Roger Pomerleau

[The Environment, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Quebecers care a great deal about the environment. It is part of their culture and of what they are.

Some of them have dedicated their life to protecting the environment, raising their fellow citizens' awareness, as well as studying nature and its interaction with man. Some even called on the courts to prevent the federal government from going ahead with projects which were potentially harmful for human health and the marine ecosystem.

Local initiatives to clean up riverbanks, reforest urban spaces or even organize carpools are often taken on by individuals convinced they can and must preserve a safe environment for their children. They deserve our grateful thanks.

Clearly, I share the minister's vision regarding the appropriateness of helping initiatives aimed at reducing man's impact on nature.

However, there is a major flaw in the minister's argument. The program she announced today is obviously the kind of measure which upsets programs and priorities established by provincial governments, creates new expectations, and constitutes dubious management practice.

Action 21 is a perfect example of what Quebecers, sovereignists as well as federalists, have been fighting against for decades. The environment minister seems to have trouble understanding that. And yet, it is rather clear: Quebec no longer wants to see the federal government clumsily step in and negate its efforts. Many provinces share the same feeling.

The only purpose of Action 21 is for the federal government to use its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The Quebecers have heard this song before. Its intent is laudable, and just about everybody recognizes how important it is. The federal government is setting itself up as a saviour generously handing out mana.

What the minister does not realize is that Quebecers know that government funding will be reduced, even stopped, within a few months or a few years. Budget constraints will then be blamed, as is already the case now.

Groups who have initiated projects will then turn to Quebec for the kind of assistance they really need, at which time the province will be faced with the following choice: either completing ongoing projects or putting an end to them. In one case, the federal government will have shifted to the province responsibility for part of its expenditures and, in the other, responsibility for quashing the projects.

This is something Quebecers have experienced over and over in many areas. Take for example the contaminated sites rehabilitation program and the greater Montreal greening program.

By being very careful not to mention in her speech the amounts earmarked for and actual duration of Agenda 21, the minister confirmed the misgivings we had.

Action taken under Agenda 21 is based on a fifteen year old philosophy aimed at giving the federal government the sole initiative on environmental issues. Relying on the authority of the Supreme Court and on its own spending power, the federal government is gradually taking over this area of responsibility, establishing new national standards which, in many cases, add to existing provincial standards.

In closing, I wish to thank the hon. minister for just proving to us that her government never intended to change the federal system in any way and that all it has to offer Quebecers is the good old Trudeau-style centralization. As long as it is able to get away with it, the federal government will use its spending power in areas of provincial responsibility, disregard priorities set by Quebec minis-

ters and attempt to gain legitimacy by going over the heads of the provinces. The only way to stop this is to opt for sovereignty for Quebec, even for the fishermen of the Gaspe Peninsula.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the trouble in the minds of my friends in the Reform Party, but it is a reality, it is a fact, that within the country there are three major voices. The first one goes to Ontario, the second one to Quebec due to the demographic compilation, and the third one goes to westerners. In my own opinion it is a shame. Even the Liberal government is always calling the Reform Party the third party because that is the way it is.

I sincerely think westerners should have a real say in Parliament. They should be entitled to run for power, which is not the case actually.

My friend suggests that if the no wins, the Reform will probably form the next government. However, if the no wins, for a short period of time the Prime Minister of Canada will be seen as the saviour, Captain Canada, and he will be elected again. We will be here too. To have the potential to take power the Reform Party must assume that it should support the sovereignty of Quebec.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

I am glad the hon. member opposite, who seems to think he is the only person from the Gaspé in this House, withdrew what he said.

I was indeed born in the Gaspé, in Val-d'Espoir, and my family still lives there. I know all about the problems of the fishermen down there. I also spent my holidays in the Gaspé, on Chaleur Bay in the hon. member's riding, and I have seen for myself what the problems are.

The hon. member mentioned the economic future of this country, Mr. Speaker. We want the sovereignty of Quebec for economic reasons. I remember when in 1980, at the time of the first referendum, Mr. Bourassa told us, and this will conclude my speech: "If you say yes to the sovereignty of Quebec in 1980, you can expect a lot of debt, taxes and unemployment". So people decided they should vote no. They did, and we remained a Canadian province. The federal debt rose from $80 billion to $600 billion; the unemployment rate practically doubled; the number of welfare recipients doubled; our young people no longer have a future, and we are still in Canada.

I think the hon. member should do his homework, visit his riding again and check with the people there, because in the Gaspé we are going to win.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon. member, I want to tell him that I was born in Val-d'Espoir, in the Gaspe Peninsula, about two minutes away from his riding. I spent all of-

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

We need a change and a fast one. My friends in the Reform Party should realize they should support the sovereignty of Quebec. I hope sincerely that somewhere down the road my Reform Party friends will finally see the light on their way to Damascus and find within themselves the courage to follow the logical path of their reasoning and bring it down to the right conclusion.

Most Canadians have actually come to three assumptions about Quebec: first, we are a bunch of troublemakers, never happy with what we get; second, we receive much more money from Canada than what we give to Canada; third, the economic disaster in Canada is partly due to the political instability in Quebec. If those three assumptions are right, then the sovereignty of Quebec should normally be seen by all Canadians as a good way to solve the problem once and for all and make money out of it, providing of course that we assume our fair share of the Canadian debt.

That is exactly what we intend to do through the negotiations which will start after the yes vote, although by all international rules and regulations Quebec has no legal obligation to take any part of the debt. Four studies were produced for the Bélanger-Campeau commission. Two were done in Canada, one in England and one in France. Those studies all came to that conclusion.

In 1994 David Crane in the Toronto Star stated: ``Canada's foreign creditors would not want to transfer part of Canada's debt to Quebec. This is money they loaned to Canada, not Quebec''.

That helps Quebec in a way. It means that Canada would have to reach an accommodation with Quebec since Canada cannot force

Quebec to take its share of the debt. The article continued: "Technically Quebec could walk away from its share of the debt".

In the Gazette on December 13 William Johnson said:``Ottawa would suddenly lose one-quarter of all its taxpayers, but would be responsible for the entire national debt, some $600 billion, nearly half of which is held by foreigners. Ottawa signed for the loans so only Ottawa is responsible before the creditors. Legally, Quebec would have no obligation to pay anything''.

In spite of all this, we are offering to all Canadians that we will assume our fair share through negotiations. It is a shame the Prime Minister of Canada is refusing to negotiate. It jeopardizes Canada and Quebec at the same time.

Canadians should have the right to run their country the way they want without having to please Quebec at each moment. The referendum which will be held quite soon in Quebec will have an answer: yes or no. If it is a yes vote, and I think it will be-

Because every Quebecer remembers full well what Mr. Bourassa himself said, that status quo would be the worse solution for Quebec, and what we are being offered is exactly that, the status quo.

If it is a no vote what will happen? If it is a no vote we are back to square one. Fifteen years of constitutional debate to the next referendum. Nobody wants that.

I quote perhaps the greatest political analyst ever produced, Mr. Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over". It will never be over with Quebec until we win because the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois do not exist to support an idea. They exist because there is an idea to be supported.

Bill C-98, and I will conclude on this, demonstrates Ottawa's will to centralize, which permeates every bill. I would like to point out to my hon. colleagues that, in almost every committee we sit on, the Bloc Quebecois has had to produce minority reports each time Quebec's jurisdictions were at risk of being encroached on.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out that Bill C-98 before the House today on second reading is a typical example of the kind of bill I like to discuss.

Indeed, it will give me another chance to show Quebecers it would be both useless and dangerous to leave Quebec's development under federal control.

Consider the endless jurisdictional squabbles that would be generated by the passage of this bill. My colleagues from Laurentides and the Gaspé have already discussed this but I feel I must say more on the subject, at a time when Quebecers are about to make an important decision on their collective destiny.

The bill starts by identifying, in Canadian domestic law, Canada's jurisdiction over its ocean areas. To do so, however, the text merely incorporates provisions of the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act and the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. Since the legislation I just mentioned has not been amended in any way, this part of Bill C-98 is redundant. Especially since Canada's sovereignty over its ocean areas is recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which Canada is a signatory.

Part II of this enactment is supposed to provide for the development and implementation of a national oceans management strategy based on the sustainable development and integrated management of oceans and coastal activities and resources. This is, in fact, one of the most ambitious attempts by the federal government to invade jurisdictions over which it has no authority and which it would be folly to cede to the federal government.

According to officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Part II of the bill could have been dropped, since it does not give the Department of Fisheries any new powers to manage a national oceans strategy. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is merely to encourage the minister to collaborate with his colleagues on identifying a strategy. Obviously, the minister cannot assume the authority to manage a strategy that has yet to be defined.

In the light of the foregoing, I wondered why the government bothered to table a bill that apparently is no more than a series of good intentions.

A closer look at the bill gave me the answer. First of all, the bill identifies two classes of intervenors in the process of implementing a national oceans strategy: the federal government and interested persons and bodies. In other words, provincial governments are considered on a par with any lobby group. This is one way of telling Canadian voters that "if you voted for the right side, we will consider what your provincial government wants".

In the case of lobbyists, particularly major ones, this government tells them "If you contribute to our slush fund-the slush fund of the right party-our government will lend a much more attentive ear to your concerns". For examples of this we need only think of the role of the Liberal government in the case of Power DirecTv or the purchase of MCA by Seagram, the sale of Pearson airport, and most recently the privatization of Petro-Canada. We have learned just this week that the sale of federal shares in the latter will be

handled by Gordon Capital of Toronto, the Prime Minister's former employer. It will be remembered very clearly that, when it came time to vote on a private member's bill on public funding of political parties, the government opposed it in order to be good and sure to go on playing the little game of "he who pays the piper picks the tune".

The parallel to be drawn between businesses contributing to the right party fund and voters supporting the right party is obvious, particularly since there is no obligation for the minister to follow any recommendations by the governments of Quebec and the other provinces.

Similarly, sections 31, 32 and 33 of Bill C-98 empower the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to develop and implement a national management strategy for estuarial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Such a strategy will require a number of elements to be created. First, activity management plans; second, administrative or consultative bodies; third, a number of programs; fourth, environmental standards; fifth, scientific data gathering and analysis on the ecosystems concerned.

These are already functions of either Environment Canada or the provinces. We have seen that the minister is seeking through this act to encroach on the provinces' influence over the environment. Thus, the only useful purpose that we can see in this bill is to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It is also worthy of note that the bill before us, as I have already pointed out, will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to encroach upon areas over which the Minister of the Environment has jurisdiction. Like my colleagues, I wondered why cabinet failed to see that and I concluded it was doubtless because, when the Minister of the Environment tries to invade Quebec's area of jurisdiction, she can be seen coming so far off in the distance that the job had to be given to someone else.

The fact that the minister is not obliged to come to an agreement with the provinces, which have a keen interest in the management of the marine environment, is both incomprehensible and unacceptable.

I would also like to point out that the environment is not one of the areas of jurisdiction the constitution attributes explicitly to one level of government in particular. It is what they call an ancillary jurisdiction and is subordinate to those jurisdictions the constitution explicitly mentions.

In theory, the Department of the Environment is responsible for the administration of this ancillary jurisdiction in co-operation with each of the departments concerned.

Until the mid 1980s, the Government of Quebec, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a leading role in environmental matters, occupying the largest part of the field of jurisdiction. The federal government limited its involvement to areas relating to its jurisdiction, as the constitution provides.

After 1985, the federal government began to meddle in environmental matters. It did so primarily by virtue of its spending power and the new powers the courts had accorded it. That was the beginning of many instances of duplication and overlap. They continue to exist and have grown more numerous since the election of the present Liberal government, which is trying to centralize decision-making in Ottawa. The Government of Quebec considers Bill C-98 another step toward centralization.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, which Mr. Lévesque likened to the tower of Pisa, always leaning the same way, took management of the marine environment and surrounding territory away from the provinces and gave it to the federal government in a decision of four justices to three.

With Bill C-98, the federal government is trying to get the most out of this decision. Quebec fears that this centralizing tendency means the federal government will sooner or later claim management of the waters and the use of the tributaries to the coastal estuary and ultimately all fresh water rivers on the pretext that the contaminants in these waters are a source of degradation of the marine environment.

There is currently a great deal of overlap and duplication in federal and provincial environmental regulations. As a result, private businesses very often have to spend time, money and energy on many things such as collecting information on the many government programs, providing the two levels of government with the required data, participating in the various advisory committees and subcommittees in charge of regulating the industry, preparing for the inspections carried out alternately by the federal government and the province, and complying with the requirements of both governments.

In this regard, the toxic waste regulations are a convincing example. At this time, eight federal regulations overlap similar regulations that already exist in Quebec. Let us take, for example, the storage of PCB material regulations and the pulp and paper effluent regulations. Quebec sovereignty would effectively end this duplication.

Although it must recognize that it can no longer afford to take environmental action, since cuts of 32 per cent over three years were announced in its last budget, the federal government continues to usurp the role of the provinces in setting national standards and priorities. The new Environmental Assessment Act that came into effect in January 1995, which encroaches directly on provincial jurisdiction, and the eco-government policy in which the federal government favours relations with citizens and the private

sector rather than with the provinces are striking examples of this kind of attitude.

On the face of it, the federal government has noble objectives and respects these areas of jurisdiction but, in practice, it bypasses the provinces, forcing its agenda on them and effectively taking over provincial responsibilities.

Bill C-98 adds fuel to the fire as the federal government, despite its financial situation, allows itself to create new structures to protect a particular ecosystem.

Bill C-98 sends an ambiguous message. It seems to reflect a concern for marine ecosystems while at the same time taking away from the Department of the Environment part of its responsibilities and treating provincial environment ministries on the same basis as the industry or municipalities. Will Fisheries and Oceans withdraw just like Environment Canada? It is obvious that Environment Canada is becoming a policy generating department instead of taking real actions-the Irving Whale is a case in point-mainly for budget reasons.

This leads to a number of problems. Here are the main ones. First, environmental concerns must clearly be identified by the grassroots. Policy coming from Ottawa is less likely to be suited to local circumstances, let alone be endorsed by the community. In fact, it has become increasingly clear that efficiency in terms of the environment is dependent upon a sense of ownership at the local level. For real progress to be made the people must be concerned about their rivers and marshes, their environment.

Second, one of the federalists' arguments for centralizing environmental management is that pollution knows no boundaries, travelling from one province or state to another. Acid rain and river pollution are good examples of that.

The federal government is apparently the only one who is able to legislate with efficiency and make international agreements, and to take a holistic approach in order to provide global solutions to global problems. Also, it is unthinkable that the minister not be required to work together with EC officials, as my hon. colleagues from Laurentides and Gaspé said earlier. Unsatisfied with creating jurisdiction conflicts with the provinces, the federal government has now set out to create jurisdiction conflicts between its own departments, all this in a context of fiscal restraint.

Once again, we have before us a bill which, like many others before, is designed to centralize it all in Ottawa.

I have much respect for my friends from the Reform Party because they say what they think and they think what they say. They are the only ones actually to speak about decentralization. They are pretending to offer decentralization for the good of all the provinces, including Quebec. I think that would be a good thing and I think they are really serious about it.

However, in that offer somewhere is a catch 22 because my friends in the Reform Party will never form any government in Canada as long as Quebec is a province. Quebec holds the balance of power in the country as far as the vote is concerned and Quebec will never vote Reform. It is not because we hate Reformers; we love them very much. It is because our philosophies are too far apart. We just have to look at our positions on gun control, gay rights, bilingualism and on all of the bills which have been presented to the House. Most of the time we and the Reform Party have voted differently.

My friends all know the country will soon hit the wall. They all know we are going bankrupt, as it was said in the Wall Street Journal not so long ago.

[Petro-Canada, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after the blatant patronage in the case of Power DirecTv, the acquisition of MCA by Seagram and the Pearson airport deal, which is still under scrutiny, how can the Prime Minister explain the payment of tens of millions to his former employer?

[Petro-Canada, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Gordon Capital, the Toronto firm which employed the Prime Minister from 1986 to 1990, was appointed to head the trust responsible for liquidating the majority of the Petro-Canada shares held by the government. For its trouble, Gordon Capital and its associates will pocket commissions in excess of $65 million, the highest amount ever paid in Canada for such a transaction.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister involved in any way, shape or form in the decision to appoint his former employer to head the coordinators responsible for the sale of Petro-Canada?

[Simple Majority Rule For Referendums, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in July 1948, barely 52 per cent of Newfoundland voters taking part in a referendum agreed to join the Canadian federation. In November 1994, 52 per cent of Swedish voters supported their country's entry into the European Union. Two weeks later, 52 per cent of Norwegians voted against joining the EU. And in France, the Maastricht Agreement was approved by 50.9 per cent of voters.

In fact, the simple majority rule as applied to referendums is universal because it is the only democratic rule. The official opposition did the right thing by reminding the Prime Minister of this fact this week, as Robert Bourassa did in Washington yesterday. The only one who does not admit that Quebecers have this right is the Prime Minister of Canada, who should know this basic democratic rule.

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is my intention, in the next few minutes, to demonstrate to those watching that Bill C-275, which is before us today, is a typical example of inefficiency resulting from the overlaps that are caused by poor co-ordination between the federal government and Quebec.

This bill, as was pointed out by my hon. colleague, the member for Laurentides, and I am going to repeat it because it is important, provides for the identification, protection and rehabilitation of flora and fauna in Canada threatened or endangered by human activity-the hon. member for Davenport has provided a fairly impressive list, I believe-to provide for the protection of habitat and the restoration of population.

This is a laudable sentiment, and obviously this bill is interesting because the government is limiting its legislation to federally owned lands. After all, the government is perfectly justified in taking environmental action on lands that belong to it.

But the problem lies in the fact that fauna, understandably, do not stay in one place, and sooner or later appear on sites where the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction. There is therefore a need for an agreement with the other governments concerned, including the government of Quebec, all the more so as the latter has already made known its intentions in this regard in a letter sent to the attention of the Minister of the Environment last March 28.

In the circumstances, the least we could expect from the federal government is that it would consult the government of Quebec to find out its intentions and that it would table a bill taking into account the potential conflicts of jurisdiction with Quebec.

With respect to the environment, the distribution of powers is not fully spelled out, adding to the risk of overlap, overregulation and duplication. Let us look more specifically at the somewhat ill defined distribution of powers.

With respect to terrestrial fauna, Quebec has full authority over the species inhabiting the public or private lands held by Quebec.

It may also take steps to protect species and their habitat. The federal government has jurisdiction over land animals on federal land only.

As far as our feathered friends are concerned, the federal government was responsible for implementing the 1916 convention on migratory birds. Since this was an international agreement, the federal government at the time assumed responsibility for protecting these birds.

Today, Quebec is responsible for all bird species, including migratory birds, except on federal land. One wonders what happens when birds are neither on provincial land nor on federal land. Furthermore, following a number of administrative agreements, Quebec is now responsible for enforcing Canadian legislation on the 1916 convention on migratory birds.

Finally, as far as marine mammals and fish are concerned-certain fish species are also on the endangered list-the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over ocean and inland fisheries. As of 1922, however, an administrative agreement gives Quebec full responsibility for fisheries management, without any regulatory powers, however.

This delegation of authority has changed over the years, and today, Quebec is responsible for managing freshwater resources and the species they contain, while the federal government manages salt water resources. The division of powers remains a problem.

In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that agreements on the division of powers in environmental matters will require a very sensitive approach. Bill C-275, however, ignores the very existence of this problem, which is why it merely increases the likelihood of overlap and jurisdictional disputes between Quebec and the federal government.

In fact, the Minister of the Environment is well aware of the dangers of overlap and the potential for jurisdictional disputes. In a letter dated March 28, her Quebec counterpart, and I referred to this letter earlier, wrote that the federal bill on endangered species constituted an intrusion into one of Quebec's jurisdictions.

Not only does this government not consult Quebec but there is no attempt to consult within the government itself. In his letter, the Quebec Environment Minister suggested ways to regulate this area, saying that the minister should focus federal action on aspects that were obviously federal in scope, in other words, regulating international and interprovincial trade and exercising constant vigilance to prevent unlawful trafficking in endangered species. The bill before us today, however, does not reflect these suggestions, which means that the Liberal government's spokespersons for environmental matters may not have bothered to discuss the matter. Or even worse, they did and deliberately decided to "invade" an area over which Quebec has specific jurisdiction.

We certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for Davenport, and I am sure, because I know him personally through the Standing Committee on the Environment, that the bill he introduced today is based on a genuine desire that is found the world over to protect the environment.

However, despite this sincerity, there is a significant risk that this bill will encroach on Quebec's jurisdictions. Even if the hon. member's motions are sincere, this is something we cannot accept.

I realize, and here I want to add a more personal note, that this is not the first time we rise in the House to speak out against bills or to say that there is a risk of encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions. Every time we do, we look like troublemakers. I feel a bit like a troublemaker myself when I do this. Quite often, the bills introduced in the House are, to all intents and purposes, good bills.

From time to time, in committee, we draft dissenting opinions on committee reports which, all things considered, were excellent. However, we had to file our minority reports because the majority reports contained some very serious threats to Quebec's jurisdictions.

I think we should consider the demographic evolution of Quebecers since the founding of Canada.

When Canada was founded, the number of francophones and anglophones was about even. Today, we represent only 23 per cent of the population. We used to be one of four provinces. Today, we are one of ten and may become one of 12 or 13, when the territories gain provincial status. Quebecers are one of Canada's endangered species.

That being said, I think we must protect the interests of Quebecers. That is what we were elected to do. I know this bill is sincere and relatively well drafted, but because it represents a

serious threat to Quebec's jurisdictions, we intend to vote against this bill.