Michel Guimond

[Question No.100—, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst spoke from the heart and I would like to do the same. We all know that he is a very compassionate man. Unfortunately, the flu I have been fighting for the last two weeks will prevent me from bringing as much passion as he did to this debate, which I tend to do at times.

I just want to remind the hon. member that he can name his predecessor, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, his predecessor, the one who was elected with the Liberal government in 1993, when referring to him in the House. His name is Doug Young. As transport minister at the time, he was my counterpart for a few years until the current member for Acadie—Bathurst was kind enough to send him packing.

[Employment Insurance, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that what we expect from her is to transfer the necessary moneys, so that Quebec can take control of its whole family policy, including the parental leave.

Does the minister realize that, through her attitude and in spite of the nice rhetoric, the only message that she is sending to these workers is that she is totally indifferent to their plight?

[Employment Insurance, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development always answers with statistics, like a true technocrat.

She trivializes issues by saying that only a “small minority” is affected: a minority of pregnant female workers, a minority of parents who do not qualify for parental leave, a minority of self-employed workers.

Could the minister set her technocratic approach aside and realize that these “small minorities”, as she calls them, are people, human beings who expect her to transfer the necessary moneys that will allow Quebec to take charge—

[Softwood Lumber, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute has now reached an impasse. The Americans have not come up with any counter-proposal and are offering no guarantees regarding the return to free trade. In the meantime, it is companies in Quebec and Canada, and their workers, who are paying the price for this government's inability to settle the matter. Yesterday, the parliamentary secretary referred to assistance that some companies might receive from Export Development Canada.

Will the parliamentary secretary assure us that in addition to large companies, small and medium sized businesses will also be able to rely on such assistance?

[Courts Administration Service Act, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. It consolidates the administrative services already in place under a chief administrator. This bill also creates a Court Martial Appeal Court and makes justices of the Federal Tax Court into justices of the Superior Court .

The first amendment had been needed for some years, and in fact reflects the organization chart already in place for the other courts, both federal and provincial, that is a court of first instance, or trial court, and an appeal court. The third is a matter of terminology only, not changing the powers and duties of these judges in any way.

I wish to point out to begin with that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of protecting the principles of impartiality and independence of the judiciary from any interference by the executive and legislative branches of government. We are, however, forced to admit that the Minister of Justice, a Quebecer to boot, has not seen fit to extend this protection to the mechanisms for selecting the chief administrator, by having a call for nominations from which the final selection would be made by the House and not by appointment by the governor in council.

When we see that a bill states that appointments are to be made by the governor in council, this is just a roundabout way of saying, “We want to continue the system of patronage we have at present”. The governor in council is in fact a body composed of none other than the Prime Minister and the PMO, which decides on certain appointments. This takes us back to the standard demand by the Bloc Quebecois that these appointments need to be submitted to democratic screening the House and its committees.

If the government, which often makes the claim of transparency, has nothing to hide, why does it allow this power to be left in the hands of the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Privy Council, which is really nothing but the Prime Minister's department?

This bill could be more effective if it respected the concept of appearance of justice by giving preference to the selection of candidates, rather than a governor in council appointment. The Bloc Québécois presented an amendment in committee to call for nominations in order to select the chief administrator. As members can imagine, given the Liberal majority sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this amendment was rejected. We believe that the suggestion made by the Bloc Québécois could have preserved the independence of the bench and protected it from government interference.

While an independent administrative body is created, its administrator remains under the authority of the executive branch, namely the Prime Minister's Office, because of the appointment process itself. Why did the government not also want to preserve the independence of the chief administrator?

There is a contradiction here and, as parliamentarians, we are greatly disappointed by that. We were hoping for more. Given the government's intention to undertake a reform in this area, it would have been desirable to extend its scope to the fullest.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois feels that the objectives mentioned in the preamble of the bill, which include co-ordinating activities between the various federal courts an increasing judicial independence and responsibilities regarding the use of public moneys, must be supported.

In spite of the flaw relating to the appointment process of the chief administrator, the Bloc Québécois feels that the protection of the principle of judicial independence must prevail. This being said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-30 at third reading.

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate on this bill with other colleagues from my party. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, on the work that he has done as the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment.

First, the Bloc Quebecois recognizes the importance of this matter, as indeed, some species are at risk, to the point where some are close to extinction, which makes the situation very serious, if not critical.

This being said, we need to consider Bill C-5 from two different perspectives. First, we must ask ourselves whether or not Bill C-5 really provides additional protection that can be enforced. Second, we must ask ourselves if it will really contribute to enhancing the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that make up these ecosystems.

We believe that the answer to these two questions is no. I would like to use the time provided for me to specify why this bill does not constitute an effective means to act.

First, we must point out that Quebec has already acted in this area over the years, and acted in a very decisive way in the late 1980s. Indeed, Quebec passed the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989. It also passed the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations.

These three legal supports provide Quebec with all the tools required in order to identify species at risk, to legally designate them as threatened or at risk, to protect their habitat and to develop implementation plans that are tailor made to restore and provide sufficient protection for species and habitat that are in a precarious situation.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois completely supports the underlying principle of providing additional protection for species. We heard answers from the Minister of the Environment and member for Victoria, in British Columbia, given to questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. He stated that the Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the protection of endangered species, that the Bloc Quebecois does not care about them.

I will forewarn you that he will use what I would term malicious tactics to try to interpret my words as indicative of the Bloc Quebecois position. I will deprive him right away of any chance of doing so—let him listen carefully, I repeat—the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the principle of enhanced protection for endangered species. Is that clear?

We do not, however, believe that Bill C-5 can make it possible to protect endangered species any better.

In fact, we are opposed to this bill because we consider this, once again, an intrusion into areas that are wholly under the jurisdiction of Quebec. There is a direct overlap with the Quebec legislation, which has been in place since 1989.

My colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, has made a public commitment to the Canadian Nature Federation to speak to the Quebec Minister of the Environment on the need to review the 1989 legislation with a view to improving it and bringing it up to date. We acknowledge that between 1989 and 2002, with the changes occurring in ecosystems, with new elements such as acid rain and all manner of climate changes, there is a need for updating the legislation. This is a commitment my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie has made to the public. He has therefore made a commitment to ask the Quebec environment minister to improve the 1989 statute and to bring it up to speed as far as the serious situation of endangered species is concerned.

We believe that this bill is liable to create more red tape rather than to make it possible for the limited resources to be properly channeled where they can do the most good. We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that the Government of Quebec is already legislating in the areas addressed by Bill C-5. While acknowledging the urgency of improving the implementation of these statutes, we do not believe that Bill C-5 will make it possible to achieve the results it is claimed to be able to achieve.

While we recognize that the environment is a responsibility shared by the federal government and the provinces, it is increasingly clear to us that the federal government is ignoring this fact by going completely against a true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government. Indeed, instead of assuming as it should its major responsibilities—among other things, implementation of the Kyoto protocol comes to mind—the federal government stubbornly keeps taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it.

Instead of trying to act effectively where it should, it prefers to invade areas in which the provinces are already doing an adequate job—I did not say perfect, I said adequate—even though there may be room for improvement. This is in fact why the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is making representations to the Quebec minister of the environment.

Moreover, 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. Both levels can say “I feel that I am not doing the right thing, but it is the other one's fault”. This is what happens when the government wants to overmanage and overgovern. It is always easier to shift responsibility to someone else by involving a number of stakeholders.

In conclusion, Bill C-5 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 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.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes the principle of Bill C-5 today.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the same question of privilege, I would like to add to the words of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance; however, I want to specify that we must in no way construe this as questioning the skills and intellectual honesty of Mr. François-R. Bernier, who is an asset for the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. His skills and impartiality have never been questioned.

I also read the article in the February 18 edition of the Hill Times. There is obviously a problem that you should deal with. When Mr. Bernier signed this article, he did so as general counsel of the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We must make a distinction between the opinion of the reader and the opinion of the citizen who has the right to express it.

The point that I want to make is this. The role of the legislative general counsel must be neutral and free of any partisanship—as my colleague who spoke before me has mentioned—as must be the function of speaker that you are holding, Mr. Speaker. But we can also include the function of the clerk, of the library researcher and of the legislative counsel. As parliamentarians, we must receive free and independent advice from people who put political debates aside.

Political debates are held by elected members, here in the House. I would therefore like to join the previous speaker in asking you to deal with this issue.

[Foreign Affairs, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as yesterday, the European Council asked the United Nations and the security council to pass a resolution creating an international tribunal with a mandate to clarify the legal status of the prisoners captured by the Americans.

Given the confusion still reigning within the Canadian government, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what position Canada intends to take at the UN regarding the creation of this international tribunal?

[Foreign Affairs, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government says it is happy with the Americans' clarification regarding the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan. But this clarification has not actually clarified anything at all. All that we can conclude is that the government is choosing to interpret the Geneva convention in such a way that it is not really bound by it. Letting a government judge its own case may lead to some arbitrary decisions.

In this context, is the government favourable to the creation of an international tribunal for issues having to do with the war in Afghanistan?

[Golden Jubilee, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today, Elizabeth II acceded to the British throne. Very few heads of state have been in place for so long and have been a witness to so many historical events. The Bloc Quebecois would therefore like to take the opportunity to salute the Queen and Prince Philip, who are today celebrating the golden jubilee of her accession to the throne.

Like the great majority of Quebecers, the members of the Bloc Quebecois do not feel that they come under the British crown and do not consider themselves its subjects. Certain episodes in the history of the francophones of America, such as the deportation of the Acadians, still rankle.

As for the British people, we want them to know that the Bloc Quebecois greets them in fraternal friendship and hopes they will have a wonderful and joyous celebration.

The respect and sometimes profound attachment felt by certain Canadians to the crown is owed recognition. Other peoples and other individuals throughout the world have attachments as well to the British crown and to the monarch.

To all those for whom this event holds significance, the Bloc Quebecois wishes a joyous celebration.