Richard Nadeau

[Government Appointments, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for years the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for their partisan appointments. It seems like the Conservatives have caught the same bug because they have appointed the Conservative candidate for the riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, Mr. Gill, to the Citizenship Court, leaving the way clear for the Prime Minister's special advisor on the Middle East, the most recent defector to the Conservative Party.

How can the Prime Minister explain that after vehemently denouncing the partisan appointments of the Liberals, he is using the same method to compensate this defeated candidate for services rendered?

[Gatineau Soup Kitchen, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, La Soupière de l'Amitié de Gatineau celebrated the 20th anniversary of its founding and paid tribute to three remarkable citizens for their tremendous contributions.

This organization, whose mission is to fight poverty and social exclusion by relieving hunger every day, wished to thank Msgr. Gilles Dion, Gilles Trahan and Jean-Guy Sabourin for their dedication.

Since 1986, these men have contributed to the growth and success of the Soupière de l'Amitié de Gatineau. First they believed in its mission and got it off the ground. Then through their involvement, they got the word out about its mission and the need for the organization and they helped the most disadvantaged. Today, they remain engaged and active in the fight against hunger.

The Bloc Québécois joins with the users and volunteers of the Soupière de l'Amitié de Gatineau to thank and congratulate these three citizens being honoured for their involvement.

[National Peacekeepers’ Day Act, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the fan club is starting to expand on the other side.

It is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers’ Day.

First of all, I want to say that I am a fan of everything that the United Nations represents when it comes to international conflict prevention and assistance for people in difficulty.

Before being elected as the member for Gatineau, I was a secondary-school teacher. I want to say that in the five schools in which I had the pleasure of teaching, in Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario, I either helped to establish UN debating clubs or participated in simulations of the United Nations as an ambassador or the president of the General Assembly. I always took it upon myself to emphasize to my students and other participants how important multilateralism is for solving the difficulties faced by the nations of the world.

In regard to Bill C-287, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of it. The strengths of this bill are, first of all, that it recognizes the very important role played by UN peacekeepers.

Second, the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of multilateralism as a method of settling international conflicts. The UN peacekeepers embody this approach.

Third, the peacekeepers who have died on UN missions deserve to be commemorated.

Fourth, this will give our Prime Minister an opportunity to discover peaceful uses for our army.

The only shortcoming that we should examine is the date of the commemoration on August 9. I will explain why we do not like this. We prefer a date that is already universally recognized: May 29. We think that the peacekeepers should be honoured in a more international context. There is already an International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers, and it is May 29. We think that this date is more appropriate than August 9 in order to demonstrate our solidarity with the entire international community and the choice it has already made.

It is quite appropriate to pay tribute to the peacekeepers. They are a central element in multilateralism, a principle of conflict resolution that is dear to Quebeckers. The essentially international characteristic of the peacekeeping missions authorized by the United Nations Security Council grants unparalleled legitimacy to any intervention and attests to the determination of the entire international community to take tangible steps to deal with the crises that occur from time to time. However, peacekeeping operations alone are not the appropriate instrument for every situation. They must be accompanied by a peace process, not simply replace this peace, which is so dear to us and which must be real to everyone around the world.

United Nations peacekeeping operations are an impartial and very widely accepted way of sharing the burden and of acting effectively among the ordinary people. Peacekeepers are present throughout the world, as we well know.

The 18 operations directed by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, are being carried out on four continents in 10 time zones, employ more than 90,000 people and have a direct influence on the lives of hundreds of millions of others. Close to 64,200 people are currently serving as soldiers and military observers, and roughly 7,500 are in police forces.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations also employs nearly 5,250 international civilian personnel, over 11,300 local civilian personnel and approximately 1,720 United Nations volunteers. One hundred and eight countries contribute military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations.

The UN is the largest multilateral contributor to post-conflict stabilization worldwide. Only the United States deploys more military personnel in the field than the United Nations. There is therefore still a long way to go before multilateralism is the most commonly used form of conflict resolution.

In 2005 alone, UN peacekeeping operations rotated 161,386 military and police personnel, made 864 flights into or out of the field, and carried 271,651 cubic meters of cargo.

The actions of peacekeepers are usually effective. Since 1945, UN peacekeepers have undertaken 60 field missions and negotiated 172 peaceful settlements that have not only ended regional conflicts but also enabled people in more than 45 countries to take part in free and fair elections.

UN electoral assistance has become a regular and increasingly important feature in UN peacekeeping operations, bringing democracy to people everywhere on Earth.

UN peacekeeping is cost-effective. A survey by Oxford University economists found that international military intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter—action taken when peace is under threat—is the most cost-effective means of reducing the risk of conflict in post-conflict societies.

The approved DPO budget for the period from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, was approximately $5 billion. This represents less than 0.5% of global military spending.

UN peacekeeping operations are less expensive than other forms of international intervention. UN costs per peacekeeper, as compared to the cost of troops deployed by the U.S., the developed countries, NATO or regional organizations such as the African Union, show that the UN is the least expensive option by far.

A study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that it would cost the U.S. about twice as much as the UN to conduct a peacekeeping operation similar to the UN stabilization mission in Haiti: $876 million, compared to the UN budgeted $428 million for the first 14 months of the mission. Other comparative advantages of UN peacekeeping cited by this study included its multinational nature, which provides impartiality and legitimacy, burden sharing, involvement of member states with experience in post-conflict peace-building operations and a structure for coordinating international assistance.

May 29 is a more appropriate date for commemorating peacekeepers. That is the date chosen by the United Nations as the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers. Indeed, May 29 commemorates Security Council Resolution 50, which was passed on May 29, 1948, and which provided for the establishment of the first United Nations peacekeeping operation.

We believe that May 29 should have been preferred over August 9, because it is more universal, in keeping with a principle at the very heart of the institution that the peacekeepers represent.

As for August 9, it reflects a form of self-centredness or isolationism that is not consistent with the principle we want to convey to future generations on that occasion.

I will conclude by saying that August 9 refers to the day in 1974 when Canada suffered the heaviest losses in a single day during a UN mission in the Middle East. May 29 is an appropriate date. I urge the House to vote in favour of this bill with the date of May 29.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks.

What we have here is, on the one hand, populist demagoguery and, on the other hand, a party called Bloc Québécois which is a responsible political party. Faced with the situation the softwood lumber sector is finding itself in today, the Bloc Québécois is taking a courageous and responsible position, in cooperation with the industry and the labour unions representing the workers in that industry.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP.

First of all, let us look carefully at this issue. The Quebec softwood lumber industry is asking us to pass this bill because it is under the gun. It is in a terrible position. The longer we wait, the harder it will be for the industry to get back on its feet. As for the anti-circumvention clause, it specifies that a country cannot act in such a way that circumvents the agreement. It is very important to understand this.

Thus, Washington could not try to limit access to its market any more than what is specified in the agreement. Compared to the years in which no further trade was possible without the Americans imposing an appalling tax, the situation will at least allow the industry to start fresh on a basis that will finally resolve this issue. This is what the industry wants, as well as the unions representing industry workers.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will first state the position of the Bloc Québécois on the proposed amendments to Bill C-24, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, and, then, outline the position of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-24 per se.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the following amendments.

Under Motion No. 4, the government would not be required to enforce the act; that does not make much sense in the context of fiscal legislation. Motion No. 25 greatly complicates the collection of export taxes and the enforcement of the act. We understand that the New democratic Party does not want the act to come into force, but Quebec lumber companies want it to.

Motions Nos. 83 and 84 would have the act become effective as of November 1. The fact of the matter is, however, that the anti-dumping duties were removed on October 12. Adopting these two motions would mean leaving the lumber trade unregulated for two weeks, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement.

To help members understand the position of the Bloc Québécois on the thorny issue of Canada-U.S. relations with respect to softwood lumber, I will describe once more our party's approach.

It is important to understand that the Bloc Québécois is unenthusiastically supporting Bill C-24.

This bill allows the implementation of the July 1 softwood lumber agreement between Ottawa and Washington by: setting the terms and conditions for the return to Canadian lumber companies of countervailing and anti-dumping duties representing 81% of the money currently held by Washington and about 65% of the amount that these companies have paid, taking into account variations in the exchange rate over the past four years; setting the terms and conditions for the return to Washington of the billion dollars that companies have to leave on the table; setting trade barriers that will govern the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States, including export taxes and export permits; and authorizing the payment of export tax revenue to the provinces.

The industry has stated nearly unanimously that this agreement was not satisfactory. It has, however, concluded that it was better to accept this bad deal than to continue fighting. In a word, the industry is at its wit's end.

The attitude of the federal government, be it Conservative or Liberal, has left a bitter taste. By refusing its support, it has considerably weakened the industry, forcing it to accept this agreement for fear of seriously jeopardizing its future.

The Bloc Québécois, after consulting the industries and workers in the forestry sector during the summer, came to the conclusion that it had no choice but to support the agreement because the industry, with its back to the wall, could not wait any longer. To act otherwise would not have been irresponsible.

The Bloc insists, however, on stating clearly that although the bill must be approved, the government cannot claim to have settled the problems the industry is facing. The industry is dealing with structural problems and the softwood lumber agreement does not solve them.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling for the government to implement a series of measures this fall to assist the forest industry, which is facing serious difficulties at the very moment it has been weakened by a lengthy trade dispute.

We want an income support program for older workers, an economic diversification program for communities that depend on the forests and special tax status for the 128,000 owners of private woodlots in Quebec.

In addition, we want an increase in funding for the Canadian model forest program of the Canadian Forest Service, and special tax treatment for the $4.3 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duty that will be refunded by the American authorities to recognize the losses incurred by companies. We also want accelerated amortization of equipment; a program to stimulate innovation and improve productivity within the forest industry; a market diversification and wood marketing program; and, finally, financial compensation for maintaining forest access roads.

Some of these measures will become meaningless if they are not introduced this year, a pivotal year for the industry. The Bloc Québécois is counting on the Minister of Finance to properly respond to these needs when he makes his financial and economic update announcement.

Bill C-24 contains legislative measures to implement the softwood lumber agreement of last July 1 between the governments of Canada and the United States.

All of the provisions take effect from October 1, 2006. Since the bill was not yet approved on that date, the measures that it contains will be retroactive to October 1, 2006.

It introduces an export control system in the softwood lumber sector, which I will now describe.

Ironically, this control still takes the form of amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. This act is normally used to control trade in arms and dangerous substances or to limit trade with particular countries under economic or military sanctions. Here, though, it is the products of Canadian firms that are being hit by the restrictions in the act.

In provinces like Quebec that choose to be subject to a lower export tax but have a ceiling placed on their exports, the bill provides that exporters must acquire a licence, which is a kind of export permit. It will enable Ottawa to ensure that companies cannot exceed the quota allocated to them under the agreement.

The methods of allocating export quotas are not specified in the act. This will be done later by regulation. The Government of Quebec has suggested that 94% of the quota should be allocated to companies on the basis of their past exports, with the remaining 6% available on a first come, first served basis.

The Quebec industry was concerned that the agreement provided for quotas to be allocated on a monthly basis—one-twelfth of the annual quota—and that the possibilities of exceeding this monthly quota in case of especially large deliveries were so limited that companies would be unable to honour their contracts or even reach their full annual quotas. We must remember that the construction industry is cyclical and lumber deliveries tend therefore to vary considerably from one month to another.

This issue still has not been resolved, and the government has not made any specific promises. At the most, the binational group responsible for ensuring that the agreement works well will deal with the problem. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the government will try through this binational group to make the monthly export ceilings more flexible. In order for this to be done, the bill already provides all the latitude needed to accommodate greater flexibility because things are done through regulation.

I could go on explaining the entire bill in this way, but I will stop here, Mr. Speaker.

[National Capital Commission, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after in camera National Capital Commission board meetings, now the NCC mandate review panel is also meeting in secret, away from prying eyes, as though it were a secret agency. This government preaches transparency, but it has a long way to go.

How can the government claim to be making the NCC more transparent, when it tolerates a dubious consultation process riddled with secrecy?

[Veterans, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today we honour all the men and women in uniform who have bravely served, both in times of war and in peace, as well as their families.

On the eve of November 11, let us remember their sacrifices and their achievements. Freedom, democracy, justice, truth and peace are some of the values for which these men and women risked their lives and, all too often, made the ultimate sacrifice.

We can easily understand why they chose to fight for peace and liberty, and we are now in an even better position to appreciate the impact of their actions on today's world.

We owe a tremendous debt to our veterans and the only way we can repay it is by never forgetting and by passing on their stories to future generations.

[Gatineau's Municipal Arts Centre, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, the Maison de la culture in Gatineau won a Félix award at the ADISQ Autre Gala for the third year in a row.

It all began in 2004 when the arts centre won the Venue of the Year award for its Salle Odyssée. In 2005, it made its mark as an arts presenter. This year it won, for the second time in three years, the title Venue of the Year.

I want to congratulate the entire team at the Maison de la culture and its artistic director in particular, Julie Carrière, for her incredible work.

We are proud of those who, through their dedication, succeed in stimulating culture and making it accessible and lively in Gatineau.

Again, I offer my sincere congratulations to the Maison de la culture in Gatineau and to all those who have contributed in one way or another to its outstanding success.

[Thomas Bélanger and François Thériault, October 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on September 7 in Gatineau, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec en Outaouais inaugurated a monument erected in memory of Thomas Bélanger and François Thériault. These two workers died on October 8, 1906 while trying to set up a union.

They were targeted by police hired by the McLaren company, at a time when unbridled capitalism was sweeping Quebec. These men died defending workers' right to unionize. Their memory deserved to be honoured.

Granted, some progress has been made since that sad event, but more effort is still needed to make labour relations fairer and more harmonious.

Amending the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of strikebreakers will make for better labour relations in Canada and more civilized negotiations during labour disputes.