Raymonde Folco

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can talk about the compassionate family care leave initiative, for example, which would represent an enhancement, not a reduction, to current benefits provided through our programs. We have other programs as well. This is only one example. I would really suggest that he read the departmental papers, which would help in giving him an answer to his own question.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2002]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the member opposite to reread the Speech from the Throne and to reread the government's skills and learning agenda. I would like to be very clear. We are not talking about cuts to EI benefits.

I will repeat: We are not talking about cuts to EI benefits. We are talking about ensuring the development and use of the skills and talents of all Canadians in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.

[World Teachers Day, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating World Teachers Day, the theme of which is “Teachers Create Dialogue Every Day”.

Dialogue involves a number of values that are dear to our society: understanding, respect and solidarity, and tolerance.

In a world where interdependence is of such great importance, undeniably the role of dialogue is becoming more and more important.

The theme is well chosen, showing as it does the involvement of teachers in the social development of the children and others they teach. All of us can remember a teacher who had a particular impact on our life.

Teachers contribute to Canada's future by teaching tomorrow's adults. In recognition and gratitude for their devoted service to society, I would ask the House to join with me in wishing them an excellent day and a great school year.

[American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, postage stamps have played an important role in our lives. They make it possible for us to keep in touch with loved ones by correspondence, regardless of where they live.

Stamps mark our lives and our history. A few days ago, Canada Post announced the issue of new stamps in its commemorative series.

This program commemorates crowning achievements and significant anniversaries that have shaped Canada as we know it today. I am pleased to see that one of these stamps will be issued shortly to mark the 75th anniversary of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association in Canada. The AHEPA is a Greek-American organization which promotes a mutual understanding of Greek and Canadian cultures and encourages members to participate in the civic and commercial activities of Canadian society.

My congratulations to the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association of Canada for all that it has accomplished for the past 75 years and more.

[Hate Crimes, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today clerics of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths gave a press conference here in Ottawa to testify to the mutual respect among the various cultural groups and faith communities.

Here is part of their statement, and I quote:

We deplore any act of vandalism or desecration of any religious site, ethnic community centre, school or cemetery of any faith.

We view with horror and sorrow attacks upon religious institutions in our City and throughout Canada in the recent past and we consider any such act to be an assault upon all of us.

We urge that all people manifest a tangible and meaningful respect for each other, and to eject and repel any attempts to vilification of other individuals or groups.

Recently, Canadians of Muslim and Jewish faiths were the target of racist acts and events. This is an important initiative by the religious leaders of three communities as a show of trust and solidarity toward their fellow citizens.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a few words on Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act. The current process has been going on for close to nine years and it has led us to where we are today regarding the species at risk legislation.

I remind the House that the nine years of this process were not spent making a series of brief proposals, rejecting them and making new ones again. Nor was it a matter of saying “We do not like this idea; we will propose another one”.

On the contrary, this process of nine years was a cumulative process that helped developed an informed policy. And at each stage, we looked at what we had learned before taking the next step.

Of course, we consulted a large number of individuals and groups. We looked at what was being done in other countries and in another jurisdictions, including provincial jurisdictions. We reviewed, we listened and we reviewed some more.

In fact, last year, before the species at risk bill was introduced in February 2001, consultations had been held across Canada. For example, national workshops were organized to develop the foundations of the policies and the framework of the bill on species at risk.

We read thousands of letters that were taken into consideration in the design of the bill. Moreover, discussions took place with aboriginal people from all regions of the country and with national aboriginal organizations.

Wildlife management boards, academics, environmental NGOs, conservation groups, international organizations, the provinces and territories, and stakeholders from the fishing, forestry, agricultural, mining and labour sectors also took part in the consultations.

This is to say that we heard an extremely diversified group of people from coast to coast to coast, for the very reason that we wanted to try to meet and listen to all those who are concerned about this bill.

Let us also not forget the members who, of course, spent quite a bit of time on this bill.

In fact, collectively we devoted more than 250 hours to discussions and deliberations around this species at risk bill. Last year, for example, the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development received more than 80 submissions and heard more than 90 witnesses.

I think we can say today that we have heard the entire range of views. We have also made every reasonable effort to take those points of view into account. Listening to people is not enough, one must also deal with the information they provide. Our goal was to strike a balance between the various points of view we heard. I think we can say today that, without a doubt, we have achieved that goal.

This species at risk bill is the best solution under the circumstances. It takes into account our constitutional structure, our Canadian approach, our need to involve people in conservation measures, and it takes into account as well the numerous requirements and interests of landowners throughout the country.

Thought must be given to everything that has been accomplished since this bill began to be drafted. When the federal Species at Risk Act was introduced for the first time, it did not contain many provisions on conservation. It did not make reference to the importance of stewardship and still less to the measures that are the key means of true habitat protection and conservation.

We have listened to Canadians in rural regions, the farmers, fishers, forestry workers and other users of natural resources.

All indicated to us that the stewardship initiatives that have been in place for a long time in Canada have yielded confirmed results.

We support the proposal made by the standing committee to authorize the Minister of the Environment to direct the development of a stewardship action plan. We have committed funding of $45 million over five years through the habitat stewardship program.

These changes were very well received by Canadians from every rural region in the country. The most important change was probably regarding compensation. The bill now contains compensation provisions. There must be fair and reasonable compensation for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact from prohibitions on destroying essential habitat.

We support the amendment proposed by the standing committee that requires there be regulations on compensation.

Under the proposal and the bill under consideration, these regulations will be developed in close consultation with all those affected. The development process for the regulations on compensation will be transparent and inclusive. It will include landowners and land and resource users.

We heeded the advice given by environmental groups and by members of the standing committee who supported a broader application of the legislation. We expanded the scope of the bill so that it now includes all species at risk in addition to their essential habitat wherever that may be in Canada.

The development of recovery, action, and management plans must respect high standards of co-operation. As the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommended, these three documents must also be made available for public comment.

We also focused on landowners and on those who use land and resources, particularly rural Canadians.

In the interests of greater openness, transparency and accountability, we added a provision requiring that the recommendations of a roundtable composed of persons interested in matters respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk be included in the registry. The Minister must respond publicly to these recommendations within 180 days.

I challenge all of us to find any recovery measure, any regulation, any species situation assessment report, or any other document required by the legislation which does not have to be included in the registry.

I challenge all of us to find anything at all in this proposal which would not be the subject of consultations or which would not be monitored, and the implementation and effectiveness of which would not have to be reviewed at regular intervals.

We worked with the standing committee to add 233 species to the initial legal list. This means that recovery programs and management plans will be required for 233 species within set timeframes. As soon as the legislation takes effect, this requirement will apply to all 233 species on the legal list, including those managed by the provinces.

This means—as I have already mentioned in another speech in the House—that, in so far as possible, the essential habitat for almost 200 species listed in the “extirpated”, “endangered” and “threatened” categories will have to be identified.

We are proud of the bulk of the bill. We are probably the proudest of its approach to aboriginal involvement. This is without precedent.

The bill represents a considerable investment of time and effort. After almost nine years, we have got it right. It is the best solution for Canada. It is time to pass this bill.

[Petits chanteurs de Laval and Voix boréales, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, two choirs, the Petits chanteurs de Laval and the Voix boréales, have once again had a hugely successful season both in Canada and abroad.

After China and Japan, the Petits chanteurs de Laval and the Voix boréales will be in concert throughout the summer, in just about every part of Canada, performing numbers from their 20 years of repertoire.

Their performances feature songs in French and in English, but they also have songs in numerous other languages, such as Chinese and Zulu.

This fall, these young singers from Laval will perform for New Yorkers in Carnegie Hall.

These experiences provide the young people with a great deal of pleasure as well as the opportunity to be part of a group. These experiences will prepare them to be Canadian citizens who are well prepared to take an active part in the life of our beautiful country.

[Michel Tarabulsy, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Salle André-Mathieu de Laval is now featuring the latest exhibit of the works of Michel Tarabulsy, an artist from Laval West, who is presenting 15 of his gouaches, most of which were done in the early 2000s.

His astonishing works often draw on personal experiences, but they sometimes also take very critical aim at current events.

I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Tarabulsy for his entire oeuvre. I hope that the people of Laval and area will turn out in large numbers to admire the works of this local artist.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the member opposite, despite his tremendous goodwill and despite the fact that he is very sincere, since it is indeed a very difficult situation, only listened to one half of my answer, and not the other half.

I said that under the framework agreement on workforce development concluded with the province of New Brunswick, the Government of Canada has invested more than $90 million.

I think that the member is knocking on the wrong door. I understand that he is a member of Canada's parliament, but it seems to me that he should be working with his provincial counterparts, the members of the legislative assembly of New Brunswick, to ensure that a part of this $90 is allocated to his constituents.

This is my hope. I think that he should try knocking at another door and working with his provincial counterparts.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the member for Acadie—Bathurst but I would like, if I may, to give a few details about the situation he is describing in his riding. It is a situation which exists not just in northern New Brunswick but in many areas of Canada.

Seasonal industries and jobs are important elements of the rural economy in many areas of Canada. We recognize that seasonal workers are in a special situation and that, in order to help them, the Government of Canada must work with various stakeholders.

This is precisely what the minister told the member in reply. These stakeholders obviously include not just the federal government but also provincial governments, including the government of New Brunswick, communities, businesses and workers themselves.

This is a solution which will make it possible to help workers in the long term. It involves not just employment insurance, but rather the creation of more jobs, which will mean that these workers will be able to work for a longer period of the year.

It also involves diversifying local economies and creating new opportunities. I will give a few examples, if I may. Human Resources Development Canada has approved a grant of $252,625 for the Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre to help it come up with job-based solutions which will help seasonal workers in northwestern New Brunswick.

This is the area the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst comes from. I do not know why he has heard nothing about this committee. It most certainly exists. If memory serves, the committee even came to meet with members of the House standing committee on human resources development on a number of occasions. So this committee will receive $252,625.

In addition, there is a labour market development framework agreement between the government of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada. Under this agreement, the Government of Canada has paid out—it is not planning to pay out, but has actually paid out—$90 million to help the people of New Brunswick acquire job skills and find and keep work.

Under this agreement—I will get into some specifics here—the province has a responsibility to develop and implement local employment programs. The approach used by New Brunswick is based on developing long term job strategies. This is also what the federal government wants for seasonal workers.

Under the labour market agreement, the government of New Brunswick provides training and promotes the development of new skills. It also provides financial assistance to stimulate long term employment for the unemployed.

The government of New Brunswick also promised to subject labour market development agreements to detailed assessments. These are being made not only for New Brunswick, but also for a number of provinces. Several of them have already been released during the year. These assessments will help collect reliable information on the program's impact and effectiveness.

As a government, we have tried to help these people. The hon. member opposite forgets that a number of measures have been taken by the federal government. I will simply mention two: we changed the hours based system and we eliminated the intensity rule this year.