Pierre DE SAVOYE

DE SAVOYE, Pierre, B.Sc.

Personal Data

Party
Bloc Québécois
Constituency
Portneuf (Quebec)
Birth Date
November 12, 1942
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Savoye
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=beaa6b76-597d-48c8-aac3-4f0f22efa86c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
consultant, professor

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
BQ
  Portneuf (Quebec)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
BQ
  Portneuf (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 102)


June 13, 2000

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, we are at third reading of Bill C-27, on national parks.

It must be understood that the first objective of the bill is to ensure maintenance and restoration of the integrity of federal parks. Of course, everybody understands that these very important objectives cannot be reached only with one statute.

However, the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of parks depend much more on the attitude of the Parks Canada Agency, its management and staff.

However, Bill C-27 is a first element and a legislative framework that will allow the necessary culture to emerge and to develop fully within the Parks Canada Agency.

In fact, that was one of the major recommendations of the commission, which recently reviewed those issues recently and which emphasized the need to make this change of culture and to prioritize the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of parks. This bill could achieve that.

The bill states that, in the performance of his duties, the minister must consult the people and the authorities in the areas concerned. This is an indispensable element that is essential if the agency is to carry out its mandate. Indeed, in all the parks, there are aboriginal communities which, in certain cases, cannot be neglected in the everyday planning of the agency in the exercise of its mandate.

The bill provides, in my opinion, sufficient and efficient consultation of the communities and organizations concerned.

Furthermore, if this bill seems entirely acceptable on the whole, it does contain a clause that does not concern federal parks, but concerns historic sites. We do not know why this short clause, on historic sites, is in the bill, which is otherwise well structured. In fact, when we read this clause, we realize that it is quite badly written.

I suggested to the House, at report stage, that this clause be removed from the bill. But the House did not see fit to accept my suggestion.

This clause presents a serious problem for municipalities and provinces where there are potential historic sites. Indeed, this clause provides that the agency may acquire such historic properties and declare them historic sites without having to consult in any way the provincial or municipal governments concerned.

This aspect is out of tune with the rest of the bill, which clearly affirms that there must be consultations between the department, agency officials and, finally, the minister and the people or organizations concerned.

In this clause, there is no mention of any obligation on the part of the minister to take counsel together or to consult with the provinces or the local governments.

I find this strange and even frightening. That is why, on the one hand, I suggest that the provincial legislatures ensure that any real estate transaction that would result in the transfer of an historical site to the federal government be submitted, for approval, to the provincial minister concerned.

On the other hand, I humbly and respectfully suggest that the government review this clause and that it reword it more rigorously and, above all, in a manner that would be more respectful of the provinces and municipalities, regarding the preservation and the enhancement of the historical sites affected by this clause of the bill.

In conclusion, let me say that Bill C-27 will really allow us to focus on the preservation and the restoration of the ecological integrity of federal parks. In that perspective, the Bloc Quebecois endorses the goals of this bill and will obviously support it at third reading.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Canada National Parks Act
Full View Permalink

June 12, 2000

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, western Canada will receive six times less money than Quebec for the Canada Day celebrations. Ontario will receive ten times less and the Atlantic provinces 12 times less.

Is the government desperate to the point of thinking that spending three quarters of the Canada Day budget in Quebec will make Quebecers change their deep convictions?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Canada Day
Full View Permalink

June 12, 2000

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Canada Day budget is divided as follows: Out of $7 million, Quebec will receive $5 million; Ontario, $554,000; the Atlantic provinces, $432,000; the western provinces and the territories, a little less than $825,000.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if this strange imbalance is why, last week, she refused to answer all our questions on this issue?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Canada Day
Full View Permalink

June 9, 2000

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, during second reading of Bill C-27 on national parks, the Bloc Quebecois indicated that it was in agreement in principle, but that it intended to raise some important concerns. First, there was the issue of maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of parks, and the question of the time limits for the examination of ministerial orders with respect to amendments to certain schedules of the proposed legislation, which we feel are too short.

There was also the issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks and, finally, the designation of historic sites, without consulting provinces or municipalities.

Following representations made to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage by the various interested parties, the Bloc Quebecois moved twenty or so amendments. The committee agreed to include a definition of ecological integrity in the bill.

We would also have liked clause 4 to deal more directly with this issue of ecological integrity, but we are happy that clause 8 stipulates that the minister's first priority shall be matters of ecological integrity.

The committee extended the time limit for examining ministerial orders to amend certain schedules to the legislation from 20 to 30 days. This is no guarantee that the committees responsible for these matters will be convened, but it reduces the risk considerably and we are satisfied.

The issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks has not, in our view, been entirely resolved. However, clause 12 has been considerably improved so as to require the minister to encourage the public to participate in the development of policies and regulations that might concern it.

In addition, I must point out that, thanks to the intervention of the member for Manicouagan, the representations from inhabitants of the Mingan Archipelago were well received. Thus, in accordance with the wishes expressed by its inhabitants, the Mingan Archipelago has been added to the list of parks in clause 17 of the bill in respect of which the minister may make regulations regarding the exercise of traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. Besides, the limits of the park in the Mingan Archipelago will be, for each island, at the high water mark, as the representatives of the area wanted it to be.

On another topic, clause 42 of the bill provides that the governor in council may set any land as a national historic site to commemorate a historic event or preserve a historic landmark.

At first sight, these provisions appear desirable and harmless, but a closer examination shows that the minister could intrude, without provinces and even interested municipalities being aware, on sites and historic sites and deal with them and develop them the way he wants without necessarily abiding by town planning, zoning or any other municipal bylaws or provincial regulations.

There is a risk that a quiet neighbourhood might be transformed over night. A historic town centre could become a federal property, one building at the time, and the whole of it would become free from any obligation relating to provincial regulations or municipal bylaws. This is unacceptable in my opinion.

The Bloc Quebecois moved in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage an amendment proposing that such acquisitions should at least be approved by the provinces or province involved. The amendment was rejected by the Liberal majority.

This is why, and we will come to that later, I move that this clause be withdrawn, as it creates this type of risk for our provinces, municipalities and populations. If the House does not withdraw this section, I urge all provincial legislatures to legislate in order to subject to the approval of a provincial minister all real property transactions that would result in the transfer of a site to the federal government for the purpose of making it an historical site.

In this way the transaction could be made, but the provincial government and the municipalities would know about it and would be able to take steps to ensure that those transactions are respectful of the people and the authorities concerned.

To conclude, the Bloc will support the bill as amended at report stage. We will, however, be carefully monitoring how Parks Canada, whose priority must be the preservation and restoration of the environmental integrity, is carrying out its mission .

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Canada National Parks Act
Full View Permalink

June 9, 2000

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to put a simple question to the government, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage will understand me correctly.

How much money is the federal government planning to spend outside Quebec on Canada Day celebrations?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Canada Day
Full View Permalink