Monique Guay

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8, former Bill C-48, introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has now reached the report stage.

Before going any further, I think it would be appropriate to explain briefly to the public what Bill C-8 is all about.

Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, seeks to define the legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, so as to protect and preserve natural marine areas that are representative of the oceans and of the Great Lakes, to promote public knowledge, appreciation and enjoyment of this marine heritage, and to pass it on to future generations.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area. It was officially established on June 12 and it has its own legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois totally supports the spirit of conservation of this bill. Both Quebec and Canada have marine areas that need to be protected.

Having said that, in November 1998 I spoke to this same bill, then known as Bill C-48. In light of all the criticism, both by the opposition parties and at the heritage committee hearings, where almost every coastal group spoke out against Bill C-48, we could have expected some major changes in Bill C-8.

Despite all the criticism, no changes were made to Bill C-48. Again, the government opposite has decided to act alone.

Let us take a closer look at this bill, in order to uncover the trickery, centralizing tendencies and total confusion that it will help this government unleash.

First, there are the usual problems of jurisdiction. One would think this government had never heard of the constitution.

Bill C-8 will give the federal government authority to establish marine conservation areas with no regard for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

But one of the prerequisites to the federal government's setting up a marine conservation area is that it own the proposed site. Clause 5(2) of Bill C-8 reads as follows:

—the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area, other than such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

It is hard to be clearer.

Paradoxically, it is expressly written in the Constitution, 1867, that the management and sale of public lands come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Section 92, subsections (5), (13) and (16) of the British North America Act, 1867, provides, and I quote:

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,—

1. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;

2. Property and Civil Rights in the Province;

3. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

In addition, section 92A of the BNA Act provides, and I quote:

(1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to a ) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; b ) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.

As we can see, the Constitution clearly recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It falls under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is all there is to it.

So, how do you explain this clear and voluntary violation of the Constitution by the federal government?

It is even harder to understand given that the Government of Quebec and the federal government have already signed a co-operation agreement in this respect. Under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which they both signed, both levels of government agreed to co-operate in order to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and in the St. Lawrence River.

Why is the federal government all of a sudden trying to unilaterally create marine conservation areas in Quebec? Why is the federal government refusing to use the same model of co-operation as the one designed by both levels of government for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park? This is another example of co-operation between the federal government and Quebec to create a marine park.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was created in 1997, pursuant to mirror legislation allowing both the federal and the provincial governments to carry out their duties, without any transfer of land. So, why not use these two examples, which work very well? The federal government is taking wicked pleasure from meddling in the jurisdictions of the provinces. This is intolerable and unacceptable.

What the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to do is destructive. What she wants is to appropriate Quebec territory by circumventing Quebec's jurisdictions over the environment. She wants carte blanche to create marine conservation areas on marine floors, knowing full well that she is blatantly contravening the Canadian constitution.

In addition to contravening the constitution, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the entire government are busy creating a real bureaucratic nightmare in which overlap among the various federal departments will create a real mess of red tape. Let us take a long look at this real mess.

The federal government wants to create marine conservation areas through Canadian Heritage. However, the marine protection zones are managed by Fisheries and Oceans, and the marine and wildlife reserves are managed by Environment Canada. I think this government definitely needs a quick update on organizational structures.

Let me quote the remarks of Patrick McGuinness, the vice-president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, which he made when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I quote:

If there's a need for legislation to establish marine conservation areas, it is our view that such legislation should be incorporated into the recently passed Oceans Act under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

It is simply inefficient, cumbersome public administration to bring forward this MCA initiative in its own act under the responsibility of a separate minister and a separate department.

Mr. McGuinness even proposed the bill be simply withdrawn. Naturally, however, in the view of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the government, Mr. McGuinness knows absolutely nothing about marine areas. In fact, as far as the Liberals are concerned, Mr. McGuinness is a real dolt. We know that most witnesses who appeared before the committee were opposed to Bill C-8. Why then does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not simply withdraw it?

For all of these reasons, it is my responsibility as a parliamentarian to vote against this bill. Bill C-8 is a real violation of provincial jurisdictions.

As well as violating provincial authority, the majority of the Quebec and Canadian public has also spoken out against this bill. As a democrat, and the member of parliament for the Quebec riding of Laurentides, I cannot support this bill. Moreover, Bill C-8 will create a real bureaucratic nightmare of duplications and overlaps between three departments, namely Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Environment Canada.

I reject this bill outright, and I want the minister to go back and do her homework over again, because this bill is totally unacceptable.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, our young people are our future. We rely on them to built a better future for our society.

With Bill C-3, the federal government wants to reform the youth criminal justice system and turn it into a system based on repression and not what it should be based on, reintegration.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the issue of youth violence. I have two teenagers who are still going to school, and I sometimes worry about the violence in the schools and in our society. This is why me must educate our youth.

As adults and parents, we have a duty to make our children aware of all the violence surrounding us. Towards this end, our society has developed very effective tools to try to eradicate adult violence as well as youth violence. All my colleagues would agree, I am sure, that Quebec is considered a real model in the fight against youth crime.

Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in all of Canada. Why? Because Quebec authorities have been able to implement the Young Offenders Act effectively in keeping with the new social realities in Quebec.

The Quebec government made a very positive commitment to invest in crime prevention and social rehabilitation, instead of building prisons as the right wing in western Canada would have it.

The Young Offenders Act is very good legislation that has had very positive effects in Quebec. It should be left intact, at least in Quebec. If the rest of Canada wants Bill C-3, good for them, but everyone in Quebec is against changing and replacing the Young Offenders Act.

Bill C-3, just like its predecessor, Bill C-68, is being challenged and rejected by the majority of those in Quebec who work directly to fight youth crime: criminologists, social workers, police officers and lawyers.

Even the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, which is made up of organizations as credible as the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Association des chefs de police et pompiers du Québec, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Société de criminologie du Québec, and many more, is opposed to this bill.

Opposition to Bill C-3 is not only coming from Quebec. In the rest of Canada, more and more people are speaking out against this bill, including the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and the Child Welfare League of Canada, just to name those two. We can even say without hesitating that the former justice minister of this government is also against this reform of the Young Offenders Act, since he said during question period on April 28, 1994, and I quote:

We do not think for a moment that violent crime is going to be resolved in this society by tinkering with statutes or changing acts. The fact of the matter is that the criminal justice system itself is not going to end violent crime. It only deals with the consequence of underlying social problems. It is crime prevention that must have at least the equal focus of the House of Commons.

Since all the partners in the youth justice system in Quebec and Canada have opposed this reform, how can the Minister of Justice explain and justify it? The explanation is quite simple. Believe it or not, it is electioneering.

The sole objective of the Minister of Justice is to woo the electorate in Western Canada away from the Reform Party. That is the real reason behind Bill C-3. The reform she advocates cannot be explained any other way. Government statistics speak for themselves.

Let me quote a few. Youth crime is declining in Canada. Between 1991 and 1997, it dropped by 23%. Since 1995, the number of young people charged with violent crimes has gone down by 3.2%.

In 1997, the national crime rate reported by the police for all age groups had dropped another 5%, and this for the sixth consecutive year. As a result, the rate was the lowest it has ever been since 1980.

The number of young people charged with Criminal Code offences has gone down 7%, continuing the general downward trend seen since 1991. The number of young people charged with violent crimes has decreased by 2% for the second consecutive year. I should also emphasize that a majority, or 53%, of the crimes young people are charged with are property crimes, while 20% are violent crimes. And the list goes on.

The minister is bragging that Bill C-3 is a model of flexibility, and that the provinces will be able to keep their own preferred youth justice system. That is completely false. There is no flexibility whatsoever in this bill.

The Coalition pour la justice des mineurs represents 18 organizations. It studied Bill C-3 and made a stunning finding, and I quote:

Thus the alleged flexibility given the provinces in applying the law is nothing more in fact than a series of limited powers resting on the shoulders of the crown prosecutors. Nowhere in the bill do we find confirmation of the right of the provinces to apply their own model.

At a press conference held by this group of organizations with an interest in the situation of young offenders, lawyer Jean Trépanier, a criminologist and member of the Quebec bar association's sub-committee on young offenders, was very clear in his criticism of the flexibility of Bill C-3.

According to him, the so-called flexibility touted before the bill was tabled seems to have been a political ploy. Judges in Quebec will not be able to disregard sentences handed down elsewhere.

The people I have just quoted are not members of the Bloc Quebecois. They are not involved in politics. They are experts and they are unanimous: Bill C-3 must disappear. That is the bottom line.

Another aberration in this reform of the youth criminal justice system is that the age threshold for the imposition of an adult sentence is 14 years. The question that arises is the following: What study or statistic is the Minister of Justice drawing on when she includes such a provision in her bill? I put the question. Naturally, I will be given no answer, because no statistic or study has shown that imprisonment has a real impact on crime rates.

If the Minister of Justice had done thorough and documented work, she would have seen in a number of studies that violent delinquents can be rehabilitated. If she thinks that leaving 14- or 15-year old adolescents to waste away in a cell will help young people return to society normally, she better think again.

Such practice is ineffective. Imprisoning a 14- or 15-year old means opening wide the doors of the school of crime, which is what prisons are.

Quebec has proven that rehabilitation is the key to success for young offenders. Why would the Minister of Justice not even consider Quebec's youth criminal justice model then?

With Bill C-3, the minister is destroying 16 years of very positive practice in the area of youth criminal justice. What for? Only to pick up a few votes in Western Canada. This is incredible and unacceptable.

Another totally pointless provision of Bill C-3 is the one allowing the names of young offenders to be published. Why not write “wanted” under the picture of those kids while at it?

I would recommend that the minister consult her colleague, the Minister of Health and former Minister of Justice, on that subject. On June 20, 1994, during question period, he stated and I quote:

The provisions to which the hon. member refers are intended to ensure that when young people make a mistake of that character, yes they are punished and yes they have learned a lesson, but they are not through the publication of their names in the media stigmatized for life, prevented from completing their education or from gaining employment. Surely that is in the public interest in this country.

The minister should make the same statement in this House.

I will conclude by saying that there is no doubt that the federal government should withdraw immediately from the administration of criminal justice and leave it to the provinces. Thus, justice would truly serve the people, and not a government which wants to buy votes at the expense of public safety in Quebec and Canada.

[Confidential Documents, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, CSIS is busy burning secret documents, losing them in phone booths, leaving them in the back seat of cars while the secret agent attends a hockey game. Canada's secret service is secret in name only.

Yet we must not be too quick to cast a stone at these James Bonds and Mata Haris. After all, they have been set an example from higher up.

The federal government itself seems to be a past master at leaking confidential information, committee reports in particular. However, when it comes to compliance with the Access to Information Act, this same government gets obsessed with secrecy. Secret material falls into the hands of the public, while material that is public becomes secret.

It is understandable that Canada's secret agents do not know which way is up. After all, if everything that ought to be public were to become secret, most public servants would have to be replaced by secret agents. And then the Liberal government, mightily relieved at last, would no longer have to answer any embarrassing questions.

[West Coast Ports, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I note that most of us are very pleased with the turn of events, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

I had the same letters the minister did, because we have been following the matter right from the start. In fact, we have been looking into this matter all weekend. I was in contact with representatives of the union.

I am very pleased to see that, at last, an agreement has been negotiated between the union and the employers, and this has been done democratically and not been forced upon them through back to work legislation.

Hon. members are aware that my party is always opposed to back to work legislation, because we have always favoured negotiation over force. This is also the best solution because, when all is said and done, both sides work better and get along better as a result.

I am pleased to take the floor today to congratulate both the union side, with whom I have spoken several times today, and the management side.

At last the workers will be able to get back to their jobs at the Port of Vancouver, and the work can continue normally. I congratulate them and I trust that, should there be another such conflict in Canada, we will be wise enough to let the parties settle it among themselves. I realize that a week can be costly, but a week is not all that long for negotiating such an important agreement.

[Mirabel Airport, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on October 21, the Government of Quebec announced that it had passed legislation to create a Montreal international trade zone development corporation at Mirabel.

In the words of Quebec's deputy premier: “This corporation will make it possible for the Government of Quebec to finally do something about the tragic mistakes made by the federal government in the Mirabel airport saga”.

The Government of Quebec's budget includes assistance for site investment, business operations, training and recruitment, and bringing in foreign specialists, as well as support for free trade operations, for a period of ten years.

Yet the federal government, which is to blame for the disastrous decision to transfer international flights, is taking its time doing anything about the renewal of Mirabel airport. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling on the government to announce aid measures similar to those announced by the Government of Quebec.

[Trucking Industry, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, problems in the trucking industry have been in the news a lot lately.

We know that nearly 80% of trucking movement is interprovincial, meaning that it comes under federal jurisdiction. We also know that the National Transportation Act will be deregulated in January 2000.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he tell us what his plans are for eliminating the chaos in the trucking industry?

[Canada Labour Code, October 14th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (prohibited provision in a collective agreement).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will prohibit the application of orphan clauses in the collective agreements mentioned in the following three statutes: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The bill's purpose is to prohibit clauses in collective agreements that discriminate against new arrivals in the labour market and to ensure that these workers enjoy the same pay and benefits as previously hired workers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[South Africa, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week, South Africa held its second multiracial democratic election. I wish to congratulate Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela's successor, on his victory.

The high turnout and the peaceful staging of this election are a tribute to the people's determination to pursue their fight for democracy. South Africans have set an example for Africa and people the world over in their quest for justice, equality and reconciliation.

The challenges facing the ANC are many and daunting. Tackling the problems of AIDS, unemployment, crime, discrimination and the inequitable distribution of wealth are some of the first items that will have to go on the new government's agenda.

Bloc Quebecois members congratulate the candidates of all parties. Thanks to them and the people of South Africa, renewed democracy in this country holds out strong hope for the future.

[The Late Hugh Hanrahan, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we are paying tribute to Hugh Hanrahan, who was the Reform Party member for the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona between 1993 and 1997.

Hugh Hanrahan passed away on May 19. He was only 52.

Mr. Hanrahan was considered a thoughtful man with a penetrating mind and a great ability to deepen the issues he believed in.

He had a BA and a bachelor's degree in education from St. Francis Xavier University and a master's degree in education from the University of Ottawa.

He taught economics at a Catholic school in Edmonton, where he was known as a wonderful teacher. This was perfectly natural, since teaching was a real passion for Hugh. His curiosity was great and he never stopped learning, always wanting to think more about things.

He won his election in 1993 in the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona. He got involved in politics through, among other things, the encouragement of his students who knew how their teacher's interest in and concerns about tax administration and problem of the national debt.

When he won, Mr. Hanrahan took time to warmly thank his students for their encouragement.

He even mentioned at an event that for him one of the nicest compliments he got as a teacher was that his students had influenced the direction of his life. That shows just how much he cared for and respected his students.

My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I offer our most sincere condolences to his wife Dianne, his daughter Margaret Ann, and to all his family and friends.

The loss of someone dear is always very difficult to accept. The only consolation lies in knowing that now he will be watching over those he loves.

[Kosovo, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, by continuing to bomb military targets in Kosovo, despite the Yugoslavian parliament's acceptance of the G-8 conditions, NATO is asking Serbia's military leaders to come out of hiding and offer themselves up as targets.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see this as a contradiction in the government's position, and would it not be better for NATO to temporarily suspend the bombing?