Serge Cardin

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, here is an excerpt from an article entitled “When Clarity Isn't”. It reads “Who do they think we are in Ottawa? Dunces who do not even know their French? To call a bill a clarity bill when nothing in it is clear, one must not have public information in mind”.

So, to clarify matters for certain people in this House, I would like to table this article published in La Voix de l'Est on December 31, 1999 and entitled, as I said, “When Clarity Isn't”.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, “with a little bit of luck, this awful intergovernmental affairs minister could have done an amazing number of things in life”.

I am quoting this excerpt from an article in Le Soleil on December 12, concerning the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. The title of the story is “The Blues of the Insurance Salesman”.

For the information of the Liberal members opposite, I request unanimous consent to table this document.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article which will certainly enlighten members in this House. This article was published on January 6 in Le Soleil and is entitled “Bill on rules for referendum”.

So, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a speech the Prime Minister of Canada gave in Hull on November 28, where he says that the referendum questions in 1980 and in 1995 were both clear.

Therefore, as a result of the introduction of Bill C-20 denying all the basic rights of Quebecers, I request unanimous consent to enlighten the House—

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a wonderful text that pays tribute to one of the greatest advocates of Quebec's interests and democracy, René Lévesque.

The Prime Minister introduced a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights, and he should read it.

Therefore, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document for the enlightenment of all members.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière referred a little earlier to a serious threat to democracy. I would say, rather, that the government is simply trying to kill democracy in Quebec.

I have here an article that was published in Le Soleil on October 4, 1995, emphasizing that the 50% plus one majority rule is acceptable everywhere in Canada except Quebec.

Further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten the House.

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an excellent document entitled “En marche vers un pays, le Québec.”

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague for his speech.

When we talk about tourism, there is one very important thing that we have to keep in mind, which is the fact that there are several different regions in this vast country of Canada as well as in Quebec, and there is a competitive element involved. A number of regions are increasingly trying to attract more tourists. These regions are not all the same.

Now that the federal government wants to gain control of tourism, it could very easily end up discriminating in favour of some regions and against others.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks about the possibility that the federal government might do what it did in terms of regional development and discriminate in favour of one region and against another, as has too often been the case in Quebec. What does the hon. member think about a government, which has often chosen to promote some regions and ignore others, getting involved in tourism?

[Nuclear Waste, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the American government has backed away from its intention to send plutonium to Canada for use as fuel in a Canadian reactor. We also know that the Canadian government wanted to process Russian plutonium.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Given the American decision, does the government intend to reverse its decision to import plutonium and transport it through Canada to Chalk River, Ontario?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to speak in the debate on Bill C-11.

The bill, whose short title is the Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization and Dissolution Act, is intended essentially to end the federal government's involvement in the Cape Breton coal mines.

I would point out initially that the first section of the bill concerns the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act of 1967 and provides for the repeal of certain outdated provisions. For instance, the word chairperson is now used instead of chairman and the number of directors has been changed.

The second section concerns the mission and assets of the corporation. The changes will make the mission of the corporation essentially commercial, since it no longer has to reorganize and rehabilitate the coal division as initially provided in the act.

The third section concerns financial provisions and sets out the procedure for authorizing advances to provide working capital. It will be interesting to take a longer look at clause 19. Does it mean that the government intends to fund the new corporation before it is privatized? The workers pensions and rights acquired over the years also warrant very close consideration. That is what we intend to do this in committee.

Because, under the Financial Administration Act, legislation is required to authorize the federal government to sell part of the assets, the House is now considering Bill C-11, which will authorize the federal government to divest itself of its assets in the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

It should be pointed out that the main provinces involved in the coal mining industry are Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia. Many people feel western coal is of higher quality. Coal is essentially an export commodity, as less and less of it is in use in our generating stations, since natural gas is less harmful to the environment and therefore used more.

The corporation employs close to 1,700 miners, so this will throw some 1,000 people out of work in a region where the unemployment rate is already at a worrisome level, of close to 25%.

At the same time, the minister is announcing $110 million in assistance to be used for severance pay and early retirement programs for the miners, as well as $68 million for economic development in the region. The Government of Nova Scotia has recently announced that it would be investing $12 million in the long term economic development of Cape Breton.

Devco was established in 1967 by the Cape Breton Development Act. Its assets include the Prince and Phalen mines, the Donkin mine site, the corporation wharf and rail line, its coal processing plant and the related infrastructures.

Federal government participation in Cape Breton coal mining dates back to 1967. In the mid-sixties, the owner at the time, Dominion Steel and Coal (DOSCO) announced its intention to close down operations. The federal government decided to create Devco to operate the mines, with the plan to withdraw gradually and to ensure the economic diversification of the region. This participation, meant to be temporary, continued until this past January.

A little over 30 years and some $1.6 billion later in the life of Devco the crown corporation responsible for managing these mines, the federal government withdrew, while ensuring that it would maintain its jurisdiction over labour relations, occupational health and safety, and labour standards.

Let there be no mistake—the government is withdrawing and mines are closing down. However, one of them must continue to operate and the government is hoping to be able to privatize it. This is why the bill refers to the continuation of the existing jurisdictional regimes in the areas I mentioned earlier.

To date, the office of the Minister of Natural Resources have not been crowded with buyers. Coal is not an emerging market. The reverse in fact is true. All that time and money spent persuading Cape Bretoners that their economy could be based on coal mining alone. The government knew that it should diversify the economy but, rather than doing the responsible, but difficult, thing, the Liberals of the day decided to pass on the problem to their successors.

Bloc Quebecois members were elected to promote and defend the interests of Quebecers. Whether those interests involve employment insurance, restructuring of the airline industry, or opposition to Bill C-6 or the young offenders legislation, the Bloc Quebecois has always devoted its energies to promoting and defending the interests of Quebecers.

This is why the voters have placed their trust in us, and it is what guides us in the House. We must be vigilant when it comes to bills that do not concern Quebec directly, because what the federal government is doing could have repercussions for Quebec. The bill before us is a good example.

In many areas, the federal government is behaving like a unitary government, with little regard for the provinces, and even less for Quebec. A few examples will suffice if anyone is still in any doubt: the millennium scholarships being imposed by the government on Quebec, despite the fact that Quebec has an excellent loans and scholarships program based on students' needs; Bill C-6 on personal information protection in the context of e-commerce, which the Minister of Industry has introduced without prior consultation, although Quebec already has personal information protection legislation that has received international acclaim.

The list is long, and every day we try to add examples to prove to Quebecers that there is a level of government in our territory that is not doing the job given it by the Constitution. In fact, that level of government is doing too much.

It is the federal government that is doing too much. Perhaps it is because the Constitution Act gives it too much power. The federal government uses all sorts of provisions in the Constitution Act to impose its jurisdiction in areas that are under provincial jurisdiction. Members not supporting this approach, such as the Bloc Quebecois, must criticize it. Only infrequently do we see our neighbours opposite rise to criticize the centralizing aims of the party in power. Some, exceedingly rarely, display courage, such as the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, in expressing his opposition to the restructuring of the airline industry.

I referred earlier to the Constitution Act, which has a new section on natural resources, section 92A. The section reads as follows:

(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 resources natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

(c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.

This provision dates from before Devco's establishment. It must not be assumed that it is federal jurisdiction. Reference must be made to subsection 92(10), which sets out that local works and undertakings are under provincial jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the federal government declared the Cape Breton mines to be a work of general advantage to Canada in order to establish its jurisdiction and ensure the application of federal legislation in such areas as labour and occupational health and safety.

This way of going about things, also known as declaratory power, allows the federal government to interfere unilaterally in the division of powers. Brun and Tremblay define it as follows:

—it is the right given to the Parliament of Canada by sections 91(29) and 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, to extend its exclusive jurisdiction to local works, by declaring them to be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces. The works that are the subject of such unilateral declaration no longer come under provincial jurisdiction. The courts refuse to rule on the appropriateness of recourse to this power; in fact, the federal government has used it on close to 500 occasions in connection with a wide variety of infrastructures, including railways, telephones, and dams.

The federal government thus interferes in provincial jurisdictions in all sorts of ways. In some cases, it cites its spending authority, and in others it uses its declaratory power.

For the government to have taken this approach in 1967 is one thing, but for it now to decide to get out of the mines but hang on to its jurisdiction using clause 5 of the bill is unacceptable.

For the information of those listening, I will read clause 5

The works and undertakings operated or carried on by the Corporation on or after June 15, 1967 are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

It is this clause in particular that we have a problem with.

In the 1990s, the federal government slashed provincial transfer payments in order to balance the budget. In a federal system with centralizing tendencies, these cuts were just one more step on the road to concentrating power in the hands of the federal government.

With the present surpluses, is the federal government getting ready to “buy” jurisdiction? There is cause for concern and this is why we think Bill C-11 poses a threat.

The Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-11 primarily because of clause 5, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over what we feel is a provincial matter.

As well, we feel it is important to raise certain points relating to the situation in Cape Breton. It is not so much the federal withdrawal from the coal industry that bothers us as the resulting outcome, unfortunately in large part its own doing. We do not need to draw any pictures, the Liberal government's policies on regional economic diversification are well known.

Suffice it to say that it has not always made the wisest of choices. As long ago as the late 1960s, a commission on the future of the industry of Cape Breton indicated that coal production would have to be phased out and the local economy truly diversified. Federal investments have not worked out and by focussing solely on this one industry, the government encouraged hundreds of young people to follow their fathers into the mines.

Thirty years later, when many miners had not worked long enough to have a decent pension, the coal industry is in a total decline. It is, moreover, important to point out that, although there are some 1,700 employees of Devco, the futures of 6,000 individuals and families whose living comes from coal mining are at stake.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill as it stands. The main reason for our opposition relates to the maintenance of federal jurisdiction. I would also point out that this whole mess, which dates back to 1967 and that the federal government should have tried to remedy by diversifying the economy of Cape Breton, affects the workers and their families.

The reclassification manoeuvres under way will make it possible for heads of families to be bumped from their jobs. We will therefore be making an effort to get answers from the minister on retirement conditions and on how Devco's assets will be privatized.

I am anxious to see the bill go before the natural resources committee so that we will get some answers.