Michel Guimond

[Auditor General's Report, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are glad the committee is meeting today, but it took the intervention of the Bloc Quebecois and all the opposition parties to get the government to act.

Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that his crisis management techniques, which are nothing more than damage control, will prevent him from having to answer for all the scandals and criminal investigations he has hanging over him?

[Auditor General's Report, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, no one is going to be taken in, neither the general public nor the members of this House.

This is the second time, on the eve of a general election, that the Liberal government is trying to muzzle the auditor general. The government has gone so far as to dare to try to convince us that its MPs could not find the meeting room. This just shows the arrogance and disdain of this government.

Does the Prime Minister think that his attempts to muzzle the auditor general are really going to prevent the truth about the Liberal government's administrative scandals from breaking out into the light of day?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table in this House a petition signed by the citizens of my riding of Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and the greater Quebec City area.

They call on parliament to ask the Chinese government to stop its persecution of the practitioners of Falun Gong and to remove the prohibition against the practice of Falun Gong.

[Marine Liability Act, October 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I must tell you how flabbergasted I am by your exceedingly broad understanding and very considerable tolerance in connection with the rule on the relevance of speeches in force here in the House. With all due respect, I would hope that it is tolerance and not a matter of looking the other way. I am weighing my words. I do not know whether the ability to discuss matters of questionable relevance to the main subject should be seen as a precedent in this House.

I would be tempted to start off with a long diatribe to the effect that I could blame the government, but I will come quickly to the content of this bill on the implementation of this international treaty. I simply want to say that I too deplore the government's decision to introduce this bill in the other House. It is called Bill S-17 because it was introduced in the Senate, the other House.

I think that the 301 members of this House would have done a worthy job, and the government House leader could have easily introduced this bill in the House of Commons, especially since the legislative calendar is rather empty in this pre-election period.

That said, clause 107 of part 7 of Bill S-17 confirms the application of a tariff for those governed by the Laurentian pilotage authority.

I want to take this opportunity to tell the House that the Bloc Quebecois remains aware and concerned and wants to pay tribute to the work done by the marine pilots, especially those in the Lower St. Lawrence and central Quebec. The St. Lawrence River is a complex waterway.

These pilots have been battling for more than 30 years now for the survival of their profession. We know that the shipowners' lobby in Canada is a very powerful one. Why does this lobby have so much power over the government? One need only to look at the campaign contributions by the major shipping companies to understand very clearly why this lobby is so influential and why it has the government's ear so readily.

A preliminary remark on this bill is that it implements in clause 107 application of a Laurentian pilotage charge. I must also, because their annual meeting ended this week, greet the members of the Canadian Marine Pilots' Association, whose president is also the head of the International Maritime Pilots' Association. This is the first time that a Canadian, and a francophone Quebecer to boot, has been the president of the international association. He is Michel Pouliot, a resident of Saint-Jean, Île-d'Orléans. As I said, the Canadian Marine Pilots' Association held its annual meeting this week.

We know that implementation of an international treaty is an important matter. It is one that involves us all because treaties are becoming increasingly important instruments in international life. Their numbers are multiplying. Hundreds of treaties are concluded every year, and are ratified by Canada and other countries. First and foremost, an international treaty is a legal instrument that has been negotiated. Negotiations may involve public servants or ambassadors, heads of state, or ministers representing heads of state. There can also be negotiations with international organizations. Often these international organizations are the forum in which such negotiations take place.

For example, the framework of the United Nations organization often serves as a forum or organizes the holding of conferences at which treaties are debated and agreed to.

Depending on the constitutional law of the country, treaties sometimes require action by parliament to permit their acceptance by the country, so that the country can agree to be bound by the treaty. Practices may differ significantly from one country to the next. Here in Canada, a government can conclude a treaty and sign it after it has been adopted. It can even ratify it without parliament's prior approval or agreement that the country will be bound under the international treaty.

There are countries, however, that involve their parliament and can neither sign nor ratify—in most cases it is ratification—a treaty without the prior approval of parliament and the holding of a debate to give parliamentarians an opportunity to consider the text of the treaty and its provisions before the government commits internationally. In France, for example, parliament must adopt an act approving any treaty before the French authorities can ratify it.

In parliamentary systems such as ours, but also that of other countries, there is a real lack of democracy in that parliamentarians are asked to adopt laws whose content is largely determined by the content of treaties negotiated by the governments, even though their parliaments were not involved in the discussions on that content.

I want to make this clear. Our role as an assembly of parliamentarians is to adopt laws. Canada signs treaties in other places and we, duly and democratically elected parliamentarians, are not called upon to review or examine the content of the treaty before its ratification. However, we are called upon to pass enacting legislation. This is why I was saying earlier that Canada is suffering from a real democratic deficit.

My colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is listening to me carefully at the moment, introduced Bill C-214. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated in the House in the spring of this year by the Liberals.

Bill C-214, introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, provided for the House of Commons to be involved in the process for concluding treaties by giving a treaty prior approval and thereby authorizing the government to ratify a treaty after the House had examined the content of it.

This provision is interesting because, in a democracy, in our British parliamentary system, the party electing the most members forms the government.

This is recognized as a prerogative of the government. It is also recognized that, even if these treaties are submitted to the House for its consideration before their passage, approval of them rests ultimately with the government.

What about valid and often non-partisan suggestions The government could recognize this. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, recognizes that we in the Bloc Quebecois and probably other opposition MPs have made valid contributions to the debate in the past.

In the past we have succeeded in convincing members of the Liberal majority of the merits of what we were saying and bringing about amendments. Will the government admit that it does not have a monopoly on intelligence? Will the government admit that its way is not the only way? Will the government admit that democratically elected members from both sides of the House can make an interesting contribution to the debate?

I will just give one example, from my riding. I had introduced Bill C-205—I hope that no one is going to raise the issue of relevance, because I do not want this to backfire on me and the tables to be turned—I just want to remind the House that I had introduced a bill to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools. There are mechanics, automobile technicians and garages in all 301 of Canada's ridings. They are everywhere.

I set out on a pilgrimage to convince members of all parties, and was so successful that, despite the reluctance of the Minister of Finance, who was opposed to my bill, the result of the vote at second reading was 218 in favour, i.e. the vast majority, and 11 Liberal members against.

When someone comes up with something that makes sense, something that transcends party lines, I assume that we are all operating on good faith here.

Of course, we all have our convictions. I ask the hon. member to respect me, with my strengths and weaknesses, but also with my convictions. I am not about to change allegiance, the Holy Spirit is not about to descend upon me and turn me into a federalist overnight, because my convictions are too strong.

Some colleagues here—the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead is one—are convinced, for reasons of political opportunism, that their chances of being re-elected are better with the Liberals. Anyway, democracy will have its say and the voters of Compton—Stanstead will realize that. I am sure that when the next election comes, they will re-elect a member of parliament like Gaston Leroux of the Bloc Quebecois to represent them.

I have to say that federal could very readily accommodate expansion of the provinces' ability to enter into treaties. This could involve Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia. Inspiration could even be taken from what is done in Belgium in connection with formulas for the ratification of treaties by parliaments.

This is a partial explanation of why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, and many Quebecers, want sovereignty, which will give them jurisdiction over their own treaties and will involve their parliament, that is the national assembly, in their implementation. The national assembly will be the one to approve treaties before they become law.

In conclusion, I wanted, through my very brief comments, to say that the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill at second reading. We will not systematically oppose it. However, we would like the government to take into account what I mentioned earlier regarding the implementation of international treaties, to take into account the situation that I illustrated to correct operational problems that have been going on for too many years. We will therefore support Bill S-17.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my party. I would like to take this opportunity to commend our heritage critic, the member for Portneuf, and our environment critic, the member for Jonquière, for their excellent work.

From the outset, I must say that even though the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill, that decision must not be taken as evidence that our party is against environmental protection measures, on the contrary.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who are here in the House, I want to state that we certainly can appreciate the work done in our regions by the hundreds of volunteers involved in environmental protection. My riding is home to the Cap-Tourmente wildlife refuge. Other areas also need to be protected, including the shores of Île d'Orléans, the bay near Beauport and the shore in the Beaupré area.

I want to take this opportunity to salute the many volunteers who work for an organization called Ducks Unlimited, which is dedicated to protecting the environment in general and waterfowl in particular. Ducks Unlimited raises funds privately without government grants, makes these funds grow and creates marshes for conservation purposes. Some members of Ducks Unlimited are hunters who are in favour of a reasonable, structured and controlled hunting program, to ensure that the resources will still be there in the future.

I want to stress the fact that even though the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill, it supports environmental protection measures.

There are three reasons why I oppose this bill. The Bloc Quebecois members who spoke before me accurately explained them. Let me first elaborate on one reason in particular, namely the fact that, with Bill C-8, Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new structure, namely marine conservation areas, that will duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine reserves.

If this bill is passed in its present form, we will be faced with an incredible administrative maze with three departments overlapping and all the costs that such a situation involves. Indeed, these new structures do not appear by magic. They require additional human and financial resources. Now Heritage Canada wants to get involved in this area, even though Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are already present. This will create an administrative maze.

We also know, given the personality of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that this is undoubtedly motivated by reasons of visibility. Let us not forget that this same minister launched a flag campaign that cost Canadian taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

In the end, if we in the Bloc Quebecois are speaking out against this administrative maze, it is not because we are against the public servants who are part of these structures. This is not the point. Whenever a new structure is set up, who is the common denominator when it comes to paying for it? It is always the same one who pays, the taxpayer, who is sick and tired of paying taxes and believes he is not getting value for his money. The fact that the Minister of Finance is bragging about a surplus that will likely reach $157 billion over the next five years is proof enough that the government is taking in way too much in taxes.

This should not be cause for joy. It is proof that, first, the government is no good at forecasting and cannot count, and second, that it collects too much tax. It should cut taxes as we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have been saying for years.

Another reason the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill is that instead of favouring negotiation, as was the case for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government may now establish marine conservation areas regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.

Again I salute the work of my colleague the member for Jonquière, who recognized that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was a good thing for her area, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, because it was to be developed in partnership with the Government of Quebec.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was happy too. But in the days when he used to sit at the left of the Bloc Quebecois members, on the Progressive Conservative Party benches, he used to say to us regularly “We Quebecers should stick together. We should not let the Liberal government get away with what it is doing. It does not make sense to be governed by such nincompoops for another four years”. We are far too young to have Alzheimer's disease; we remember well what the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord used to say.

Now he sits by the curtains in the last row. Exactly six and a half weeks have passed between his resignation from the Progressive Conservative Party and his first visit to this House. I have made note of this. We have a fine motto in Quebec “I remember”. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who is now sitting by the curtains, stayed away from the House for six and a half weeks. Surely he was working hard to represent his constituents. But the people of Chicoutimi sent him to this parliament to defend their interests.

Why am I talking of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park—which brings me to the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord? Because apparently the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord—this was in the news at noon—is tempted to join the Liberal Party. A token investment in an aluminium processing research centre should be announced this weekend, followed by the announcement that the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has sold his allegiance for a mess of potage.

I want to tell the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the people of Chicoutimi who are now listening, the people of Ville-de-La-Baie, Chicoutimi, Saint-Honoré, l'Anse-Saint-Jean and Bas-Saguenay, that I hope they will remember that this turncoat who had their confidence to defend an allegiance let himself be bought to join a government he had criticized and condemned. The rules do not allow me to repeat here what the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said about the prime minister. The British tradition and our rules keep me from repeating his words, but we will bring them up in due course.

If the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord really intends to do this, whether it is as an independent, a Conservative or a Liberal, the people of Chicoutimi will be waiting for him just around the corner and will have a chance to correct the error they made on June 2, 1997, when they elected the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

In closing let me say that the third reason we from the Bloc Quebecois, are opposed to this bill is because Heritage Canada wants to establish marine conservation areas while it is unable to protect the ecosystems in the existing national parks.

I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment. That is why we supported the establishment of the marine park.

Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois is fully aware that the Government of Quebec is taking steps to protect the environment and, in particular, the seabed.

The Government of Quebec is also willing to work toward this goal with the federal government, as evidenced by phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan, and the shoreline municipalities in my riding of Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans can also appreciate this.

[Gasoline Pricing, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to today's newspapers the government might be tempted to settle the fuel crisis by that method so characteristic of the Liberals, particularly when elections are imminent: the short term solution.

Would the government not be better advised and more responsible if it were to avoid short term vote-seeking solutions and to amend the Competition Act instead, thus preventing three refiners-distributors from controlling the market?

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2000]

—the member from British Columbia tells me there are 157—and that 101 of these 157 members come from Ontario. We might therefore wonder whether the Liberal Party of Canada is not a regional party too—the regional party of Ontario.

I appeal to Ontario's farmers. Do they feel that they are well represented by the federal Liberal members from Ontario, the ones who are supporting this subsidy for western producers?

Moreover, my colleagues of the Canadian Alliance were certainly delighted to learn that this bill was rushed through a few days before the summer adjournment. This is a totally vote-seeking bill, one introduced literally to buy the votes of western farmers. They are being given some nice little goodies in order to win them over and to get their votes.

The Canadian Alliance will have to deal with this matter when the election comes around, which appears to be imminent for this fall. However, it seems obvious that this is a program aimed at buying the western farm vote.

I would like to take a few minutes to return to the $178 million cut the two rail carriers, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, will be forced to make. I had the opportunity in the Standing Committee on Transport to question directly Mr. Tellier, the president of CN, and Mr. Ritchie, the president of CP, and their responses leave me concerned and confused.

What I asked them was this: we know that the rail carriers have, for the past 10 years, made the railway workers bear the brunt of their lack of productivity. As a result, when the financial reports were not to their liking, they announced major staff cuts when releasing their annual financial statements.

I wish to say that my Bloc Quebecois colleagues share those concerns. We are concerned that the companies, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, not to name them, will be very tempted to have railway workers bear the brunt—because their job will be cut—of the $178 million drop in revenues the railroads will have to absorb.

We should remember today, June 14, 2000, because I am warning you that I will point out once again—I will no doubt have another opportunity to talk on this issue—that I predicted on June 14, today, that the railways will not absorb this $178 million within their operating costs. They will not pass it on to their shareholders through considerable dividends. They will not deprive their shareholders. They will deprive railway workers of their jobs because of the number of cuts resulting directly from Bill C-34.

Another reason we oppose this bill is that it changes the role of the Canadian Wheat Board without our knowing how these changes will affect its ability as a marketing agency to honour its commitments to grain producers and its clientele worldwide.

The Canadian Wheat Board is strange beast. It is an independent agency. A number of the members of its board are appointed by the government, as political payback. The Canadian Wheat Board tries to make us believe that it will, with this legislation, attempt to find the most cost effective shipping point and port for producers.

I would like to give an example. My colleague from Thunder Bay and I were members of a sub-committee on the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway. One of the Bloc Quebecois' demands has always been to have Manitoba wheat pass through Thunder Bay.

Why is a member of the Bloc Quebecois defending the Port of Thunder Bay? The answer is obvious. Because every tonne of wheat that goes through Thunder Bay has to go through the ports on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This means that wheat that goes through Thunder Bay stands a good chance of being redirected into other bigger ships, in the ports of Montreal, Sorel, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Baie-Comeau or Sept-Îles.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois called on this government—and the government has not agreed to do this in Bill C-34, which we are debating today—to give preference to Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence Seaway as an efficient way to move wheat to European markets in particular.

During the hearings on privatizing the St. Lawrence Seaway, which I attended in 1995 with the member from Thunder Bay, the then commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board admitted to us that wheat headed for Belgium and Luxembourg went through the Port of Vancouver.

Is it more cost effective to ship a tonne of wheat out of the Port of Vancouver, when it has to travel down the west coast of the United States, go through the Panama Canal and travel back up north on its way to its final destination in Luxembourg or Belgium, essentially shipping wheat to western Europe through Vancouver rather than through Thunder Bay, when the ports of Montreal, Quebec City or Sept-Îles are a few hundred kilometres from western European ports?

Such thinking is the reason for a bill like this. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support Bill C-34, because, for one thing, it does not help ports on the St. Lawrence.

Another feature of this bill with which the Bloc Quebecois has major difficulties is the fact that it contains provisions for $175 million worth of highway infrastructures for rural roads in the western provinces—yet another sop to western producers. I am sorry.

Once again, we have a double standard. Once again, Quebec is treated differently. The government will hand over $175 million to improve rural highway infrastructures in the west. Does this mean that the roads used to transport grain, the highway infrastructures for rural roads, are adequate? To ask the question is to answer it.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept bills such as Bill C-34, which create inequities.

Unfortunately, since I am running out of time, I will have to rush. The Minister of Transport himself recognizes that the reforms affecting the grain transportation and handling system will increase pressure on rural roads. I spoke about this issue already.

We will oppose Bill C-34 for the three reasons we have mentioned, the first one being the $178 million income reduction for railroad companies, both CN and CP, which will necessarily result in railway workers being laid off; the second is that nothing in this bill guarantees that there will be an increase in grain traffic, via the port of Thunder Bay, on the St. Lawrence ports network; and the third reason why we oppose this legislation is the $175 million budget allocated to upgrade rural roads, while no money is provided for eastern Canada. Quebec gets nothing, and nor does Ontario for that matter.

I see the chief government whip, who comes from the Cornwall area. There must be agricultural producers in that region and there must be rural roads around Cornwall. I am convinced that Ontarians could team up with Quebec on this issue because the situation is the same for both.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-34 at third reading.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to Bill C-34, which is intended to govern the transportation of grain, particularly in the west.

Right off, for the benefit of those watching, I will point out that our party, the Bloc Quebecois, will vote against this bill at third reading. We will do so for on simple reason, a matter of equity, or perhaps I should say a matter of inequity.

I would not want the members from out west to assume that this is another chapter in the unending dispute between eastern and western Canada. On the contrary. It is our view that the government has once again decided, using this bill, to pit the east against the west.

If this bill is passed, western producers will enjoy a considerable reduction in the cost of transportation, on the order of $178 million. This reduction will be achieved in the form of discounts that the two railway companies—Canadian National and Canadian Pacific—will be required to give western producers.

On behalf of my party, I say that this is unfair to eastern producers. When I say eastern producers, I am talking about producers from Quebec, but also those from Ontario.

The Liberal majority across the way often tells the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian Alliance or the Progressive Conservative Party that they are regional parties.

I would remind our Liberal friends opposite that we might ask ourselves whether the same is not true of them. We know that there are 155 Liberal members—

[Transportation In Montreal, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with a view to correcting highway congestion problems in Montreal, three projects must be undertaken.

The first is the introduction of light rail to run on the Champlain Bridge structure, and the others are the completion of autoroute 30 on Montreal's South Shore and 35 in the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu sector.

Does the Minister of Transport acknowledge that the funds allocated in the last budget to transport infrastructures are not enough for these projects, which are deemed to be priorities for the City of Montreal and the Government of Quebec, to be accomplished?

[Port Of Montreal, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Port of Montreal's board of directors is meeting this evening to decide whether or not to sell the Bickerdike pier to the Technodôme group for a project worth $1.4 billion which has the support of the City of Montreal, the Government of Quebec and many leaders of Quebec's business community.

Since the only position not yet known to date is that of the Prime Minister, will he tell us where his government stands on this major project for Montreal involving 14,000 jobs? Not 14, but 14,000.