Pierre Paquette

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on Motion No. 1 in connection with Bill C-6.

I would like to start my speech by congratulating the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who has demonstrated, since the beginning, an unflagging vigilance in this file. I remind you that, when the bill was introduced, while saying he was, like the Bloc Quebecois, in agreement with the principle of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, he immediately expressed his concerns about possible constitutional interference.

In this context, in his first speech on the issue, he announced his intention and that of the Bloc Quebecois, to clarify a number of clauses of Bill C-6, to make sure that we were talking about the same thing. In committee, he proposed an amendment to ensure that clause 6 made it clear that the minister's responsibilities would be established in accordance with the constitutional division of powers. I remind the House that relative to the minister's powers, duties and functions, the member had added the following: “performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister may—” A series of powers are listed thereafter.

This is the amendment that was tabled in committee and that was adopted by the vast majority of its members. Now the bill is back in the House and, surprise—as the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes clearly illustrated—Motion No. 1 strikes the amendment adopted by the committee.

The argument put forth by the parliamentary secretary is that, in any case, the federal government is always respectful of the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Of course, these comments cannot constitute an adequate guarantee, not only for the members of this House, but particularly for those who, like us, care about Quebec's best interests.

Also, if the federal government is indeed sincere in its desire to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and of the provinces, what is the problem with including it in the bill? It seems to me that if there was not something else behind Motion No. 1, which strikes the amendment carried at committee, the government would agree with the committee's decision.

Unfortunately, there is something else and we know it. This was mentioned a number of times, but it is worth repeating. The reason is that, for some 40 years now, the federal government's approach has been to centralize powers in Ottawa, something which does not respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, and particularly those of Quebec.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes alluded to the work done by the Léonard committee. I sat on that committee and I can tell the House that, while this did not come as a surprise, when we looked at the federal government's spending, we noticed that, except for the debt, most of the federal government's expenditures are in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. Last year, the federal government spent more money in provincial jurisdictions than in its own. This illustrates the fiscal imbalance. All opposition parties agree with the Bloc Québécois that this fiscal imbalance should be corrected.

We cannot trust the nice rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary or of this government; we can only trust what will be put in writing in this bill. We think it is absolutely essential that this amendment be included in the final version of the bill.

I know that the parliamentary secretary referred to clause 4, saying that it already sets things out. Let me read that clause. It states that the “powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction... relating to public safety—” And clause 4 goes on. Members will understand that what that clause says is not that the powers, duties and functions of the minister can only be exercised over matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. This is a broader, more general statement. Again, it leaves the door open to infringement by the federal government. That is why we feel it is essential that the amendment adopted by the committee, which specifies that the minister shall act “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”, be included in clause 6.

I also find rather ironic and amusing that this issue of respect for the jurisdictions of any government, be it the federal, provincial or Quebec government, is discussed the same day that the establishment of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is announced. Social matters are a provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government is creating a department of social development. Why? To better orchestrate its infringements upon areas of jurisdiction that come under the provinces and Quebec.

The status of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is being formalized. It is no secret that education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, we are particularly touchy about our jurisdiction over education being respected. Like we are often reminded by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, it is through education that culture is maintained, the culture of a nation, Quebec's culture, its psyche, as he says jokingly, and its soul.

Today, on the very day it is announcing, in its Motion No. 1, its intention to strike out the committee's amendment concerning respect for the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec, the federal government is also announcing the establishment of Social Development and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

This fits in perfectly with the Speech from the Throne. Members will recall that it contained all sorts of references to health and education, and even to the recognition of foreign credentials. The Office des professions, Quebec's professions board, comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec. It is absolutely none of the federal government's business.

It is absolutely vital that this amendment be included in the bill, especially with a Liberal government that has shown its centralizing tendencies for several decades now.

What strikes me in this case is that the federal government wants to remove this reference to the respect of provincial jurisdictions while it will not even take its responsibilities in its own jurisdictions.

Take, for example, employment insurance. How many times have the ministers and the government, the Prime Minister himself, said that they will reform employment insurance because, as everyone will agree, it no longer fulfills the purpose for which it was created? And yet nothing has changed, not after the 2000 election and not after the last one.

At the same time that this bill is being introduced, we learn that 9 RCMP detachments will be closed in Quebec, including the Joliette detachment. It is absolutely unbelievable to see how determined this government is to keep the door open to infringement upon the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces while it is unable to take its responsibilities in its own fields of jurisdiction.

I was telling you about the RCMP, the employment insurance, but we could very well refer also to the whole debate on national defence. We do not have a policy on national defence in Canada, but it would seem that the choice has already been made to take part in the American missile shield project.

There is something fundamental behind this motion, behind the debate on this amendment. Not only does it deal with respect for the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec, but it urges us to ask the federal government to take its own responsibilities that it does not assume, whether it be on employment insurance—I mentioned this earlier—public safety or the national defence issue.

Thus, it is absolutely essential to include this amendment in Bill C-6. Everyone says so, everyone agrees in principle on having due regard for the jurisdictions of both levels of government. You will agree with me that, logically and honestly, there is no reason to support this Motion No. 1.

I will invite not only the opposition parties, but also the government party to seriously reflect on the possibility of voting against its own motion. Indeed, as members who spoke before me have mentioned, the government is in a minority situation. I think that, in this context, it makes sense that the government should withdraw its own motion or vote against it.

Anyway, one thing is very clear, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We want to have in the bill a written guarantee that there will be due regard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec in particular.

[Writers, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, On Saturday, October 16, for the fourth year in a row, local writers left their usual haunts and set out to bring literature to the people, in the heart of downtown Joliette.

Again this year, some fifty writers from the Lanaudière region and all over Quebec, among them the three I accompanied, Élise Turcotte, Stanley Pean and Louis Caron, gave their time and their words in particular to anyone wanting to write a poem, a greeting card, a love letter, even a political speech.

The public scribe locations were provided by various downtown Joliette businesses, thereby continuing the great partnership of our region's business and cultural communities.

My congratulations to the man behind this project, Jean-Pierre Girard, and this brave group of writers who make this unique event possible. It hearkens back to the era of public scribes, when writers made their talents and knowledge available to others. Certainly no one in Joliette was suffering from writer's block that day. Congratulations to all who took part.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-15, particularly after the brilliant speeches of the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Beauport—Limoilou, who, obviously in both cases, know this subject extremely well.

I must recognize that I am not an expert on environmental issues. However, when reading the bill, we do realize, as was mentioned by my two colleagues, that this move is late, but in the right direction. Indeed, the government wants to impose harsher penalties than those existing today on shipping companies that illegally dump toxic substances at sea.

That being said, even though this bill goes in the right direction, since it gives an implacable character to the bill that already existed, some aspects may still be questioned, particularly the fact that the government is retaining, perhaps indirectly, the possibility for the captain and the officers of the company to claim the defence of due diligence to avoid liability.

I know that the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will be extremely vigilant in committee. He will ensure that, despite the fact that this bill appears to be a step forward from existing legislation, reality will have to measure up. It will be possible to have much more effective legislation to ensure this illegal dumping no longer happens.

As you know—it has been mentioned many times, but it should be repeated for the benefit of those listening—more than 300,000 seabirds are killed each year off the coast of the Atlantic provinces by ships illegally dumping their polluted bilge as they pass through these waters. This is an extremely important bill for the protection of our environment, particularly in a context where everyone agrees that we must move toward sustainable development, in its social, environmental and economic aspects.

Another interesting point about the bill is that the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and related legislation will apply in the exclusive economic zone of Canada, that is, 200 nautical miles instead of the 12 miles provided in the previous legislation. Here we see a bill that not only provides much harsher sanctions but applies in a much larger geographical area.

It is also important to note that this bill applies to vessels and their owners and operators and subjects masters, chief engineers, owners and operators of vessels to a duty of care to ensure compliance with the act. I think that is very important. A law of this kind is not intended to punish offenders, when offences unfortunately occur, but to impress upon owners and operators their responsibilities to respect the rules.

In this way, as I mentioned, it is a step forward. We are worried—as we have mentioned before—because Bill C-15, even though it does not directly and explicitly provide for the defence of diligence, may make it possible for criminal liability to be avoided. In reading this bill, we thought that even if it is not explicit, the text would permit offenders to claim this recourse to diligence to evade their responsibilities. Thus, as I mentioned, I am convinced that my hon. friend from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will work in committee to make sure that such a defence is not possible and that there are no loopholes that could weaken the force of this law.

So this gives me the opportunity to take a step further in the areas I am more familiar with. We could have the best legislation possible to protect migratory birds against oil spills or illegal discharge of oil waste, but if we do not have the means to enforce the law, even with no reference to due diligence, we are back to square one.

I refer to two major issues that are linked to the difficulty the government has in enforcing the legislation right now and will have in the future, because of its inherent flaws. The Canadian Coast Guard for instance is understaffed. That has been criticized year after year by the Coast Guard spokespersons, whether it is before the Standing Committee on Finance—on which I had the opportunity to sit—or elsewhere.

If we cannot rely on a proper coast guard, we could have the best bill possible, but we would not be able to enforce it. This is exactly what my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was explaining this morning when he talked about the DNA legislation before the House. Without an RCMP detachment that can properly cover Quebec, we will not be able to enforce the laws even if we give them more teeth.

It is a simple matter of logic. If the federal government wants to improve the bill, and we support them on that, then they would have to ensure that the law enforcement agencies, including the Coast Guard, have all the personnel they need to catch the offenders. That is the first point I wanted to raise.

My second point is the flags of convenience. As we know, the number of such flags is increasing exponentially all over the world. This is a very serious issue. When he was the owner of the Canada Steamship Lines, which is now operated by his sons, the Prime Minister of Canada himself used these flags of convenience extensively. Canadians laws are difficult to enforce on ships that use flags of convenience. And so we wonder about the government's good faith and will to implement a fine bill. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou clearly showed how, at first glance, this legislation seems to address environmental concerns fundamentally. However, the Prime Minister of this government used such flags of convenience himself.

I remind the House that, when Canada Steamship Lines was bought by the current Prime Minister, it was not using any flags of convenience, only Canadian flags. Currently, the vast majority of CSL's ships are using flags of convenience. It was in 1986 that the company, then owned by the current Prime Minister, first took advantage of that technicality, which is unfortunately allowed by international laws, but which is now being used for purposes that were not originally intended. So, it was in 1986 that CSL first raised a flag of convenience on one of its ships. This is not ancient history; it is very recent. It occurred less than 20 years ago.

At the time, Canadian sailors on that ship, the Atlantic Superior , which was then at sea off the coast of Virginia, were told that they would lose their jobs at the end of the trip and that they would be replaced by Korean sailors, who would be paid $2.20 per hour and who would not enjoy any protection under Canadian labour laws. This is the problem with flags of convenience. We are well aware that countries that permit such registrations, there are 27 of them, generally have very lax laws, if any at all, on labour and workers' safety. I have just given an example. This probably explains why there have been so many deaths at sea in recent years. Indeed, these countries also have lax laws on the condition of ships, on the discharge of pollutants and on environmental protection in general.

If this government wants to be consistent, and I hope it does, it must not only amend the act by implementing the principles stated in Bill C-15 and ensure there are no legal loopholes to make the legislation less effective, it must also increase the Coast Guard staff and fight very aggressively against the use of flags of convenience, as the current Prime Minister unfortunately did with his former company, Canada Steamship Lines.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as an introduction to my question, I will quote a statement made by a member in the House and with which I agree entirely:

Make your own country. Concentrate all powers in Ottawa. Form an economic union that will turn your provincial governments into municipal governments. Go ahead, but don't expect us to get involved.

These words were spoken by the member for Outremont on February 6, 1992, and I fully agree with him.

What we witnessed the day before yesterday was an attempt to transform provincial governments into large municipalities. The lack of agreement on the issue of equalization illustrates this point. What the federal government and in particular the current Prime Minister and his Liberal government prefer to do is deliver federal equalization transfers a drop at a time.

I would also remind the member for Outremont, the Minister of Transport, of the statement made by Mr. Séguin—who does not seem to approve of what M. Pratte said in La Presse : “The federal government is thirsting after our blood, like Dracula.” And he went on to say: “The next time, I will fill up my suitcase with garlic before I come”, to avoid seeing his own blood and the blood of Quebeckers being sucked up by this government.

I would like to know what the transport minister and member for Outremont thinks about the fact that each Quebecker receives three times less in equalization payments than the people of the Atlantic provinces, less than the people of Manitoba, and less than the people of Saskatchewan. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that, on average, 25% of the Canadian provinces' revenues come from federal transfers, while only 23% of Quebec's revenues come from federal transfers. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that there are 12 public servants for 1,000 Ontarians, but only 10 for 1,000 Quebeckers, which represents a loss of 70,000 jobs in the federal public service for Quebec. That represents a 93% advantage for Ontario. All these facts amount to a fiscal imbalance in Quebec, an economic imbalance that the federal system is not helping us resolve.

I would like to ask him this. In the amendment to the amendment to the throne speech put forward by the Bloc Québécois, instead of writing that the federal government committed to alleviate “the financial pressures some call the fiscal imbalance”, would it not have been better to write that the federal government should address the fiscal imbalance which the Liberal Party of Canada is the only one to call financial pressures? In the House, the Conservative members, the Bloc Québécois members as well as the New Democrat members all agree on one thing: the existence of a fiscal imbalance, which means that the money is in Ottawa while the needs are in the provinces.

In the Quebec National Assembly, the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Parti Québécois and the Action démocratique all agree on the existence of a fiscal imbalance. Can the member explain why the federal Liberals are the only ones who believe it does not exist?

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to commend the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his excellent speech. He reminded the House of a number of facts and exposed some of the myths being propagated by the federal Liberals. I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on a few of these myths.

For instance, the federal Liberals are spreading the rumour that Quebec is the province benefiting the most from equalization. In absolute terms, it is true. However, we are getting $500 less per capita than the Atlantic provinces.

Most of the provinces receive 25% of their income from federal transfers, compared to 23% for Quebec.

In this debate on fiscal imbalance, we are talking of course about equalization and federal transfers, but should we not also be talking about the federal structural spending, which clearly benefits Ontario, if only in terms of the money spent on public servants? We are very much aware of the deficit in terms of federal public servants from Quebec as compared with those from Ontario. Could the hon. member elaborate on this?

[Homelessness, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is permanent or temporary, the experience of a growing number of people who are homeless or those at risk of becoming so is a matter for our attention. Homelessness is often presented as an urban fact, but it happens in all regions as well.

Thousands of people have found themselves homeless in the Lanaudière region in recent years. More than 1,500 people have turned to shelters for housing, food and friendship. Continuing an event started 14 years ago by the Regroupement des auberges du coeur du Québec, the 8th night of the homeless will be held in Joliette all night from Friday to Saturday, October 22 and 23. Such vigils will be held simultaneously at fifteen sites across Quebec.

In Joliette, the event will be full of talk, songs and stories, and this year for the first time the population will be invited to spend the night with us in the heated tent. Near the end of the night, about 4 a.m., in solidarity with the homeless, and with my sleeping bag, I will join the crowd.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for action, not empty rhetoric. As regards this specific issue, the Minister of International Trade cannot even rise to tell us what type of actions he can take regarding the pork issue.

Will the government admit that swift and energetic action must immediately be taken and that the Prime Minister himself should meet with the President of the United States immediately after the American election, to ask him to put an end to this protectionist attitude of our neighbours in all areas?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government indicates that it will pursue its efforts to open the U.S. border to Canadian beef and resolve the mad cow crisis. Far from reopening, the U.S. border is once again being closed, this time to Quebec and Canadian pork producers.

What does the government intend to do so that pork producers do not quickly find themselves in the same difficult situation as cattle producers?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas on his excellent speech. I have known him for a few years and I can assure the House that he will make a very useful contribution here, particularly in light of this throne speech.

This being the first time that I rise in the House since the election, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the voters of the riding of Joliette, who once again put their trust in me, in significant numbers. I thank them and I hope to live up to the confidence they placed in me.

I also want to pay tribute to Joseph Forest, of Saint-Donat, who turned 100 years old on October 9. Mr. Forest is still very mentally alert, as evidenced by the fact that he is a staunch sovereignist. I wish him a happy birthday.

Getting back to the issue before us today, namely the government's throne speech, there is one thing that strikes me. A retired colonel mentioned it Friday on CBC radio, in connection with the tragic events that occurred on the submarine Chicoutimi . A retired colonel is not necessarily someone who follows politics the way we do in this House. He said that people hear the federal government talk about health, education, daycare, municipalities, which are all provincial jurisdictions. However, they never, or hardly ever hear the government talk about national defence, which comes under its jurisdiction.

While it is true that the government says little about national defence, the same may be said for international trade and the employment insurance issue. This throne speech is totally silent on federal jurisdictions. Only in the jurisdictions of the other levels of government, namely the provinces and Quebec, is the federal government full of good and very specific ideas. These are, of course, good ideas based on the centralizing and imperialist vision of the Liberal Party of Canada.

As we know, as far as health is concerned, they tell us that things need to be administered in the way the Liberal government has imagined it, whereas the federal government and the Liberal government of Canada have never administered health systems. This Speech from the Throne does not stop at health. No doubt they have said all they had to say on that, so now they start in on education. They call it learning, and tell us that learning is not exactly the same as education. Frankly, that is just playing with words. They talk about recognition of foreign credentials, when professional bodies came under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec in particular, this is a debate that has gone on for ages, with the doctors' and other professional bodies. It is not up to the federal government to come barging in to help solve such a highly complex problem when Quebec has been working on it for a good fifteen years if not more. I had the opportunity of sitting on the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation and the Comité sur l'éducation aux adultes some years ago, and it was already an issue being discussed in depth at that time. Solutions are needed, but that said, adding the federal government's two cents' worth is not going to help.

When it comes to all the other elements, like child care, it is the same thing. There is a level of detail of great concern to the other levels of government in Quebec and the provinces. The provinces have also looked at the problems that exist in some of our public systems, such as health, education or day care services, and they have solutions that are often much better in terms of implementation.

As I was saying, it has a great deal to say about learning and about recognizing the foreign credentials of new Canadians. However, on something so fundamental to a sovereign country like Canada—something Quebec wants to become one day—as its international policy, which is its number one prerogative, the only sentence in the speech is, “This fall, the Government will release a comprehensive International Policy Statement that will reflect this integration.” What should have been at the core of this Speech from the Throne was all the concerns of Canada, Canadians and Quebeckers about international issues, but there was nothing.

There is the hot issue of the day: Canadian participation in the missile defence shield project, the one being pushed by the American authorities. With all the time that has passed since the June 28 election—the House even resumed two weeks late—one might have expected the government to be in a position to tell us something more than “there will be an international policy this fall”. They go on, moreover, to say that “Parliamentarians and other Canadians will have the opportunity to debate its analyses and proposed directions”.

We might now have expected a position or some parameters relating to the government's reflections, but no. Because they are aware that this is a touchy subject, and involves questions of federal jurisdiction, they prefer to keep mum about this particular hot potato and likely will end up trying to present all of the people of Canada and of Quebec, as well as all the members of this House, with a done deal. Not only is this unacceptable, it is undemocratic as well.

Now for employment insurance. The member for Chambly—Borduas was very clear about this in his speech. If there is one area that still falls, regrettably, under federal jurisdiction, it is employment insurance. I always think to myself that Mr. Godbout , the man who made it possible in the early 1940s for the federal government to reclaim jurisdiction over this from the provinces, must be turning over in his grave.

Employment insurance has been a terrible problem for years; ever since the Liberals “reformed” employment insurance in fact. The truth is, it started with the Conservatives. The House probably remembers the Axworthy reform. At that time I was working with the unions. Along with our young people, we fought that reform because we could clearly see where it was leading. It led us just where we thought it would, to the misuse of public money: $45 billion, as my colleague has said.

There have been drastic cuts in accessibility. Now only four out of ten people who pay premiums and lose their jobs ever get any benefits. It is no longer a social safety net at all; it has become a Canada-wide lottery. It has been denounced many times. In 2000, the ministers went to the Chicoutimi region. The hon. member for Jonquière is here to confirm that for us. The ministers said they were going to solve the problems. And what did we get as a bill? Something merely cosmetic.

A few weeks after the election was called, the Liberals thought they could fool the people with other cosmetic changes to EI. It fooled no one in the regions of Quebec and no one in the Atlantic provinces.

What we might have expected is not what is written in the Speech from the Throne. There we find a sentence that is probably receiving quite a bit of scrutiny, to the effect that the government will look into the employment insurance program to ensure that it remains well-suited to the new realities. What does that mean? Are they going to change it to suit the interests of multinationals that still prefer having a workforce incapable of achieving minimum economic security? Such workers can be forced to accept poor working conditions and low salaries in order to meet legitimate competition from developing countries. Is that what we want? That is what the Axworthy reform was.

Are they finally going to respond to the concerns of Canadians, Quebeckers, workers who want to have a real system, since they are paying for it? The same is true for employers.

Therefore, this is a subject that the Liberal government should have been prepared to meet head on with answers. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot spoke of this during question period. Year after year, we end up with surpluses much higher than the Minister of Finance predicted. It is true for the current finance minister and it was also true when the Prime Minister was finance minister, and when Mr. Manley was finance minister.

The surplus is systematically underestimated. Perhaps this is a way to provide funding based on conditions set by the federal government in areas where there are acute problems, such as health. That was what Mr. Chrétien did when he came up with $2 billion at the last minute after having said that he would probably not be able to do so without scraping the bottom of the barrel.

We need to have a good look at the real numbers in order to have the discussions that we should have with the provincial premiers on federal transfers to the provinces. This is not just about equalization. I think that everyone agrees on this except the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada.

We need an institute that could assure us of the validity of the numbers.

Everything I have talked about that was not elaborated on in the Speech from the Throne is in the amendment moved by the Conservative Party. It talks about an independent employment insurance fund to be managed by those who pay into it. It talks about having a free vote on the missile defence shield. It talks about the need to create an agency to ensure that the fiscal forecasts of this government are verified by an independent body.

All these items—and there are more in the amendment moved by the Conservatives—are not just concerns of the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois. They are concerns of Canadians and Quebeckers. The best illustration of this is that two-thirds of the members here in this House are not from the Liberal Party of Canada, but from the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party, or the NDP, and the government has to realize that.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. But first, let me say that I thought he described the situation very well when he talked about a meaningless throne speech following the results of the election on June 28.

Since my colleague was previously the Bloc Quebecois critic for aboriginal affairs, I would like him to comment on the fact that not one word is to be found in the Throne speech on the appalling conditions in which Canada's native people live.

As we know, some initiatives launched in Quebec were successful, including the peace of the braves, an agreement reached with the Cree, and the common approach with the Innu. Unfortunately, as I have witnessed myself, despite the efforts made by the government and the people of Quebec, native people in Quebec are still encountering difficulties because the federal government is doing absolutely nothing to help these communities solve their problems. I would like to ask the hon. member to speak on this.