Richard Marceau

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

No, he is not on highway 30. He is driving along and sees a lot of cars coming toward him. He hears a warning on the radio that people should be careful because there is a car going the wrong way. He thinks, “That is not true; there is more than one car going the wrong way”.

The government is the only one that is saying that there is no fiscal imbalance. It is the only one. All premiers agree that there is a fiscal imbalance.

I would like to put today's debate into context and look at it from a broader perspective. What we are discussing today is an extremely important issue that goes to the heart of the debate on the future of Quebec.

There are three things that have a stranglehold on Quebec right now, and they are all related to the federal government's increasing appetite for a greater centralization of powers.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.

The speech made by the parliamentary secretary and the stand he is taking remind me of the guy on the highway—

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50, which is at second reading.

In November, together with the Minister of International Trade and the member for Burnaby--Douglas, I attended the ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar. The purpose of this conference was to bring about a new round of WTO negotiations, and it succeeded in doing so, incidentally.

At the same time, I was also present for the birth of a new world economic order with the accession of China and Taiwan to the World Trade Organization.

Bill C-50, an act to amend certain acts as a result of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, was introduced in the House on February 5.

Let us state up front that my party, the Bloc Quebecois, supports the principle of the bill, as it is in line with our previously and clearly stated position in favour of China's accession to the WTO.

We believe that this new era of trade will promote China's development with respect to the international community.

We also believe that the opening of world markets to this unusual partner will accelerate reforms currently underway in China, and make it easier to raise the sensitive question of human rights and to defend human rights.

China's future partners, in the context of the World Trade Organization, have a great many expectations of the Chinese authorities on the issue of human rights. We have a moral responsibility to maintain pressure so that the Chinese people can achieve their full potential in freedom.

China's accession to the WTO prompts us once again to draw an interesting parallel between the globalization of markets and the equally fundamental, equally essential, and equally critical issue of international development.

I would like to take this opportunity today to reiterate the Bloc Quebecois' position on increasing spending for international assistance to 0.7% of the GNP and on the creation of a social development fund for the Americas.

When we talk about the accession of such an important country to the WTO, it is important to give a few figures to help our understanding. China is currently Canada's fourth largest trading partner. Trade between China and Canada totalled $15 billion in 2000. China is the seventh largest economy in the world and the ninth largest exporter. It is home to one fifth of the world's people—this is obviously a key fact. China was the largest economic power in the world not subject to WTO rights and obligations with respect to the administration of international trade, the resolution of trade disputes, and the pursuit of trade liberalization.

We can see the importance that China has with respect to international trade, and particularly the importance that it will have in the years to come.

More than 15 years ago, in 1986, China indicated its desire to join the ranks of countries governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT as it was then called. Negotiations to that end began in earnest in 1994.

Bilateral negotiations with interested WTO members had to do with specific barriers to market access. In November 1999, Canada and China concluded a bilateral agreement smoothing out these difficulties.

In addition, there are approximately forty similar agreements between China and other WTO member countries. Lengthy and difficult multilateral negotiations took place with a view to getting China to agree to make changes to its trade regime so as to bring it into line with the obligations flowing from the WTO accord. The WTO also held 18 meetings of the working group, which culminated on September 17, 2000 in a detailed general agreement on the conditions for China's accession to the organization.

The bill we are debating today gives effect to the rights of Canada pursuant to the protocol on the accession of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization that came into effect on December 11, 2001.

The enactment will amend the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Customs Tariff, and the Export and Import Permits Act.

This will authorize the government to impose, under certain conditions and after an inquiry by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, special trade measures to protect Canadian industries from injury or threat of injury that could be caused by imports from the People's Republic of China.

Special trade measures, commonly referred to as safeguards, will be available until December 11, 2013.

The text of the bill amends the Special Import Measures Act to allow the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency greater flexibility in conducting anti-dumping investigations related to imported Chinese goods when the price or the cost of production of those goods in China is not determined by market economy conditions.

Normally, the accession of a new WTO member country would not require Canadian legislation to be changed. However, in negotiating the conditions for China's accession, new rights were allocated to members. The amendments proposed in the bill are therefore designed to make these new rights part of Canadian law. They will, among other things, enable Canada, under certain circumstances, to impose new guarantees on imports from China and to apply the comparative pricing rules in anti-dumping investigations.

We should point out that all WTO member countries, moreover, are entitled to these same rights. Guarantees are common currency in trade agreements such as the WTO and NAFTA, and Canada already has legislation and regulations on their implementation.

In the event of sudden increases in imports causing or threatening to cause injury to the national industry, the guarantees allow governments to provide temporary support to the industries in question, so that they may make the necessary adjustments to enhance their competitive position. This support may be in the form of import duties, quantitative restrictions on imports, or the imposition of tariff quotas.

There are, however, three new guarantees contained in the conditions for China's accession to the WTO: first, a guarantee per product, which may be applied to any product originating in China that causes or threatens to cause injury to Canadian industry because of increased imports; second, a guarantee of diversion, which can be used to prevent Chinese products the access of which to a market has been closed by a guarantee per product from flooding the Canadian market and causing injury to Canadian industry; and third, a guarantee that applies to Chinese clothing and textile imports.

It was also agreed during the negotiations on China's accession to the WTO that members could impose special conditions on China within the framework of anti-dumping investigations, with a view to determining whether the imports are being sold under unfair conditions, that is at a lower price than the cost of production or at the prevailing market price in the country of origin.

Canadian legislation provides for special rules when costs and prices in the country of origin are not determined by the market. However, existing criteria may not apply perfectly to the transitory nature of the Chinese economy. This is why WTO members negotiated special anti-dumping conditions for a period of 15 years, from the time that China joins the WTO.

So, the Bloc Quebecois supports China's entry into the WTO. We firmly believe that the development of closer trade relations with the international community will help China's economic development. At the same time, we expect a reform with regard to human rights .

However, we are less optimistic than the Liberals, because we do not think that the opening up of the Chinese market is a cure-all, as the federal government seems to believe.

The human rights issue is far from being resolved in China, and we must continue to bring political and even economic pressure to bear. However, quite apart from the trade issue, there are other issues that are of concern to us, to Quebecers and to a large number of Canadians, including international development.

In fact, the hon. members for Joliette and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay attended the world social forum in Pôrto Alegre and they know—and they show it regularly—that we can no longer talk about trade liberalization without being concerned about development. An increasing number of people are realizing this and are asking us to take into consideration this side of the issue.

In Doha, we heard developing countries complain that the rules of the Uruguay Round did not help them develop. Let us not forget that, in 1999, the Canadian government supported the idea of a tax on financial transactions to help international development. Was that just a smokescreen or will the federal government promote this idea to reduce speculation and to fund development?

The concept of development assistance is crucial, both at the international and the continental levels. If the federal government really wants to show some leadership, it could, for instance, reintroduce the idea of setting up a development fund for the Americas, which was supported by Mexican President, Vicente Fox, and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

This fund, which would help national economies in the Americas face the impact of economic integration in areas such as employment, infrastructure development, health, education, social and environmental protection, has gained strong support from the Quebec government, the FTQ, the CSQ, the CEQ, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec, the UPA, the Union des artistes, the Union des écrivaines et écrivains québécois, the Mouvement national des Québécoises et des Québécois, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec and the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec.

So, where international assistance is concerned, Canada must set a deadline in order to reach the UN goal, which is to spend 0.7% of our GDP on aid to developing countries. But as we all know, as soon as the Liberals took office, they started making drastic cuts to international assistance.

For example, CIDA's budget has decreased 20% since 1993. In real terms, the drop was 30%. Therefore, the budget has been slashed by more than a quarter. The deepest of the cuts in CIDA's budget was 35% less than the 1993 budget.

Since taking office, the Liberals have cut $2.7 billion from international assistance. According to an OECD study, Canada is now one of the least generous countries when it comes to international assistance. This will do nothing to increase the pride with which some of my colleagues quote UN figures, among others, about “the best country in the world”.

The OECD's report ranks Canada 17th among 22 donor countries. In 1999, Canada was ranked 12th and, in 1995, we were ranked 6th. Canada currently contributes 0.25% of its GDP to international assistance, while the ratio back in 1992 was 0.46%.

Because of the fact that international development is important and essential for developing countries, because it is part of our collective responsibility, because this contribution is an integral part of our contribution to the world, of our shared sense of giving, and because it underscores, as such, the values that we defend as a society, Canada must increase its international development assistance to 0.7% of the GDP.

In closing, it is important to note that global economic development is achieved, obviously, through the development of international economic relations, and China's accession to the WTO is in line with this.

However, the flip side of the coin is just as important. Canada must have a greater presence and provide more international development assistance if we want to be known as more than just advocates of freer trade, and want to increase the standard of living throughout the world.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his excellent question.

I am simply flabbergasted by this refusal to admit the obvious. They do not want to recognize the facts, the figures, the real situation we are in, in order to avoid all debate on the issue.

If this debate takes place, if we examine the situation with regard to health care and the fiscal situation throughout Canada, we will realize that the main cause of the sorry state of health care in Canada is this government. We will realize that it is responsible for this mess we are in today, something it refuses to admit. That is why the finance minister and his colleague, the intergovernmental affairs minister, refuse to admit the truth and the obvious.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his excellent question.

We have here, today, a situation quite out of the ordinary, with the Bloc Quebecois promoting a very broad consensus that has been reached not only in Quebec. As I said earlier, the PQ government, along with the Liberal opposition and the ADQ opposition, supports the position we are taking today, as do the premiers of all the provinces and territories.

This raises the issue of knowing how is it that a government which claims to be sensitive to the needs of ordinary people has totally ignored the repeated pleas of a vast majority of Quebecers and Canadians, if not all of them, to start reinvesting right away in the health care system which is sinking.

This is also the question I am putting to my colleagues opposite. How can they remain insensitive to the cries and pleas of their constituents who argue that it is about time Ottawa restored funding in health care sector to at least the 1994 level?

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is always with some apprehension that a member takes the floor after a speech by the very eloquent member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve. With his flair for striking phrases, his passion and rhetorical talent, he is somewhat intimidating for some of us. I will nonetheless try to face the music and share with you and colleagues in the House a few remarks on the important issue before us.

This debate today is not new by any means. By way of background, I would like to explain briefly the overall evolution of Canadian federalism. I may be anticipating my conclusion, but this evolution has been such that Quebecers in particular are now faced with a choice between full control over their own destiny or a Canada that is increasingly centralized, and a leveler of all differences.

As far back as 1942, Ottawa used the war effort as an excuse to impose tax agreements on the provinces. Through these agreements, Quebec, then under the prime ministership of Adélard Godbout, transferred tax points in good faith and stopped temporarily taxing the personal and corporate income in exchange for an annual subsidy.

From 1941 to 1947, Ottawa exercised virtually total control over taxation. Worse yet, when the war ended in 1945, Ottawa refused to hand back to the provinces the powers of taxation they had given it. This spectacular takeover of crucial, significant and vital sources of tax revenue was the beginning of a long centralization campaign by the federal government, a campaign that is still going on.

By exercising the financial powers of the provinces, Ottawa was able to collect a huge portion of the tax dollars and to take upon itself to interfere in areas of jurisdiction where it did not belong. It used its spending power to define Canada-wide standards that totally ignore the division of powers as set out in the 1867 Constitution.

Several successive Quebec governments of all political stripes, from Maurice Duplessis of the Union nationale to the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Parti Québécois, are responsible for setting up a counter-attack to stop Ottawa from interfering in areas where it did not belong.

In 1966, the Canada Health Act was passed, followed soon after by the Health Insurance Act in Quebec. And that is also when it was decided that Ottawa would pay 50% of the health care costs and the provinces, including Quebec, would pay the other 50%.

Since then, the situation has taken a bad turn. Ottawa is withdrawing from the transfer of payments to the provinces through the Canada health and social transfer. This is absolutely unacceptable. The federal health spending share, initially at 50%, has dropped to 14%. Those listening will no doubt agree 36% represents a significant reduction.

Members across the way tell us “Look at the latest investments made by Ottawa; we have put money back in the health system and we are doing what we have to”. Finally, what they are saying is that all is well in the best of possible worlds.

Let us have a look at that. It is true that in the 1999-2000 budget, the federal government put $3.5 billion in a trust fund, the share of Quebec being $840 million. In the 2000-01 budget, the federal government did create a new trust fund of $2.5 billion and in September 2000, another trust fund of $1 billion for medical supplies.

While that money is useful for the Quebec health system, let us see what it truly represents. As a trade-off, the federal government insisted that five requirements be met. First, some funds are to be used for a specific purpose; this is what we call the “Ottawa knows best” attitude. Second, transfers made to provinces through these trust funds are a one-time payment, which means that there is no possibility of long term planning. As my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve mentioned, God knows that in the area of health there is a need to plan for the long term rather than to rely on band aid solutions. Third, once a province has spent all its share, it cannot get new funding from the federal government to maintain its spending level. Fourth, access to such funding to purchase supplies does not guarantee that Quebec will have the resources necessary to hire the personnel required to use these supplies. Fifth, as I said earlier, the creation of such funds makes budgetary planning more difficult.

This partial, incomplete, insufficient reinvestment by the federal government through trusts does not compensate at all the fiscal withdrawal practised by the federal government. I said that, from 1970 to 2000, Ottawa's share of expenditures decreased from 50% to 14%. Since 1994 only, the federal government's share of health expenditures decreased by 9 percentage points. Nine per cent in less than 10 years, that is completely unacceptable.

We are now getting into the political framework of all this. Only the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs denies the existence of this imbalance. He is not acting in good faith. The federal government cuts health and education transfers. But let us return to the subject of today's debate, health. The federal government comes as a saviour and says “Look, I am giving you a little bit of money. Be content, even if instead of robbing you of $100 million, I take $25 million from you”. It is completely unacceptable.

It is really sad to see the federal government make savage cuts in health services, and act as a saviour afterwards. Some hon. members across the way say “It figures, it is mean separatists who say that”. But that is not true.

I would like to remind the hon. members that, when he was the rotating president of Canada's Premiers' Conference, Gordon Campbell, the Premier of British Columbia, also said, and I quote from a letter he sent to the Prime Minister of Canada on February 12:

Notwithstanding our ongoing efforts to contain costs, it is clear to all premiers that existing federal transfers to province/territories do not provide a sustainable basis on which to provide an improved quality health care to Canadians.

This is not a separatist refrain. All the premiers says so, unanimously. The funding put into health care by Ottawa is not enough to maintain the quality level that Quebecers and Canadians have a right to expect.

When even the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Jean Charest, agrees with the position of the Quebec government—and God knows that Mr. Charest's requests are usually very minimal; my colleague talked about an invertebrate's requests, and I agree with that—something is wrong somewhere.

In conclusion, all this brings us to the kind of shenanigan represented by the Romanow Commission, which, ultimately, can only result in more support for the policy of the federal government. Let us not forget who Mr. Romanow is. He is the one who, only 20 years ago, plotted with the prime minister in the kitchens of the Chateau Laurier, in Ottawa, to patriate the constitution against the will of Quebec. You cannot trust a man who sees Canada as a centralized country, a man who will not give any chance to the provinces, particularly Quebec, and will deny them the right to develop a health care system that could be original and different.

[Municipalities, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance also stated that the federal government's ability to work with municipalities will be critical to the kind of country we leave for our children.

Are we to understand that the Minister of Finance is also announcing that he wants to go over the heads of the provinces and deal directly with municipalities, at the risk of squabbles with the provinces? Is this what he is saying?

[Municipalities, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport recently said that Canada was a country of the 21st century with a constitution from the 19th century. He also stated that the fact that municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction is outdated and unproductive.

Are we to understand from the Minister of Transport's comments that he is announcing an upcoming constitutional reform?

[Aboriginal affairs, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on November 28, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that nothing would stand in the way of his determination to implement his initiatives for the development of aboriginal communities.

In light of the most recent federal budget, in which billions have been earmarked for security, how does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intend to address the many problems affecting aboriginal communities with the meagre $185 million set aside for him by the Minister of Finance?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could try to cool down the partisan tone of this debate.

Indeed, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion M-421, sponsored by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, urging the government to call a full public inquiry into the death of Dudley George, on September 6, 1995 during a confrontation between police and natives in the Ipperwash provincial park, in Ontario.

This affair continues to be widely reported, and rightly so, after more than six years. The details surrounding this dark and deplorable affair are troubling in many respects. It has to do with the death of a man that took place during a protest over a major land claims dispute involving the government of Ontario. This is a major element of the problem with which we are now grappling.

Moreover, our conscience dictates that we do everything within our power to shed light on a troubling homicide case in which there still lingers today some doubt as to whether or not justice was really served.

The intention of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is creditable. I agree with him that, because of the very delicate nature of past events, a public inquiry should definitely be held to reveal the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Dudley George.

However, I wonder about the relevance of calling on the federal government for such an inquiry. I understand my colleague's concerns, and especially the desire of the members of Mr. George's family for justice. I repeat, these events were troubling for several reasons and it is our duty as well to promote justice and truth.

I think therefore it should be up to the Government of Ontario to establish such an inquiry. For one thing, the events of September 6, 1995 occurred in Ipperwash provincial park. For another, the tragic events directly involved the Ontario Provincial Police.

As our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said on November 29, in response to a question from the member for Winnipeg Centre, the responsibility of the federal government is not at issue in this matter.

The federal government agreed at the time to clean up the Ipperwash land with a view to giving it to the first nations. The handling of the events of September 6, 1995 was therefore not the federal government's responsibility.

I also have a hard time seeing how the federal government could be allowed to become involved in such a crucial matter, which is not within its jurisdiction, when every day we criticize its propensity for interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I repeat, to make sure I am understood by my colleagues and those involved in the matter, that the Bloc Quebecois supports holding a public inquiry into the death of Dudley George. However, we think the federal government has no business interfering in a provincial matter, since the Ontario government is empowered to conduct such an exercise.

It is a matter of respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces, which, if left alone, would serve truth and justice all the better.