I have a two-part question for him. First, I would like him to tell the House and every one watching us what support and cooperation he got from civil organizations to ensure that these 68,000 Quebecers could be found.

I remember the meeting that was held in Beauport. In attendance were representatives of FADOQ, the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, the local senior citizens club, the Society of Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, the Cercle des fermières, and parish councils from the surrounding area .

There was nothing partisan about that tour, as evidenced by the fact that two civil servants from Human Resources Development Canada came to take notes, to hear what the various groups had to say on this issue, to try to correct a situation that has been going on for too long.

With regard to this first part, I would like my colleague from Champlain to elaborate on the co-operation that he has received from certain groups involved with seniors, with low income Canadians, or from people who are active in their communities. I would like him to elaborate on that.

The second part has to do with information for those who watch our debates on television. I remember a question the member for Frontenac—Mégantic put in the House to the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister thanked the member—who, incidentally, belongs to the same party as the minister—for taking an interest in this issue.

When our colleague from Champlain directs questions to the Minister of Human Resources Development, they are not what we call planted questions. The minister does not know what the question will be—

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the report obtained under the Access to Information Act talks about overbilling, double billing, intimidation and ministerial interference.

Will the minister of public works admit that ministerial interference and the relationship between the government and its pet companies are not part of the auditor general's mandate, and that only through a public inquiry will we find out what really went on and who is responsible?

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the government received a damning report on the contract awarding process at Public Works Canada, in 2000, two years have gone by without any change being made to the existing system. Yet, during this period, $1,324,140 has been thrown away without any justification, just for advertising in L'Almanach du peuple .

Does not this complacency on the part of the government in itself justify a public inquiry? Should we not know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, why the government kept on with what it was doing, even though it knew?

[Excise Act, 2001, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-47. The House will remember that there are some worthwhile provisions in this bill, which essentially changes the excise tax.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the main problem with this bill is not in what it provides for, but in what it does not. We realize that, once again, abiding by the principle that one does not bite the hand that feeds him, the government has bowed down to the big breweries' lobby.

I am not an expert on the beer market, since I only drink a little beer once in a while, but we all know that, in Canada, the beer market is split between two large producers, Labatt and Molson.

A few years ago, maybe less than ten, a new phenomena appeared in Canada: microbreweries. Previously, as members will recall, we used to say that beer was the champagne of the poor. Since then, people have discovered the gastronomical and culinary qualities of beer.

Two years ago, in my riding, we had the Journées de la bière, in Beauport, which is fairly similar to the Festibière in Chambly. Unfortunately, it was not very well attended because of bad weather. We had the opportunity to sample new products made with new processes or with different grains. We all know that beer is the result of the fermentation of various grains.

We realize that the microbreweries' share of the market is expanding steadily in Canada and Quebec. In the last ten years, many microbreweries have sprung up. In our beer festival in Beauport, we even had workshops on fine cuisine to learn how to combine dishes using beer as an ingredient and how to prepare sauces or side dishes made with beer. People are getting more sophisticated. We now have different kinds of beer with fruit. We are finding out more about the potential of beer. And so, the entirely new microbrewery industry has developed, alongside the two major breweries.

Unfortunately, some of these microbreweries had to close because their production was inadequate for their survival, especially with the fierce competition of the two major breweries. Many microbreweries had to close.

Usually, those that survived in Quebec are to be found in the regions. They are not necessarily in an urban setting. In the east end of Montreal, for example, near the Jacques-Cartier bridge, we have the huge Molson brewery. In the west, in Ville Lasalle, we have a Labatt brewery.

To add some regional cachet, some regional flavour, these microbreweries are located outside of major centres, and as a result they can be found in many ridings.

My colleagues who spoke before me on this bill had the opportunity to mention it. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord knows quite well that there is a microbrewery in his riding, in Anse-Saint-Jean. I find his silence disappointing. I hope that workers at the microbrewery located in Anse-Saint-Jean will remind the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord of his position, or lack thereof, his laissez-faire attitude regarding Bill C-47. This bill contains no provision to help microbreweries, which deserve help.

As I said earlier, they are a tourist attraction in the regions. It is possible to add an economuseum to a microbrewery, visit the premises, and witness the fermentation and manufacturing processes, from raw materials all the way to the bottling stage.

Regionally a microbrewery is first and foremost a tool for economic development and to promote tourism. Considering the position of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, we think we will have to remind him of it.

He likes to show off here, trying to torpedo the Bloc, ridicule the work Bloc Quebecois members do. He is constantly predicting the demise of the Bloc Quebecois. However, he should be reminded that in 1993, when he was still the turn-coat member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, in those days he was still a tory, a former PQ member, he ran for the Conservative Party and was defeated by a Bloc member, Gilbert Filion. He should be reminded of that.

Sadly once again the government is doing nothing to listen to regions and those who do not have a monopoly or money to lobby. As I said earlier, you do not bite the hand that feeds you.

If you look at the Elections Canada site, you can see how much money the two major breweries give the Liberal Party. Incidentally, they give approximately the same to the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. It pays politically.

Go and look at the Elections Canada site. You will notice that the major breweries did not give $300,000 or $400,000 to the Bloc Quebecois. We prefer public financing coming from ordinary people who contribute $5, $10 or $20 to our election campaigns.

Thus, after the election, we owe nothing to large breweries. We owe our election to ordinary people who trusted us and who also had confidence that the members of the Bloc Quebecois would defend Quebec's interests.

The Bloc Quebecois has been working very hard on this issue. I also want to recognize my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, as well as my colleague from Drummond, for their contribution to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance; they both attended lengthy meetings that lasted for whole days and whole evenings. They were only doing their job. They were only doing what the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Drummond elected them to do, that is defend them and speak on their behalf in Ottawa.

That is the difference between a member of the Bloc Quebecois and a member of the Liberal majority, such as the members opposite, who only go to their riding to sell Ottawa's ideas and not the opposite.

Both our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance deserve to be congratulated. They were quickly isolated. We noticed that. It is sad to talk about the other opposition parties. It is sad to criticize the other opposition parties, because every time the opposition is divided on an issue, it suits the government.

However, when the opposition does not behave correctly, adequately or properly, we must condemn the situation. We must also condemn the flip flop of the Canadian Alliance on this issue of microbreweries. Apparently, it had told at the outset to my colleague of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc's finance critic, that it would approve the Bloc's position on microbreweries. After a while, the Canadian Alliance probably realized that it was receiving cheques, or the telephone started ringing; it caved in to the lobby of the major breweries.

The Bloc cannot accept Bill C-47 as introduced by the government.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the amendment to the amendment on second reading of Bill C-55. I will follow up on the comments made by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Incidentally, the name of his riding has two letters more than mine. Sometimes, people criticize me because the name of my riding is very long. I wish to congratulate my colleague for having held the employment insurance horror show, yesterday.

Let me explain how I want to address Bill C-55. The horror show I have just mentioned showed us how workers, particularly those who are unemployed, are the victims of injustices, including those that relate to the federal parental leave, to the older unemployed who have been forgotten by the federal government, to the plundering of the EI fund surplus, and to seasonal workers, who are the victims of the latest reform. I am using this analogy and these examples of injustices simply as an introduction to Bill C-55 as a whole.

It is very ironic to see that, 20 years ago, this government, this same party, unilaterally patriated the Constitution, under Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, who was then his principal adviser, henchman and Minister of Justice. We saw him sign, with the Queen, the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. On April 17, in reference to this sad event for Quebecers, the government, and particularly the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only alluded to one aspect of this event.

They only talked about the fact that this unilateral patriation gave Canada a charter of rights and freedoms. Sure, it gave us a charter of rights and freedoms, but they tried to fool us by using this a smokescreen, as a beekeeper does when he sprays some kind of a smokescreen to numb his bees while he collects the honey they produced.

So, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tried to numb us with this smokescreen by saying that, on April 17, 1982, Canada adopted a charter of rights and freedoms, but he refrained from alluding to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

It is ironic to see that this government, which is boasting about the fact that it gave Canada a charter of rights and freedoms, is taking advantage of this to introduce Bill C-55

Bill C-55 is a modified version of Bill C-42, nothing more, nothing less—sort of like “new” Coke. Thanks to the work of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties in the House, including some members of the Liberal caucus whom we must commend—and I say this in a non-partisan way—the government was told by its caucus that there were problems with Bill C-42.

As a result, the government stepped back, withdrew the bill and told justice officials to redo their homework in order to come up with a modified product, a substitute, which is Bill C-55

I would remind the government that Bill C-55 is no better than Bill C-42. Once again, within government benches, within the Liberal caucus, progressive voices are saying that Bill C-55 goes much too far in terms of restricting rights and freedoms. Thus the irony on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois believe that Bill C-55 continues to pose a threat to citizens' rights and freedoms. For this reason, it is our opinion that the bill absolutely must be amended to require that the government of Quebec and the governments of the provinces give their consent before a controlled access military zone can be declared on their territory. This is not just another virtual invasion; it is a physical invasion that the government could carry out using national security as an excuse. Under the pretext of terrorist threats, it could declare controlled access military zones.

For example, at the next G-8 summit, to be held in Kananaskis, Alberta, the government intends to create a controlled access military zone. Earlier, the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques quite rightly mentioned this. I would like to take this opportunity to repeat that the Armoury and the Citadel are located within Quebec City. A short distance away on the northwestern edge of the city lies the Valcartier military base. There are also other examples of military bases.

As members know, I come from the Saguenay, a region of which I am very proud. All my relatives still live there. My colleague from Jonquière worked very hard on the file concerning Russian MOX which was to go through the Bagotville base. This base plays an important role in North-American defence within NORAD.

This means that because the Bagotville military base is located in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area, the entire area could be designated a restricted access military zone, a controlled access military zone. This is ridiculous.

One person, the Minister of National Defence, is being given powers that are much too broad. I am leaving aside the actual personality of this minister.

I see that you are getting ready to warn me, Mr. Speaker. You look like you are not going to allow me to speak about this for very long. I well recall that we heard from the Minister of National Defence at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding his knowledge of the fact that the Americans had taken prisoners of war. The military and senior officials were not particularly full of praise about the ability of the present incumbent of the Defence portfolio, about his mental alertness. As they say, he was asleep at the switch for seven or eight days, our Minister of National Defence.

We will rise above the fray and leave aside the man's personality. Is it acceptable, reasonable, normal, in 2002 to agree to put so much power in the hands of one person? This is what Bill C-55 does. It gives the Minister of National Defence incredible powers.

An example of an entire region that could be designated a controlled access military zone is Quebec City, because the Citadel or the Armoury could be controlled access military zones.

For all these reasons, Bloc Quebecois members support the amendment to the amendment put forward by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie and are unable to vote in favour of Bill C-55 as it now stands.

[Species at Risk Act, May 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

Let me say, first of all, that the Bloc Quebecois cannot support that bill for various reasons, which I will try to explain. If we must oppose this bill, it is not just for the sake of opposing it. The subject matter is important and critical.

In my riding, Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, at this time of the year, the end of April and the beginning of May, we can observe the migration of snow geese, or Canada geese, all along the St. Lawrence River, in Beauport Bay, along the Beaupré Shore, in Cap Tourmente and on the shores of Île d'Orléans.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes that it is important to protect the ecosystems of Canada. However, this must be done in a context of respect for the jurisdictions of both levels of governments.

Before going further and giving the reasons why our party opposes this bill, I want to say that, if I set the record straight by specifying that we agree with the principle, it is simply to keep the government majority from coming back later with totally demagogical statements such as “Since the Bloc Quebecois voted against the species at risk bill, it is against the preservation of the species at risk”.

We heard this no later than this afternoon, during question period. Indeed, we heard the Minister of Human Resources Development explain why the Bloc Quebecois had voted against the cosmetic amendments to the employment insurance reform. These amendments allowed the government to continue to take money from the employment insurance surpluses. This is why we voted against the amendments. This does not mean that we were against everything in the bill.

Liberals are experts in putting up smoke screens, in lulling people by saying “Since that party voted against the bill, it is against any change”. This was totally false in the case of the employment insurance reform, even though we recognize that improvements are needed.

We voted against the amendments because the government keeps claiming the power to take money out of the employment insurance fund.

It is the same thing with this bill. It does not mean that we are against protecting some species at risk. We are against the way the government goes about it.

We are aware that environment is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. It is becoming more and more obvious that the federal government is ignoring this reality and moving away from true harmonization with all government orders on environmental issues.

Instead of properly carrying out its own major responsibilities, the federal government keeps trying to take over jurisdictions other than its own.

Instead of trying to better control and assess toxic substances, such as pest control products, to assess the impact of GMO on ecosystems or to deal with transboundary pollution and migrating species, it introduces legislation that goes well beyond its own jurisdiction and that could lead to unnecessary duplication in areas dealt with by the provinces with regard to their own territory and their resources.

Although Canada was one of the first industrialized country to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, need I remind the House that it was for a long time among the five countries refusing to sign the Protocol on Biosafety, which is a direct result of the convention.

The federal government's position on genetically modified organisms does not reflect the position that it wants to defend with this bill. Moreover, we feel that what the federal government calls a double safety net—that is two levels of government operating in the same jurisdiction—waters down the accountability of both and seriously complicates the assignment of responsibilities.

The Liberal government's claims regarding the importance of a national approach to protecting species go against the spirit of true environmental harmonization and ignore the provincial legislation already in effect as well as the significant progress made by some provinces.

This bill will only create duplication, at a time when resources are limited and it is important to maximize efforts in this area and channel them properly.

We believe that the government should take into consideration the opinion of certain groups which are voicing concerns. We have noticed that even environmental groups are opposed to this legislation. Even groups that should naturally be inclined to support this bill are opposing it. The government should ask itself whether there is enough public support for this bill.

I am also tempted to put my Liberal friends on the spot by asking them if there is enough support for this bill among government members. There appears to be serious dissent among Liberal members. I am anxious to see if they will behave like puppets on a string. I am anxious to see what Liberal members will do when the time comes to vote. I hope that those who, in all honesty and conscience, are saying that this bill does not make sense, will rise and continue to put pressure on their caucus and tell the government that this bill does not work.

I could talk about groups that came to meet us, elected officials and members of parliament. I could mention the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. I worked for 14 years in that industry, with the Abitibi Price company. I could talk about the concerns of the mining industry.

Just recently, last week in fact, I received representatives from the Quebec real estate board, which has certain concerns. We cannot turn a deaf ear to these concerns. It is true that, sometimes, they may be based on competing interests and, in this case, interests that are different from those of environmental groups. We must recognize that fact. However, a government cannot turn a deaf ear to protests from within its own ranks as well as from civil society groups.

In a democracy, when is compliance with an act more likely? When there is a social consensus that is strong enough. My understanding of our role as parliamentarians is to pass legislation on which a consensus can easily be reached. Instead of that, because they form the government and because they have a majority of seats, the members opposite think that they can ram legislation through no matter what the public thinks of it. A government must be responsive to the needs and concerns expressed by the people.

Often, when we attend social activities in our ridings on weekends, we can see that if there is one thing that people do not like about governments at all levels—this certainly does not help the credibility of politicians—it is the fact that they do not listen, that they are not responsive to their concerns.

In conclusion, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, recognize the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems, and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them, but we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go. For these reasons, we oppose this bill.

[Government Expenditures, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when one refers to one's predecessor, it is because things do not smell too good. The stench of scandal is spreading and, after the revelations made about Public Works Canada, we have now learned that Canadian heritage suffers from the same syndrome and is awarding contracts without calls for tenders.

Does the government realize that an independent public inquiry is becoming more urgent by the day?