Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this 12 point resolution presented by the New Democratic Party. I will point out immediately that we in the Bloc Quebec are not here to save Canada or to have anything to do with Canadian nation building. I think that our purpose here has always been clear.
It would seem that on the other side of the House, and among the NDP as well, it has not yet been grasped that the Bloc Quebecois is here for one and only one purpose, which is of course to defend the interests of Quebec until Quebec attains its sovereign state status.
We have never deviated from that path. We are highly enthusiastic about building a country, Quebec. I can understand the enthusiasm of the Canadian nationalists such as my NDP colleagues to build a better country.
I will, if I may, address one by one the points submitted by the NDP, with a few comments and criticisms as well of the government's actions.
The first point addresses reinforcement of the environmental heritage and signature of the Kyoto protocol. We support this. If Quebec were a sovereign country, we would long ago have ratified the Kyoto agreements. Moreover, the National Assembly has already passed a unanimous motion on this. As well, Quebec has already signed a protocol on stabilizing CO
2
emissions.
We hope Canada will do the same, and that it shares Quebec's desire for a healthier environment and a desire to pass on to our children an environmental heritage that is more respectful of sustainable development.
The second point reads:
Strengthen the role of Aboriginal, Métis and Inuit people in the Canadian family.
Once again, and I do not point this out to be cynical, Quebec, a sovereign state of Quebec—and we did not wait to become that before acting—will reflect modernity and equality in its dealings with the aboriginal nations. I would, moreover, remind my Canadian friends that Quebec, under the Lévesque government, was the first to sign an historical agreement with the James Bay Cree.
Recently, another historic agreement was signed between the Quebec and Cree nations as equals. The following are extracts from this agreement concluded on February 7 between Quebec Premier Bernard Landry and the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses, in Waskaganish.
On this occasion, Premier Landry said:
The signing of this agreement between our two peoples paves the way for co-operation based on mutual respect, dialogue and trust. In many respects, our two nations are innovating and leading the way. Other countries are already watching us. This is an unique opportunity to show them our desire and determination to turn this partnership into an outstanding success.
I would also like to quote Grand Chief Ted Moses. At the signing of this historic agreement between the Quebec and Cree nations, he said:
The Cree nation is entering the 21st century with a new spirit and many challenges. The agreement signed today represents the end of the Crees' struggle for the recognition of their rights. Premier Landry and myself have decided to put the weight of history behind us in order to develop a more harmonious relationship.
We must pay tribute to such an historic agreement, which should serve as an example to Canadians on how to build a country.
The third point in the New Democratic Party's plan is, and I quote:
Reaffirm Canada's international peace keeping role and rehabilitate Canada's reputation as respected internationalists.
It is true that this is something Canada needs badly.
One only has to watch the Minister of National Defence act regarding the conflict in Afghanistan, or listen to the Minister of Foreign Affairs contradict himself, to realize that, in the end, they do not control anything. Canada is losing what little credibility it had left since this government was elected, because it did not make international relations a priority.
They are tarnishing the image of Canada and that of Lester Pearson, who helped create the peacekeeping forces through his initiative. It is a shame that Canada has become merely a secondary partner, which blindly complies with the decisions made by the United States, not even knowing what is happening on the international scene regarding a conflict as serious as the one in Afghanistan.
In terms of international aid, this is truly a disgrace. While Pearson himself suggested and supported the objective of allocating 0.7% of the GDP to international aid, we are still contributing only 0.26%. At this rate, Canada will never reach the objective that it claims to want to achieve. That is a disgrace.
Naturally, we hope that Canada will gain back some of its importance on the international scene, but having attended the recent Davos conference in New York City, I can say that the Quebec delegation was right up there with the world's top international delegations, and it made me proud.
It goes without saying that we can only endorse point No. 4, which reads as follows:
Re-establish the federal government as full partner in funding health care and post-secondary education as public, not-for-profit systems.
In the current context, I think that the New Democrats have a lot of work to do to achieve the fourth objective in their plan. I also deplore their attitude about this issue.
Of course, in recent years the government made savage cuts to transfers for health and education. However, I can only deplore the fact that the New Democrats are again asking the government to tie Canada-wide national standards to the federal contribution, while refusing any discussion on decentralization and on the transfer of tax points, which would allow the provinces, and the Quebec government, to fully control their provincial jurisdictions.
I can only regret the government's attitude in slashing transfer payments for health, post-secondary education and income support. I also regret its closed mindedness about any proposal that would make it possible for the government of Quebec and the provinces to have more funding for these essential public services, in keeping with their constitutional responsibility.
I also regret the fact that we are in a situation where the federal government is even being encouraged to use a big stick. Even if it contributes a mere 14 cents of every dollar invested in health, and 8 cents for every dollar invested in education, the NDP continues to be in favour of centralization, of a strong central government wielding a big stick over the provinces.
As for trade agreements, we support the principle of ensuring they “include adequate protection for labour standards, and for human rights and the environment.”
The question needs to be raised. I was very proud of the fact that Quebec was the only province present at the parallel summit in Pôrto Alegre. It was there precisely in order to create a free trade area of the Americas that would fully respect environmental and labour standards and the various human rights and freedoms.
But where were the other provinces? Where were the Canadian representatives, where were the New Democrats with their concern for these principles? Some of my colleagues paid out of their pockets to go to Pôrto Alegre to make their concerns known about a better world and the creation of a zone encompassing the three Americas, a free trade area that would respect the human aspect. Where was the NDP, where were the Liberals, where were the members of the other parties that sit in this House?
We in the Bloc Quebecois were there along with the representatives of the government of Quebec. These, moreover, were the only representatives of a government that is still taking action within Canada.
As far as the point about agricultural producers goes, we are in agreement. In Canada, as in Quebec, agricultural producers are the victims of international subsidies, particularly those provided by the United States and by Europe. There is a price and subsidy war going on. This war had abated somewhat in recent years, but it has returned with a vengeance.
The government has been more Catholic than the Pope, as the expression goes, and forced farmers to accept drastic cuts in their subsidies, only to find themselves in a tough spot compared to American and European farmers who continue to be heavily subsidized.
In a sovereign Quebec, we will support, as we do today, this kind of principle of international equity with respect to agricultural support.
Since my time is up, I am prepared to respond to questions and comments from my colleagues.
