Yvan Loubier

[Lumber, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, up to now, the Minister for International Trade has not taken a firm stand on the immediate return of free trade in the lumber sector, preferring to speak of a long term transition to free trade.

More recently, in his meeting with the American secretary of trade, he expressed his discouragement at the attitude of the U.S.

Will the minister acknowledge that his attitude and his remarks are not putting Canada in a strong position, which is crucial at the start of negotiations with the Americans over lumber?

[Summit Of The Americas, February 28th, 2001]

In this instance, the meeting will be held in the national capital.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Outrageous.

[Oil Industry, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada tells us that there is no problem in the oil industry, that everything is doing the best it can. The petroleum free market is in good shape. But who is in good shape?

Shell Canada has announced unprecedented profits of $858 million over the past year. Petro-Canada's profits are $893 million and Imperial Oil's, $1.4 billion. Clearly, the oil companies are in good shape.

These three companies control 75% of the market. They are suspected of collusion in setting their prices and they are governed by toothless competition legislation.

Most importantly, however, they were involved in the Conference Board report analyses. And so how, as judge and jury, could they do otherwise but say that everything is fine and nothing must be changed?

When will the federal government stop mocking the public and pass real legislation on competition that will have teeth as pointed as those of the oil sharks?

[Organized Crime, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of support, but one of resources. Resources are insufficient, as he well knows. We are not the ones saying it this time, the UN is.

Now that the laxity of the government is being criticized on the international level, is the solicitor general going to finally tell us what action he intends to take against drug traffickers and what protection he intends to provide to these farm families, who have had enough of his promises?

[Organized Crime, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a United Nations agency has criticized Canada's lack of action against the illegal cultivation of cannabis and its inability to properly control the production of synthetic drugs. I too have called upon the solicitor general here in this House to take action on the gangs terrorizing farmers, but with no satisfactory response.

Could the solicitor general tell us why he has turned a deaf ear to my entreaties for the past two years and could he tell us, in light of such a damning report, what action he intends to take so that farm families will no longer fall victim to gang threats?

[Transfer Payments, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state is like his Prime Minister: he is always patronizing, he refuses to answer questions properly and he does not care about the public interest.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a great academic. Instead of lecturing Albertans, will the minister recognize that, by trying to impose its views, its laws and its standards to provinces in their jurisdictions, it is the federal government that resorts to blackmail, not separatists?

[Transfer Payments, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, four years from now, in 2005, federal transfers for health, education and income security will be $500 million lower than what they were in 1993, before the drastic cuts made by the Liberal government.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that, since federal surpluses are accumulating at an alarming rate while health care and education needs are rapidly growing, it is time the federal government transfer new tax points to the Quebec government, as unanimously requested by all the parties in the National Assembly?

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to try to polish our image. That is very clear. We are here to have intelligent debates in which we must respect other people's intelligence. It is very important to do that, because we are here to represent people who are also intelligent.

We should not be seen as stupid nor, indirectly, should those we represent be seen as stupid.

Our motion does not require any change to the constitution nor any major upheaval. We want a debate like the ones we had under the Conservative government on the free trade agreement with the United States and under the Liberals on the ratification of NAFTA. It was the Conservatives who negotiated the agreement, but it was the Liberals who, after spending years tearing their hair out and opposing free trade, ratified that agreement. They swallowed their pride and they passed the act implementing the agreement.

Under that process, implementation bills were introduced in both cases and were debated. Could someone tell us whether a parliament is still a place to hold debates and not a place to have spineless members who say “We are backbenchers, we cannot say anything”? It is unbelievable to hear such things.

Perhaps the member has no talent in international trade, as he has said himself, but he has a responsibility of properly representing those who elected him.

Could we just ask him whether he would agree, as happened with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, to a debate here, so amendments could be tabled and we could debate them in order to improve the agreement, if need be, before ratification?

They did it in the case of NAFTA. Why do things differently with the free trade area of the Americas? Why do things differently with the upcoming WTO agreement?

We have no pretensions. We just want to honour our responsibilities, to not have any tricks played on us, like the people of the industrialized world could have been with the multilateral agreement on investment, with their great friend Mr. Johnston, a man of incredible arrogance. He, with his nose in the air, almost right to the ceiling, said that it was already a fait accompli, that the people had simply to note the great negotiations held in order to look after the interests of the world's multinational companies.

Things do not work like that in real world. We are here to represent and defend the interests of people and to ensure that everything that is negotiated is good for them.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what he is saying makes no sense. It is totally stupid to claim that the constitution has to be changed if a bill is to be introduced on the implementation of a free trade agreement within the Americas. That was negotiated under the Progressive Conservatives with the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and with the free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreements were debated in the House and amendments were accepted.

To quote one of these, if I may, from May 25, 1993. Mr. Barrett, seconded by Mr. Angus, proposed the following amendment: “Notwithstanding subsection (1), nothing in this Act or the Agreement applies to any water transported by a pipeline or diverted by reason of the diversion of a river”. This was moved and adopted in the House. We amended the free trade agreement Implementation Act with the United States and Mexico. We did not amend the Constitution.

They are completely off the rails. I have never seen such a thing.