Benoît Sauvageau

[Multilateral Investment Agreement, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to dissipate the confusion somewhat.

On February 12, the Minister for International Trade assured us in this House that Canada would not sign the MIA without the cultural exemption clause. The next morning, this very minister said that the clause would be preferable, but that, if it proved impossible, Canada would be satisfied with a few stipulations.

My question is very simple: What is the minister saying in his speech? Is the cultural exemption clause an essential condition to the signing of the agreement, yes or no?

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am sure you will not mind if, before reading and speaking to the motion introduced by my colleague for South Shore, I take a few minutes on this lovely Monday morning, on this historic and special day, to greet the people from my riding who have come to pay us a visit here in Ottawa, as well as the many delegations from all over Quebec who have come here to make known to Canadians and to Quebeckers our great regret and dissatisfaction with the reference that began before the Supreme Court this morning.

I thank the people from the riding of Repentigny for being here this morning. I would also like to express my appreciation for the support shown by mayors and municipal politicians who, upon receiving a letter pointing out the importance of respecting democracy in Quebec, told us of their interest in following this debate and their satisfaction with the Bloc Quebecois' particular contribution to it.

In May and June of 1997, our slogan was “The Bloc is there for you”, but today, tomorrow and throughout the week, we are going to show that the Bloc will be there to defend Quebeckers' interests.

Now, I am going to speak more specifically to the motion from the member for South Shore. Please bear with me while I read it in its entirety, because, as I am sure you will agree, it is rather complex: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should instigate a study of non-tariff trade barriers to the European Common Market, specifically the ban by the European Common Market of Canadian forest products that have bark or needles attached.”

That is quite specific, but as my colleagues have already said, it is important nevertheless because, in a number of areas of international trade in which Quebec and Canada are playing an increasingly large role, as soon as we step out of line the least little bit, we are put into our place with references to the court of international trade or some other court for trade disputes.

For this reason, we must pay particular attention to all these referrals to trade tribunals.

We were pleased—as was the hon. colleague for South Shore, I am sure—to learn that the Liberal government was already examining the possibility of reference to the court. It is worth pointing out, although I believe the parliamentary secretary did so inadvertently, that the figures he quoted were perhaps a bit exaggerated. What is being referred to here is not lumber in general but rather, mainly, the specific trade in Canadian forest products with bark or needles still attached.

This is, therefore, a market of some $11 million. That $11 million figure is significant, definitely, but far from the $700 million figure we were given earlier.

In the Canadian lumber industry, that is a small market. It is a market that is not expanding, but rather holding its own, for the businesses involved in this sector are small or very small.

As the previous speakers have pointed out, what is involved is mainly Christmas tree exports. In Quebec, we are so much into celebrating Christmas that we keep our trees for ourselves. To all intents and purposes, we are pretty well absent from this market, although we do export a few trees.

The problem, or the query, from the European Community concerns grub larvae. There are a number of scientific sectors that allow us to look at the real concerns of the Europeans and the European Community in general in the matter.

We are told, for example, that there is scientific proof. We were also told there was scientific proof on asbestos. Our Conservative colleagues from the area will certainly agree with me: these studies can be made to say almost anything.

This is the same European Community that had such an influence on the seal hunt. It is the same one that had something to say about dubbing films in French. It spoke out about lumber exports generally, in environmental terms, and now it is concerned more specifically with forest products that have their bark and needles attached.

As was said earlier, I think we must be open about these trade disputes. Canada must get involved, as the parliamentary secretary has said. It should also raise the awareness—ring a few bells, as we say—of those negotiating the multilateral investment agreement so we do not increasingly find ourselves in this sort of bind being pulled hither and thither by the various stakeholders in this era of globalization.

The subcommittee on international trade tabled a report with the Minister for International Trade focussing on the clarification of rules in trade disputes in the context of the MIA. We have had no response to this report from the subcommittee. We hope to have a response soon, and especially a positive response on the legitimate questions raised by my Liberal colleagues, because the report was not tabled by the Bloc alone, but supported by the Bloc following the Liberals' recommendations. They agreed to recognize the importance of clear handling of trade disputes and of acknowledging a general cultural exception.

This motion by the member for South Shore reminds us of the importance of all these events surrounding disputes and of clear international trade and well established rules. With a rare point of consensus—although I have not heard the NDP on the subject—all of the parties in the House apparently agree to support this motion.

[Iraq, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the troops are on their way. The government keeps telling us that their involvement will be limited to logistical support.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least guarantee the House that they will never be involved in combat operations?

[Iraq, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

While the American position on Iraq is being questioned by a large part of the international community, and Russia is becoming increasingly critical, the Canadian government is still talking about diplomacy, but the reality is that the troops are on their way to Iraq.

Since Iraq has recently offered to open eight presidential sites to UN inspectors, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks that that constitutes a worthwhile basis for a diplomatic solution to the conflict?

[Multilateral Investment Agreement, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.

In a report tabled last December on the MAI and adopted unanimously by the Liberal MPs, it was agreed that the wording of that agreement ought to come back to the committee before any negotiated agreement was signed. Now the Minister of International Trade has recently refused to commit to bringing the agreement back to Parliament.

Does the minister commit before the House to bringing the text of the MAI back to the committee before it is signed, as recommended—

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (reimbursement of costs following a free pardon).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code, because it happens, very rarely, but it does happen, that there are judicial errors because of which innocent people must serve prison sentences, as is the case for a constituent in my riding, Michel Dumont.

This man is innocent. In all likelihood he will be granted a pardon, but whatever the compensation, he will have to subtract from it the amounts he owes in legal fees.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, in cases of judicial error, 100% of the compensation goes to the victim of the error, and legal fees are paid by the Governor in Council.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (section 15).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, like my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, to introduce an amendment to this act to eliminate a rule known as the intensity rule, which imposes a sliding scale—from 55% to 50%—in the rate of benefits paid out to those regularly drawing on employment insurance.

We need only recall the technocrat speech delivered to us in question period and the insensitivity to those hit by unemployment, especially the seasonally unemployed and the frequent users, whom the minister wants to penalize with a 5% cut to their benefits.

In the face of this unfair rule, I propose the pure and simple abolition of the intensity rule.

(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

[Dairy Industry, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The minister pledged to conduct an in-depth review of the urgent demand made by the dairy industry regarding imports of oil, butter and sugar mixtures.

What can the minister tell dairy producers, who no longer want to be hurt by these imports, and who are urging him to take quick action?

[Foreign Affairs, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Suzie Robitaille's five children have yet to be released by their father in Egypt, and an agreement between Canada and Egypt has yet to be signed. But the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he would travel to Egypt to try to resolve the matter.

Could the minister, who is now back from Egypt, tell us whether he discussed Mrs. Robitaille's situation with his Egyptian counterpart and signed an agreement recognizing Canadian court rulings?

[Customs Tariff, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my first comments are for the parliamentary secretary. He states that the government informed the population by means of the Canada Gazette and the Internet. I doubt that people will get up in the morning and start surfing the Net to check out the Revenue Canada or Finance Canada site and look in a Department of Finance subfile to see if it contains a bill that might eventually be of interest to them.

I would also like to point out that parliamentarians—because we are here among parliamentarians—only had two weeks to review and assess Bill C-11, whose schedules alone total 3,000 pages. In fact, we had but two sessions at the industry committee, which should have been held at the finance committee.

When we speak of consultations, perhaps we should use the same definition, and when we speak about bogus consultations, we could perhaps ask the Liberals to give us a definition, because they are very good at that.

I now have a comment and a question for the NDP spokesperson who spoke earlier. I noticed that the New Democratic Party does not support Bill C-11. They were against previous free trade agreements, but the purpose of Bill C-11 is to simplify trade and exports for companies in Quebec and Canada, including those in his riding. So I have difficulty seeing how they can explain to their constituents that they are opposed to streamlining trade. We are not talking about the free trade agreement that was concluded three, four or five years ago. That was my first comment.

Here is my question. My hon. colleague may also have attended the industry committee sittings. I would like to know what he thinks personally of the role of parliamentarians in the review of this particular bill, when we had two weeks and two weeks only to study a bill whose schedules alone total 3,000 pages.

Before closing, I would like to make a brief comment and to ask the hon. member a short question on Canada's obligation to respect its international conventions. Whether we like it or not, Canada signed a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. Following the Liberals' conversion, Canada also signed a free trade agreement with Israel and another with Chile, and Canada is an active member of the WTO. Does he not believe it is essential that Canada respect the international conventions it has signed?