House of Commons Hansard #131 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was flag.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

With your propaganda.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON

I would rather use public funds for propaganda to promote pride in this country-and I am proud of it-than to promote separation and job loss.

My colleague, the member for Portneuf, just said that there are children who still live in poverty and suffer. I admit this is true. It is true in Quebec and outside. But the problem may now be more serious in Quebec because of the separatist option which hinders job creation and economic recovery in that province and elsewhere in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member who just gave an impassioned speech. He spoke with a lot of conviction about the Canadian francophonie and, of course, the preservation of Quebec within the Canadian federation.

However, I want to point out that the promotion of a sovereign or an independent Quebec is hurting Quebec and is worrying some people, including investors. We must ensure that the people know the full cost of independence.

We talked about the unemployed young people in my riding and the economic problems we have, which are, indeed, very serious. If we do not have the opportunity to address the concerns of our people it is mainly because of the political instability which is being propagated and pursued by the Parti Quebecois and also because of the presence of the Bloc Quebecois here, in Ottawa.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member argues that political instability is hurting the economy, but what about Team Canada's missions in countries where human rights are violated? What about these missions in countries where the political system is almost undemocratic and even in some cases totalitarian? This is going too far.

We have to tell it like it is. Federalism comes with a price that the province of Quebec has been paying for the last 150 years. Federalism comes with a price tag that has reached an unacceptable level, and sovereignty is the option supported by the province of Quebec, which is asking the rest of Canada to set up a new framework called a partnership. This framework would be particularly well defined, absolutely negotiable and would put an end to any so-called political instability.

It takes two to create instability. As long as this problem is maintained by our federalist friends, it will not go away. The only way to settle it is to opt for a partnership where the province of Quebec will become sovereign and take its responsibilities, and where Canada will do the same. Only then will we be able to face

the problems of the 21st century, instead of trying to deal with problems left over from the 19th century.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Frontenac a while ago was talking about love of one night.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

On parle tous français ici. Ceux qui t'écoutent parlent français et comprennent le français.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON

It is my right, Madam, to speak English or French in this country, and I prefer at this point to address the House in English. Please have the decency to accept that.

The member for Frontenac was referring to a love of only one night. I think the member for Portneuf is talking about having a separation, a divorce, because the family is not working anymore. After that he said "We want to get back together. We want to remarry. We will get divorced but we want to keep not only alimony from Canada but also bed privileges". I say that they cannot have it both ways.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think there is very little time left in this House. I can assure you that Quebec will be part of the Canadian Federation for still a very long time because I can feel things are changing.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Things are changing in Quebec. I feel the will of a new generation. The will not of the old generation, not of these backward-looking people, but of a new generation that has taken the opportunity to travel, to explore, to exchange, to find new ways to communicate, new ways to create jobs, to open up to new horizons often unexploited.

You know, the great Canadian project meets the real needs of the people. Lucien Bouchard came to my constituency in the Magdalen Islands to announce a $200,000 grant for a small project there. As for us, we invested $1.5 million to send workers back to school, to develop programs, to train a new generation of workers. That is what the Canadian government wants; that is what the people want: to put Canadians back to work.

I hear them in the House talk about telecommunications, and the electronic highway, but, as you may know, my constituency has the greatest number of netsurfers in all of Quebec. More than eight villages are on the net. This is not the case, unfortunately, throughout Quebec. Through federal programs, thanks to the Canadian government, these new community centres are linked to the Internet. I hope they will be able to create long term jobs in my riding.

Unfortunately, there is always some lag time in communications.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that, as usual, our colleague is brilliantly doing his thing but I think he is not speaking on the motion and therefore is out of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I have no doubt that the hon. for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will soon speak to the motion and that his remarks will surely be similar to others made during debate this afternoon.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight, so to speak, these values. And one of the great values of our Canadian federation is taking care of the needy. It is also to say the truth and, often, to denounce iniquities, injustices frequently committed by the government of Quebec.

Of course, I sometimes speak as someone in opposition, but what concerns us most is not propaganda, it is not flags, it is to put people back to work. And I believe that we must tell this to Quebecers, we must condemn the opposition once and for all, by saying that there are costs-

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will now speak in English. Maybe I will be better understood by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I appreciate whatever he is saying but obviously he did not get the point you made, that he would eventually come to the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

As I said earlier, today's debate has been quite general, at least while I occupied the chair.

I have no doubt that the hon. member who is making remarks concerning national unity, which really has been the topic of today's debate during most of the time I occupied the chair, is making his remarks are on the same subject and that directly he will be moving on to the subject of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, one must conclude that the hon. member of the opposition has not understood anything because Quebecers said no on two occasions. I wanted to remind him of that.

I think that we must make sure that Quebecers and the rest of Canadians gain a better understanding of the way the Canadian federation works. Our system is not perfect, I admit, but I believe that it is our duty to explain to the people how our federation works and to promote exchanges between Canadians.

I do not think that we must put up obstacles. I do not think that we must isolate Quebec from the rest of Canada or from the international mainstreams. I think that sometimes, we must spend all the money that is necessary. Some people may not like it, but some others are happy with it and I believe that the ultimate goal is to make sure that for Quebecers, the sovereigntists do not take over the debate without being challenged in their assertions.

I think that it is worth mentioning the millions spent by the Quebec government in nonrecurring or special projects, like the $4 million that went to the Conseil de la souveraineté, to which I often allude, the $300,000 spent on the 1-800-INDEPENDANCE toll free line, and the $8.5 million used to finance the separatist commissions and the sovereignty commissions just before the referendum.

That opposition that is suppose to be the loyal opposition is not so loyal to Canada after all. This is not the case. These people have used most of their time dismantling the Canadian federation, and I believe and hope that the figures provided by the opposition and the things it says will be put in the proper context, based on clear explanations of the benefits of the Canadian federation to the people of Quebec.

I know of no government, be it in England, Germany or France, which would not do anything in its power to preserve the unity of its country. I believe we have shown an exemplary tolerance. We are not propagandists, but people who wish to share true information. We want a balanced debate. I believe that the primary goal of the Department of Cultural Affairs and of this government is to make sure that the truth is known. The reason we are here in this Chamber is to discuss a substantive issue. We talk about the Canadian flag, Canadian colours and Canadian history.

I wish to talk about the future and about employment. Now, we all know that the future lies within the Canadian federation and not outside as the opposition claims.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague-

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think that this discussion is being conducted on my time, and we already had two interventions. I did not have the opportunity to answer the hon. member.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

As I indicated, there are two minutes left for questions or comments. As we all know, it is customary for the first question or comment following a speech to go to an hon. member from a different party, and this is the reason why I recognized the hon. member for Frontenac who now has the floor for one minute.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for playing Solomon. That is perfect, one minute for me and one minute for the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

When I met the constituents of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, on three occasions, these very warm people told me: "This is strange, you are coming to visit us, but we never see our own MP".

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. These are allegations. I can tell you that I go there every month and I do not think it is appropriate for the hon. member to discuss the problems in my riding. I can assure you that I look after my constituents' interests and I believe that they will be the judges of that.

Things like the Irving Whale , the $1.5 million invested in the Magdalen Islands, the new ferry soon to be put in service, will remind people that the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is working hard on their behalf, for their well-being.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Debate is now closed. It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, I asked the Prime Minister about his visit to France on January 22 and 23.

In my first question, which was very straightforward, I asked the Prime Minister to tell the House about the outcome of his representations with his counterpart, Alain Juppé, concerning the safe use of asbestos. By way of an answer, the Prime Minister merely pointed to some facts known to everyone, namely, the announcement during a press conference of France's refusal to reconsider its position on the asbestos issue.

In a supplementary question, following the answer given by the Prime Minister, that I considered totally inadequate, I asked for a simple explanation about the Liberal government's stubborn refusal to go to arbitration before the WTO.

As early as last December, I had raised this alternative with the minister of international trade and the Prime Minister. Almost three months later, the government is starting to examine the issue more seriously. I was hoping the Prime Minister, despite his inability to adequately manage this crisis, which goes way beyond the trade dimension, could have given at least one good news to the asbestos people. On the contrary, the Prime Minister seems to lose

total interest in the issue and only gives vague interpretations of our regional realities.

I would like to know the underlying reasons behind the Liberal government's refusal to take serious steps to make France respect its commitments to the WTO and the OTI. France is violating a significant trade commitment based on a single report, the scientific bias of which seems basically flawed.

In fact, this past January, the Royal Society of Canada made public its analysis of the INSERM report which clearly demonstrated that the basic premises of the French specialists no longer reflected the current reality of asbestos handling methods and the safety aspects.

The Liberal government is unwittingly losing all of the opportunities available to it to preserve more than 2,000 jobs in such a vital sector of our economy. What could the underlying motivations of the cabinet possibly be to explain this chronic hesitancy to draft a concrete action strategy to deal with the French government?

During the 80's, Canada dared confront the US on the same questions. Today, it refuses to get involved in a process which could enable the asbestos industry to gain some exemptions from the French decision.

The Bloc Quebecois has been calling, ever since this crisis began, for a structured intervention from the Liberals. We are still waiting for even the foundation of such a structure. The government, and the Prime Minister and his minister of international trade in particular, are settling for saying over and over that negotiations are under way. The people in the asbestos mining region are concerned, and the government's shilly-shallying is not enough for them.

I am therefore making a formal request to the government to initiate as quickly as possible a procedure to contest France's ban on asbestos before the World Trade Organization.

If the asbestos mines were located anywhere but Quebec, would the response have been as vigourous as the government's response, past and present, to defend Sherritt's interests in Cuba in relation to the ban under Helms-Burton?

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Saskatoon—Dundurn Saskatchewan

Liberal

Morris Bodnar LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, during his visit to Paris on January 22 and 23, the Prime Minister raised Canada's concerns over the French ban with both the French prime minister and the French president.

During the same visit, the Minister of Industry provided the French authorities with a copy of the report from the Royal Society. This study, commissioned by the Canadian government, raises some important questions regarding the report from the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale which is used by the French authorities to justify its asbestos ban. Prime Minister Juppé has agreed to have its experts examine the Royal Society report.

The federal government meets regularly with the Quebec government, the industry and the unions to develop a common approach in addressing the French ban on asbestos use, as well as its potential effects in other markets. This is in line with the concerted action plan agreed upon on July 24, 1996 by all the parties.

The federal government has raised this important issue at the highest levels in France. I anticipate that all interested parties will continue to play their respective roles in this jointly managed file.

As an example of that concerted approach, our missions facilitated the current meetings by the Quebec minister for international affairs in Germany, Belgium and the U.K., where the asbestos issue will be raised, as well as his upcoming visit to Senegal and the Ivory Coast.

The Canadian Minister of Natural Resources is also writing to her Quebec counterpart on a memorandum of understanding with the industry on the responsible use of asbestos.

We are also invoking our rights under the World Trade Organization to address the French ban. As a first step we formally asked the French government on January 27 to justify the ban under the technical barriers to trade agreement. France's reply will help us in assessing the asbestos ban in the context of France's WTO obligations.

Pending that reply, it is premature at this stage to discuss other options available to Canada under the WTO. When all relevant information on that file will have been gathered with the help of the Quebec government, the industry and the unions, the Minister for International Trade will decide on any further action.

Meanwhile, it is irresponsible to discuss publicly any strategy with regard to further WTO actions, as it could prove harmful to the asbestos industry and its related jobs in the region.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The motion to adjourn to the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)