Pierre Brien

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, to put things in a proper perspective, the bill introduced by the NDP member asks us to think about something important. It forces us to think about the nature of the trust relationship that exists between those who elect us here to represent them, and what happens when members change parties during their mandate.

This raises a very relevant question as to whether the meaning of the vote is altered. Are voters hurt when they vote for the candidate of a political party and, once here in Ottawa, that candidate decides to join another party?

Under the proposed bill, a member who leaves his party could only sit as an independent. If he wants to join another political party, he would have to face voters by running in a byelection to get re-elected under the new banner.

This gives us something to think about and the bill has positive elements.

There is a problem in that the public is now very cynical about politics. I am one of those who believe that elected representatives play an extremely important role in society, and that includes the role of parliament and the legislative branch. Therefore, it is in our interest to do our best to restore a degree of confidence. This is one aspect, but it is not the only one.

One criticism that we often hear, even if it not necessarily a personal one, is that “politicians are all basically the same”. When people see members change political parties, this tends to prove them right. I know that some members here did so just before the last general election, but they were members from Quebec. And that is true.

There are people who say “Yes, but someone who does that should have to face the voters anyway”. This is true but, in the context of a general election, there are so many factors which come into play.

We know that the leader, the party, the ideology, if any, are important factors which influence which party people vote for, and they are not necessarily able to pick a particular individual, as would happen in the case of a member who decided to change parties in the middle of his mandate and who would have to answer to his constituents.

I think that this raises a very important issue. All the comings and goings before the last election really bothered me. People give the impression that all they are trying to do is get re-elected, that they are checking out which way the wind blows just before an election and saying to themselves “Ultimately, with which party do I stand the greatest chance of getting elected? That is the party I will join and try to increase my chances”. These people know very well that many other variables come into play in a general election besides what the candidate has to offer in a riding. So they think they might come out on top this way.

In this regard, I can only be sympathetic to the idea that a way must be found. Is this the best one? I do not know. But at least it has the merit of showing that there is a problem and that it must be resolved.

There are other problems. Because I can also understand those who leave a political party at a particular time. It can happen, for good reasons, that an elected MP leaves a party because they feel that it is not honouring the commitments it made to the public. An MP who is a member of a political party but no longer feels comfortable in that party and feels that it is not living up to its mandate might feel the need to leave it.

From there to joining another party is another dimension entirely. During election campaigns, when I introduce myself as a Bloc Quebecois MP and my main adversaries in Quebec are from the Liberal Party, I can hardly see myself saying part way through my mandate that I have suddenly had a change of heart and am becoming a Liberal. I would understand if my constituents were to be extremely skeptical and cynical about me if ever I were to do such a thing. And this has happened.

One may think that some parties are very similar. Ideologically, some are closer than others. For example, on the Canadian right, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance, even though there are some differences, are not that far apart. One might assume that crossing from one to the other would be somewhat more understandable. It would be less of an about face than if a Canadian Alliance member crossed the floor to sit with the Liberals or if a Liberal member joined the Bloc Quebecois.

I would really like the Quebec Liberal members to join the Bloc Quebecois but, at the same time, it would raise the issue as to whether it was the only mandate they got from their electors.

The bill says that when a member resigns, he or she may sit as an independent. They may go as far as to announce that during the next election campaign, they will be running for another party, but for the time being, they will belong to no other party than the one they ran for.

On the other hand, let us not be hypocritical; we must realize that when it comes to ballots, people say “Yes, but it is members that we elect”. How many members here would like the name of political parties to be removed from ballots? Not many. We like to know people can identify the party we belong to.

In Quebec, at the provincial level, even if it does not concern us directly, there is one party, the Action démocratique, which adds the name of its leader on the ballots to make sure people can identify the party properly.

In my riding, when people vote, they vote for Pierre Brien, Bloc Quebecois MP. The two are indissociable. They are a single entity. I cannot image myself saying “Well, I have changed my mind and I am going elsewhere”. If that were ever the case, it seems to me that the people need some other recourse than just to say “We will just wait another three or four years”. This raises that issue.

There are other variables as well. For example, improving the democratic process or the connection of trust would mean that many other variables will have to be addressed as well: the very nature of the MP's role, the real power of an MP, the omnipresence or heavy control of the Prime Minister or the executive over all of parliament.

Even if this may seem a bit theoretical, when it is reduced to such practical dimensions as the imposition of votes along party lines and the like, it gives rise to some serious reflection which might lead to a review of the way our political system operates, with its rather surprising resistance to change. As far as the public is concerned, they appear to be ready for major change. When people are in power, however, they are not much tempted to want to see change, because they came to power under the existing system.

I know that in his bill, the hon. member could not espouse all causes at once. He focused on one specific object. I believe, however, that it would be worthwhile for us as members of parliament to have a repository for such ideas.

Parliament cannot pronounce specifically on this bill because it will not be votable, but I believe it would be a good thing if we did not lose sight of this idea and were able to discuss it within a framework in which everyone would address improvements to our political structures. I know that some are, for instance, in favour of a proportional vote system. I have a number of reservations on this, but I can understand people wishing to raise ideas of this kind.

Why not debate this, why not have some sort of forum where we could put these issues out on the table and involve members? Many groups outside of politics do this. It is as though we, those of us in politics, refuse to discuss these issues, even though we do have opinions. I am sure that most members are able to discuss these issues in a non-partisan manner. The same can be said for the democratic system. Regardless of the options before us, everyone agrees that there are some problems and that there is a way to improve the existing system.

In closing, this is about turncoats, people who cross the floor to other political parties. I am pleased that the New Democratic Party member had the courage to bring up this issue. Even if, in fact, his party has already had members switch, one way or the other, he is telling us that there is a problem with this type of situation.

Let us try not to see that in partisan terms, to look at the latest movement between parties and who was involved. Let us look at this generally, let us look at the principle, what it means in terms of our democratic values. I hope the discussion will not conclude at the end of this hour and that we may have other occasions on which to debate it and propose other measures in order to improve the variables, such improved representation of women in politics. I know there was a conference in the region yesterday that looked into the matter. It is a very relevant one and important question of what we must do to ensure that parliament better reflects society.

We need not look long to see that very often cultural communities and groups are under-represented. Women are the most obvious example. While they represent 50% of the population, they barely represent 20% of the population of our political institutions. You might say this is true in other sectors, but we are working here to improve the political system. If we are to continue to do so, we must look at these avenues and topics.

[Public Safety Act, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the worst thing to do would be to undermine our values and curtail our freedom, because we would then play into the hands of the terrorists.

Does the Minister of National Defence realize that if he does not withdraw his bill, he will fall into that trap?

[Public Safety Act, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government said the same thing about Bill C-36, but did not listen to anyone. We are not naive.

The Bloc Quebecois has been saying since the beginning that, when faced with exceptional situations, we must strive to maintain a balance between freedom and security. However, the minister's bill does not meet this requirement, and the extemporaneous nature of the legislation is obvious.

Does the Minister of National Defence realize that, with his bill, he is falling into the trap of terrorists by forgetting that our best weapons to fight terrorism are democracy, human rights and freedom?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc quebecois will vote yes to the motion.

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to check something. We work with the French version, and yesterday's discussion, which was in English, appears to possibly contain a problem in the translation.

I would ask you to take this into consideration too, not to judge the misplaced remarks of the Prime Minister, that is a whole other issue, which we will all agree on, but the form and what occurred in the case of potential corrections to Hansard .

I also ask you to look at the differences in the French and English versions.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to take part in this debate on the American measures that are penalizing our forestry workers and those who earn a living working in sawmills in particular and in other components of the softwood lumber industry.

I will quote some figures tonight, not a lot of figures, but enough to make members understand what is at stake here. I will talk about Quebec since I am more familiar with the situation there.

There are 40,000 jobs linked to the softwood lumber industry in Quebec. The sawmill industry accounts for 20,000 jobs and the forestry industry, for 10,000. There are 250 municipalities in Quebec whose development hinges on forestry, including 135 towns and villages where all of the jobs are related to this industry. So it has a major impact. It is extremely important.

As a matter of fact, last weekend, I was in Taschereau, in my riding, where a company called Tembec is located. It is one of the companies targeted by the U.S. government in its decision to impose penalties for alleged dumping on the market. People were obviously concerned. To give you an idea of the situation, Taschereau is a small village, but over 400 people showed up to meet with the company president. Of course, there were other themes for discussion, but it showed that not only were people interested in their development, but they were also concerned about the softwood lumber issue and its impact on jobs in their community.

The company president was reassuring. That business can afford to absorb these measures over a certain period, but not in the long term. We must find a solution, and I will conclude with that later.

There is just one solution for us and it is a return to or the establishment of true free trade for softwood lumber.

A coalition was established across Canada and Quebec. A number of businesses gathered around an association, the free trade lumber association, to promote the establishment of real free trade for lumber. Regionally and throughout Quebec, businesses like Abitibi Consolidated, les Produits forestiers Alliance, the Landrienne mill, the Gallichan mill, Tembec, Kruger and many others are involved in this issue. At home, these are names well known by the public, since they create many jobs in our villages, and many people work in forestry.

In the current context of economic downturn, there was no need for this on top of the rest to further fuel the uncertainty that consumers must be feeling at the moment. The economy needs people's confidence. At the same time, it is hard to encourage them with a speech on confidence when they see the threats made by the U.S. government, which is being protectionist in this matter.

I recall the advent of free trade between the States and Canada. I am one of those who believes in the virtues of free trade. We promoted it and said to people “It is a good thing. We must support it”. The public, particularly in Quebec, followed. In the federal election it was the main issue. The party advocating it won the most seats in Quebec. At the time, some people opposed it. Today, I hear people saying “We told you. With the Americans, you can have free trade when it suits them”.

I must say that we sometimes run out of arguments because, where we wanted free trade everywhere, we ended up in a situation in which a few American producers felt disadvantaged compared to competitors in Quebec or Canada. They put pressure on their government, which decided to establish protectionist measures, such as charging duties of 19% and adding another of 12 %, claiming that dumping is going on. All this increases the cost of our products sold on the U.S. market by 30%.

Needless to say, this makes some people skeptical and leads to grassroots feelings that are not very favourable toward the U.S. government. People who lose their jobs and feel threatened by this decision are saying “Hold on, now”.

These same Americans are asking us to liberalize the energy field, for example, because they have a major energy problem. They turn toward Canada, Alberta and Quebec in particular, and say “Oh, you folks have a lot of energy, and we would be interested in greater access to it”. This is being discussed. The government does not always tell us when discussions are being held, but it is clear that there seem to be some in this area. So, in parallel, they would like to have access to our energy. They want to be humoured in that, but then when it comes to softwood lumber, they do not want to buy our products, or not in the context of free trade.

At some point, there has to be consistency. The government must be very firm with the Americans, and tell them “Now, people cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. If you are in favour of free trade, then that is what we will have. Period”. That is what will be done for softwood lumber, and no other direction will be taken. The negotiations must not address anything other than the implementation of true free trade, so that this debate will not have to be started over again every five, six, ten or whatever number of years.

This is nothing new. Five years ago, we went through nearly the same thing. The rates may have changed a little, but it is the same American strategy, of imposing taxes on our imports, putting pressure on our industry, and putting us in a position where they can say “Accept a compromise or go all the way through a legal process, and all the time that there is uncertainty will be costly”. So here they are with their threats and attempts to intimidate us, so that we will accept on a more permanent basis to either reduce our exports or impose a rate on ourselves, saying “Yes, that's true. We will set our own export tax”.

We must not head down this path, because that is what we did five years ago. Four provinces were affected by a quota system. Exports from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia to the U.S. were limited. In this respect, the system can often be arbitrary.

When quotas have to be divided among businesses, it is difficult to come up with a process that satisfies everyone. Many members who live in forestry regions know people who would have liked to have export quotas for softwood lumber, but never received any. They had to export while paying the tax. It was a difficult situation. They were not on a level playing field with businesses that were given a quota to sell to the United States tax free. The other provinces were not affected, in the meantime.

So the market is hardly fair. There are frequently highly arbitrary factors, influenced by politics, that define how quota systems are generated. We accepted this, and five years later, we are starting the process all over again. The U.S. is using the same threats: a tax, countervailing duties, and accusations of dumping. They are pressuring us by saying, now we will negotiate. After clobbering us with taxes, they want us to sit down and negotiate.

We need to show them that it is not going to work. Yes, we will carry through to the end on the legal front. It must be understood that we are not just talking about five years. The United States has been complaining about our systems for twenty years, because they claim that we are indirectly subsidizing the market with deflated stumpage fees. That is essentially their argument in court. They have private forests, we have many public forests. This represents our different approaches and our different perspectives. They claim that their system is better and that ours provides direct subsidies to business.

However, whenever they have gone before legal bodies, they have always lost these disputes. So, we must go to the end of the process. When we negotiate about free trade, there is also a dispute settlement mechanism. When we are part of organizations such as the World Trade Organization, there is also a process to settle disputes, but we have to use it. These mechanisms are designed to protect the little ones from the big ones. We must use them. We must go to the end of the process. We must tell the Americans “We will not give up unless you immediately agree to go back to free trade”. Then we will stop. Otherwise, we will go to the very end of the legal process. We will settle this once and for all, we will not go through this every five years. This is what we must do.

I hope that in the discussions that are taking place right now with U.S. government officials, who came to Ottawa, or in the talks between the Prime Minister and the U.S. president, the government is very clear. I hope it is firm and clear. Yes, the government did raise its voice. We noticed it in the past few days. But we have seen this problem coming for a long time. I hope this is not the first time that the government raises its voice and that it has done so in private for quite some time with the U.S. government. We must say “Listen, this is not going to work. It cannot work like this”. We must be very firm. We are not negotiating. We are saying “We want to achieve free trade, nothing else”. We must be very clear and firm, because there is only one solution.

Many jobs are at stake. Forestry workers are watching us and they are concerned. Their jobs are at stake. This affects local economies. These economies are already fragile and they need all the help they can get to make it through the current crisis.

So much the better if the softwood lumber dispute is settled quickly and the U.S. government buys our arguments. Otherwise, the government must go all the way. With all the leeway it has, with its EI fund and so on, this government must come to the aid of the workers affected by the length of this dispute, which might take some months yet to sort out. If it does, the government must put measures in place to help those in the industry, go all the way, and not resume this debate every five or ten years.

That is what the Bloc Quebecois wants. I hope that it is what the government wants as well and that it is what it is going to do. Finally, I hope it is what we will ultimately obtain.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no to this motion.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no to this motion.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no to this motion.