Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
International Trade December 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Dairy producers and processors throughout the country have been impatiently waiting for the WTO appeal body's decision on Canada's approach to price setting on dairy exports.
What was the appeal decision and what will its consequences be for the country?
Robert Lepage November 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Robert Lepage on receiving the 2001 London Evening Standard theatre award for best play.
The award winning play, “The Far Side of the Moon”, the English version of his “La face cachée de la lune”, was a sold-out success at the National Theatre in London this past summer. This is the first time a foreign playwright has been so honoured. His accomplishment brings honour to all Canadians.
Robert Lepage has a rich and varied body of work, with which most of us are familiar. After his start in 1984 with Théâtre Repère, his career was marked by successes at the National Arts Centre, and with major companies in Germany, Great Britain and Sweden. In all of these, as in his screen debut, Robert Lepage moves his audience with his bold and skilled handling of images and new technologies.
He has mounted some of Shakespeare's major works, as well as his own creations, which include “Vinci”, “The Dragon's Trilogy” and the film “Possible Worlds”.
On behalf of the government, I congratulate Mr. Lepage on this accomplishment and wish him continued—and greater—artistic success.
Infrastructure program November 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Metropolitan Montreal region lacks any bypass routes, and thus thousands of vehicles, heavy trucks in particular, have to use the congested traffic arteries of Montreal Island.
According to studies, in 1998-99 metropolitan Montreal businesses lost over $500 million due to delivery delays. Judging by the way the truck traffic is building up on the Champlain and Jacques-Cartier bridges, and on Metropolitan Boulevard, by the year 2010, metropolitan Montreal will be totally choked up, and the resulting economic losses to our businesses will be enormous.
The Government of Canada has always been involved in the construction of various sections of Highway 30, and has contributed $25 million to build the Brossard-Candiac section in partnership with the Government of Quebec.
In November 2000, the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec section, made a firm commitment to take part in the completion of this by building 14 kilometres of highway and two bridges over the St. Lawrence.
The process for making this great project a reality is in motion, and the Government of Canada intends to make this commitment a reality.
Prebudget Consultation November 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to follow up on my earlier question.
I would like to say that in today's issue of Le Quotidien , November 1, Minister Guy Chevrette, a member of the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec City, said that the budget was designed to help boost the economy:
Guy Chevrette promises that Ms. Marois' budget this afternoon will help boost the economy.
Without giving away any secrets, the minister of transportation indicated that the emphasis would be placed on creating and maintaining jobs, and not on increasing spending for services.
People will be critical because we are not increasing spending on services, but in order to act as a responsible government, we must support the economy, which is the government's source of revenue.
This was the context in which I asked the question of my colleague. I wanted to hear the Bloc Quebecois' opinion on its counterpart in Quebec City, the Parti Quebecois, regarding the direction that Canada's finance minister should give to his budget.
Prebudget Consultation November 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I read something today on which I would like the hon. member of the opposition to comment. I share her concerns about older workers. This is a growing phenomenon, particularly concerning workers in industries like the textile industry, whose level of education is not very high.
Would it be totally normal under the circumstances for the government to avoid investing in services per se, since investing in government services will only increase its expenditures in the service sector and not necessarily stimulate employment?
Ought not the government nstead focus its efforts more on supporting the economy, which is supporting business, rather than reinvesting in services?
Supply October 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment.
Of course everybody is in favour of mother and apple pie. Today we are talking about Afghanistan but there are more than 40 million refugees on the planet, of which 2 or 3 million were Afghans. Those 40 million refugees represent more than the population of Canada.
As other countries do, the Canadian government sets aside part of its budget for humanitarian aid and assistance to developing countries. I wonder if we are not trying to outdo the others when we say That country gives that much, so Canada should give this much and that other country gives that much more, so Canada should give this much more.
Should we not seek a global solution? Should it not be everyone's responsibility to participate in humanitarian aid and not only a Canadian responsibility? The Americans are giving but are they doing so because of the war to improve their image? Maybe we should discuss that.
I wonder if our way of helping developing countries is appropriate. Maybe we should be contemplating another type of formula.
According to the figures, there are more than 500 million wealthy individuals on earth but 5 billion people are living below the poverty line. Wealth is being created but not shared. Instead of always asking countries to contribute according to their GDP, what other solution could we come up with?
Asking countries to do their share is still appropriate but maybe we should consider another way of going about it.
Broadcasting Act October 19th, 2001
Madam Speaker, as was explained earlier, the House is considering Bill S-7, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which would enable the CRTC to make regulations concerning the awarding of costs. It would in fact allow the commission to award and tax costs between the parties that appear before it.
It is important to remind the House that there is support for the principles of fairness and balance behind Bill S-7. It is also important to harmonize the rules governing the participation of witnesses to the CRTC hearings dealing with either broadcasting or telecommunications. We also need to harmonize the rules for stakeholders and broadcasters who appear before the CRTC. For all these reasons, we think Bill S-7 should be passed at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee for a more in-depth review.
If passed, Bill S-7 will guarantee equal opportunity for all Canadians who wish to take part in the decision-making process concerning the future of our broadcasting system, as is currently done for our telecommunications system.
The transition to a new and innovative economy, from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy, does have an impact on what Canadians expect from the government and on the role of the government.
Therefore, in a democratic society, it is perfectly logical to encourage citizens to act in accordance with the decisions by CRTC advisers and businesses that appear before the CRTC to participate in the process and react to it. After all, the broadcasting system uses a public resource and, through its programming, it helps Canadians establish links with one another and get to know their history and country better.
Convergence is an ever-present reality within the communications industry. The convergence of technologies is a key element. The regulatory issues and concerns that the CRTC must face are increasingly connected to the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, and they affect a broader segment of Canadians.
In an increasingly more complex communications sector, the rational approach would be to invite citizens to take part in the decisions that affect them. While the commission is dealing with these issues, one way to promote informed decisions regarding the protection of the public's interest would be to help pay the costs incurred by stakeholders who appear before broadcasting authorities.
If Bill S-7 were passed, the CRTC would have to take into consideration the different nature and character of radio-broadcasting and telecommunications hearings. The former are held frequently: they deal with a wide variety of issues and attract a variety of stakeholders, who are interested in making their points of view known.
Allow me to clarify.
Telecommunications hearings are generally official in nature and take place less frequently. Stakeholders who appear before the commission are usually specialists presenting technical details and economic analyses regarding rates and their impact on consumers. There is normally a cross-examination and no licence hearing takes place. Accordingly, the number of interested stakeholders is relatively limited.
Radio-broadcasting hearings, on the other hand, are frequent, almost regular. Numerous participants, who hold licences, reflect the many facets of the radio-broadcasting system: radio, television, cable, traditional and digital services, pay-per-view television, satellite and direct distribution services, and multichannel/multipoint distribution services.
These hearings tend to be unofficial. More particularly, the number of stakeholders interested in attending radio-broadcasting hearings is not surprising, given that the cultural media have a close impact on the daily lives of Canadians, shaping their identities and how they see the world.
Accordingly, it is easier for an informed and well-spoken citizen to present his observations without necessarily backing them up with economic or technical analyses.
In addition, radio-broadcasting hearings do not include cross-examination, and the hearings deal with matters of policy and whether or not to grant, renew or amend licences.
As for radio-broadcasting hearings, the commission must make its rulings after taking into account competing and varied issues having to do with society, culture, language, ethnic origin and the economy. As a result, the number of stakeholders and areas of interest is much broader.
Convergence has resulted in differences between telecommunications and radio-broadcasting, formerly separate industries. The time has come to standardize the rules for awarding costs.
In the past, when the CRTC held proceedings under the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act, including hearings on the new media, it awarded costs only for representations dealing with one of the telecommunications aspects. With increasing technological integration that will blur the differences between the various communications industries, it will become more and more difficult to assess the contribution of representations made in relation to their impact on telecommunications or broadcasting.
As I said earlier, the objectives of Bill S-7 are laudable in principle, but they will be difficult to achieve. In view of the large number of broadcasting licence renewal proceedings, the CRTC should probably tailor its criteria for awarding costs related to broadcasting to the circumstances and even set a limit in that regard.
The CRTC said it was in favour of harmonizing the rules with regard to the awarding of costs to the parties that appear before it and that it was ready to set things in motion to bring about the necessary changes through a public hearing. In fact, the CRTC wants the public and the industry to be involved in determining what the criteria for the new system would be. Bill S-7 provides for the harmonization of these rules.
The challenge facing the CRTC is to determine what will entitle the parties making representations to an award of costs. According to the rules of procedure in telecommunications, the parties must have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, take part in the proceedings in a reasonable manner and help the CRTC to better understand the issues.
Order of Canada October 19th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Governor General of Canada presided over a ceremony for new members of the Order of Canada.
During this prestigious ceremony, 48 Canadians were honoured for their contribution to our nation. The Order of Canada is the highest honour for lifetime achievement.
I would like to pay tribute to these persons who, through their commitment, deserve the recognition of all Canadians.
I would particularly like to congratulate the Quebecers who received the honour. Their accomplishments have helped our society to develop and move in the right direction.
Fondation Paul Gérin-Lajoie October 18th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, extraordinary things happen in the world every day, which are eclipsed by the tragic events of September 11.
There are men and women in organizations working day in and day out for peace, and their work should be recognized.
UNESCO has just recognized the work of the Fondation Paul Gérin-Lajoie in Haiti by awarding it the King Sejong Literacy Prize.
Through the work of such people as Marie-Michèle Fournier, in charge of the Alfatibonit project, has helped make over 5,000 people literate in Haiti over the past three years.
The foundation's work in Haiti is funded by the Government of Canada through CIDA programs. In Senegal, I had the privilege of witnessing the foundation's work with the men and women of the country to help them strengthen their capacity to take charge of their destiny and take an active role in the operations of the country. Without CIDA, NGOs could not do as much as they do, but without the NGOs, aid from Canada and CIDA would be ineffective.
I pay tribute to the foundation, its president and all those involved, like Marie-Michèle Fournier, in Haiti, as well as the Tandias and the Lys of this world.
Supply October 15th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. I would like the Chair to notify me two minutes before the end of my 10 minutes.
We keep saying that democracy and freedom are fundamental values in which Canadians sincerely believe, and which our government vigorously defends. These values were attacked on September 11.
As a member of this House, I appreciate every opportunity that we have to express our views on issues that are of interest to our society. Since we came back, since these attacks took place, we have had the opportunity to express our sorrow in light of these events, and also our views as to what our government should do.
Today, members of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Canadian Alliance Party or the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative caucus coalition—I no longer know how to identify them—are back with a motion whose content looks like déjà vu.
It is said that the opposition has so little to contribute that it must come back with issues that have already been dealt with the House since September 11.
Here is an example. The first part of the motion asks:
That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally—
But since September 17, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and almost every member in the House have repeatedly condemned these attacks and they have discussed these events on several occasions.
The second part of the motion provides that this House:
—affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy—
Again, the Prime Minister made a statement to that effect. So did the Minister of National Defence. Since the beginning of October, most ministers and members of parliament have stressed the efforts of our people, of our men and women in the Canadian forces, and their role in this situation. That part of the motion is also unnecessary.
The third part almost questions the role of the House. It provides that this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings.
I think we have to distinguish between the executive and legislative branches. Also, the Prime Minister already announced the creation of a committee that is known as a war committee, where all of these departments and others are represented, specifically tasked to co-ordinate and better target the actions of the Government of Canada in the fight against terrorism, and to improve the protection of Canadian citizens. Therefore, this motion comes a bit too late. It is as though they wanted to kill time.
However, on the issue of striking certain committees, I would also like to remind members of the House, and opposition members in particular, that the House of Commons already has a set of standing committees. I quote:
Standing committees shall be ... empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House—
—to send for persons, papers and records—
When a witness has declined an invitation to appear, a committee may issue a summons to that witness by adopting a motion to that effect. If a proposed witness fails to appear when summoned, the committee may report the fact to the House. The House then takes any action it deems appropriate.
Another quote reads:
Committees are not empowered to summon members of the House of Commons. Should a member refuse to testify when requested to do so by a committee, the committee can report this to the House.
[Standing committees shall be... empowered] to sit jointly with other standing committees—
And another quote reads:
It is left to each standing committee to decide the extent to which it will exercise the powers granted to it by the House.
So, instead of bringing forward motions to set up new committees or new commissions, it would be better to ensure that members of parliament fully exercise the powers they already wield within existing committees.
However, we cannot ignore the current world crisis. No one could have imagined what has happened. Some would argue that it could have been prevented. Were there indicators that such acts could be carried out? Not many members in this House, especially in the opposition, are wondering how we can fight terrorism, why we have ended up in this situation, but mostly how we can prevent terrorism.
I think that one way to deal with terrorism would be to establish an international coalition against poverty. Canada could provide some leadership in this area. In the long term, the most serious problem that the international community will have to face to make this world a better one will be to eradicate poverty and promote social inclusion throughout the world.
This has become a matter of great urgency since, because of the terrorist attacks, growth will slow down in developing countries, which means that millions more will live in poverty and tens of thousands of children will die of malnutrition, disease and destitution.
There are over 39 million refugees on the planet today. That is more than Canada's population. Several millions of them have lived in refugee camps for years. And we can now add to that three to four million new refugees from Afghanistan.
Poverty in itself is not a direct source of conflict. However, extensive studies show that, even if ethnic diversity is usually blamed, civil wars have often been the result of various factors, poverty being a key factor. Countries that are torn by conflicts become havens for terrorists.
It is easier to turn the poorest people on the planet into terrorists when they have nothing to lose. One just has to look back in history to see how the communist movement took hold in certain countries. Most of these countries were facing difficulties.
There are also on this planet, more particularly in western countries, over 500 million people living a comfortable life, as opposed to over five billion people living in poverty. This means that wealth can be created but that it remains in the hands of a minority. It is not shared. Our common goal must be to eliminate poverty and to promote social justice so that all those who are marginalized can be integrated into our global economy and our global society.
Increasingly, I have come to think that Canada can play a leadership role in this area and probably take advantage of its membership in the G-8 to try to rekindle the discussion on James Tobin's famous proposal for a tax on financial transactions.