Antoine Dubé

[Canada Marine Act, May 17th, 2001]

I listened to the Liberal member for Algoma—Manitoulin and he was very receptive to the idea. It is nice to see this kind of attitude from members on the other side of the House from time to time. He probably saw the benefit of such a policy with regard to ports.

I also have a third reason for taking an interest in this debate. Even though I represent the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I was born in the riding of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. Specifically, I was in the Rivière-du-Loup section of the riding. When I was young, although I am still not all that old, a number of election campaigns were waged over the future of the port of Cacouna, what we locally call Gros-Cacouna.

I remember one Liberal MP at that time, now deceased, and also, it must be said, the former mayor of Rivière-du-Loup. The people must have been behind him because he was elected seven times in all. Something really interesting occurred, however. In just about every election, he promised he would get the port. He was a model of perseverance. After he finally got the port, he lost the next election.

Perhaps the Prime Minister has learned a lesson from this, and feels it is better to make promises than to follow through on them. I hope that is not the case. This was a typical situation, and one known to everyone in eastern Quebec.

I do not want to downplay the importance of the other gulf ports, but this was and still is, the most important south shore port, next to Quebec. For the region this is a port with a really important infrastructure. My honourable colleague's proposed solution is an appropriate one, because such an infrastructure cannot stand alone overnight the way things are at present.

The port is still the property of the federal government, which wanted to see it taken over by the local community. The bill presented by my colleague is a kind of compromise; it is like applying the principle of the community taking over an infrastructure of this size, while at the same time saying “Hold on, let us be realistic. This cannot be done so soon, just like that”.

It is therefore a matter of amending the Canada Marine Act to enable this community, which really wants to take over this port, but which also lacks the ability as things stand at the moment to develop it as it would.

Of course, I support my colleague's bill, but there is a project even longer in the developing than the port of Cacouna. It took even more elections. I am talking of the famous merchant marine policy.

The government has talked of it as long as I can remember, and I became interested in the policy very early on. This has been discussed since the second world war. During the war, Canada had one of the largest merchant marine and warfare fleets.

With three oceans, the longest seaway in the world and the presence of the largest market in the world, the United States, how is it that we still have to plead for a merchant marine policy, a transportation development policy?

Maritime transportation is the most advantageous, the most economical in economic terms, the least dangerous in ecological terms and the form of transportation that carries 80% of goods the world over.

Let us have a quick historical overview. A retired general spoke to me about the veterans. He gave me his point of view as to what had made Canada change direction after the war. There were thousands of people working in the shipping industry, in ports. Cabotage was booming. What happened?

I will briefly describe what happened. Tax havens began to appear in the marine sector. People legally use all sorts of ways to pay less for people working on ships, to avoid paying corporate taxes and so on.

Originally this was a result of unionization. At the time people did not want that. The government co-operated in that regard. This is old stuff. This led to unionization by an American group. In the end it turned into a big mess.

We have been talking about this issue for years. If we had had one more week last year my bill on shipbuilding would have been passed. So far, I have not introduced a new bill on shipbuilding because there has been a coalition.

The minister agreed to set up a committee bringing together union officials, employers and his own representative, with a mandate to report back to him. The minister has had this report for close to two months and he promised he would do something, but it takes time. Had my bill been passed the problems in shipyards would already have been solved.

Fortunately the government of Quebec is concerned about this issue, perhaps because of the associate minister of transport, Jacques Baril. He will soon be presenting a shipping policy within the framework of Quebec's jurisdictions.

This will revive the issue of coastal shipping on the St. Lawrence River. In this context the future is even brighter for the port of Cacouna, an important infrastructure that is solid, well designed and very well located. Shipping activity between ports on the St. Lawrence River in Quebec is one more argument in favour of this bill, in favour of an integrated federal policy.

Interprovincial and international trade comes under federal jurisdiction. Again, I was impressed this week to see all the people who are interested in this issue: pilots, exporters, carriers, shipowners, builders. One of the problems that cannot be overemphasized is that we need an integrated approach because, as far as I know, at least 12 departments are involved.

I appreciated the comments made by our colleague opposite and by members of the other parties on this issue. I can see that the debate is moving ahead. I remember Rosaire Gendron, who represented the riding of my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques some time ago. With patience and perseverance, he succeeded in having the port of Cacouna built.

I hope the bill introduced by my colleague will lead to a true policy for the development of small ports in Canada, and in Quebec, of course.

[Canada Marine Act, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, knowing my interest for the maritime sector, and for shipbuilding in particular, members will certainly understand that it was with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I accepted the invitation extended to me by my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques to speak to his bill.

There is a second reason why I accepted his invitation. It is because—he will not like this because I did not tell him in advance—through his dedication to defending the interests of his region and his riding, this member and colleague is a model for us all. He is very active in the House and cannot be accused of being negative. The proposal contained in the bill that he drafted some time ago and that we are debating today is one that the government seems to have considered.

I heard the remarks made by my Liberal colleague from a riding whose name I have unfortunately forgotten.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Quebec, I believe it is my duty to rise today to speak against the bill. It will be extremely detrimental. It will fly in the face of the approach developed by hundreds if not thousands of people who have been working for years with Quebec youth; this approach has a proven track record.

It is based on rehabilitation and the needs of young people. It is individualized and specific. It does not include automatic haphazard punitive measures without any regard for the context and the situation of the young offender.

Before daring to hand out harsher sentences, and considering sentencing young people at an ever younger age to adult sentences, the government should first prove to us that the approach put forward by Quebec is no good. It is in fact quite the contrary; it has yielded very good results, as a matter of fact the best in Canada, as mentioned on many occasions by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. He has done an outstanding job of reaching people working in the field in Quebec and consulting them. Of course he first studied the act very carefully. And then he consulted workers in the field, which he has been doing for a long time.

The government is seeking to respond to a need or request voiced in one area of our country, more specifically western Canada—where there is a right wing movement, we must say—and try to apply this approach coast to coast, including in Quebec, when we have the lowest youth crime rate. As a matter of fact, statistics show that youth crime rates have been dropping throughout Canada.

It is quite incredible to see that, when the situation is improving and not deteriorating, the government has decided to pass a bill that is even harsher and that holds our young offenders responsible for their acts by punishing them. This is quite inconceivable.

Since 1993, with other members of the Bloc, we sometimes visit various provinces in Canada. I will always remember that, in the fall of 1994, with my colleagues from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and Mercier, I was part of a tour that dealt with social programs, and we found out that, depending on the province, there was a different culture and a different mentality, but also different social problems, different ways of treating problems. The rest of Canada tends to depend more on the central government than Quebecers.

Quebecers, however, federalists as well as sovereigntists, have always had more confidence in their own government, in the government that is the closest to their problems, especially social problems, such as those we are talking about today.

To talk about young offenders is to talk about teenagers. To talk about teenagers is to talk about the future. When we send these teenagers to prison, thinking that we will rehabilitate them by doing so, we are in fact putting them in a school for crime.

Recently, I heard a speech by Marc Beaupré, who went on a consultation and awareness raising tour with the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. He told us that he himself stayed two days in prison—not to serve a sentence of course—but as a learning experience. In those two days, he was taught many things. We can only imagine what he would have learned had he stayed longer. He gave that as an example. He learned a few of the tricks taught in the school for crime.

In a few minutes, I will name the members of the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, just to show how strong the Quebec consensus is.

However, I would first like to point out that, as second reading of the bill, I have made a speech, as had certain members from Quebec, including the member for Beauce, who had said that they had consulted youth organizations and that what they heard was different from what the member for Berthier—Montcalm was saying. I wanted to check because he and I live in the same region. I called those who had attended the meeting to know their opinions.

They all told me that their opinions had not changed. They said that, on the contrary, they told the member in question that he was mistaken, that he was headed in the wrong direction, but he kept saying that the government had consulted.

Maybe they did not give him a hard time, because people who work with teenagers do not usually favour the aggressive approach for obvious reasons, but they did make him understand that he was headed in the wrong direction. Despite that, members from Quebec do not talk much in the House, and when they do, it is to say that it is not that serious.

I will now give a list of members of the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs because it is worth mentioning. They are: Commission des services juridiques, Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, Jean Trépanier of the University of Montreal School of Criminology, Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, Institut Philippe Pinel, Association des directeurs de police et pompiers du Québec, Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, Crown Prosecutors' Office, which comes under the Quebec Minister of Justice, Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, Marc Leblanc of the University of Montreal School of Psyco-Education, Regroupement de justice alternative du Québec, Child Welfare League of Canada, Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Association des avocats de la défense du Québec, Société criminologie du Québec. And there are a few more.

That is a lot of people. I am not sure how many, but these groups must represent hundreds and thousands of people who work with young people daily. They are part of a coalition that came here to condemn this bill, but the government is still turning a deaf ear.

I agree with those who suggest that, if the rest of Canada—and by that I mean all the provinces except Quebec, because we are still part of the Canadian federal system—wants this bill, let the government add a clause granting Quebec the right to opt out, if we have a flexible federal system, with the support of a consensus in Quebec that includes members of the National Assembly, all Quebecers, all the stakeholders I just enumerated, the young people and their parents.

This would make a lot of sense. There are precedents for this in many areas, like the civil code, on questions that are under Quebec's jurisdiction, contrary to what exists in other provinces. Education is a provincial jurisdiction. Why stubbornly try to have a uniform Canada, and why treat everybody the same way when it is obvious for everybody that there are differences out there, that there are two nations in this country? Let us show some respect for the Quebec people by letting them determine how they are going to educate their children.

[National Marine Day, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, representatives of the main components of the shipping industry—pilots, carriers, shippers, port managers and shipbuilders—are here in Ottawa to draw attention to the second National Marine Day. This event is intended to raise the profile of the important economic and social roles of the marine sector.

Last year, the marine industry carried nearly 400 million tonnes of goods, representing $80 billion, and 50 million people.

With the federal government opting out, the marine community was able to count on the Bloc Quebecois to bring the government to its senses in the business of ice breaking, and it knows the Bloc will rise up again against unreasonable fees for aids to navigation.

I encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to listen carefully to the various shipping stakeholders here today so we may one day have a real integrated shipping policy.

[Income Tax Act, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that the member for Durham had shown, on a few occasions, that he placed the interest of his constituents before the position of his party.

At any rate, he put forward several arguments which I think should be discussed by the finance committee, which would be called upon to study this bill and bring the necessary amendments, keeping in mind that we must not establish a precedent.

I simply remind those who are listening to us that we are still looking at the principle of the bill. The member talked about tradition. This is something I know about. I have two brothers who work in this field. One is an employee who specializes in automatic transmissions, and his tools are very expensive. The other one owns his own garage and could claim a capital cost allowance on his tools. There is a double standard here. One is self-employed whereas the other one is an employee. So I know what I am talking about today.

For the benefit of my constituents, very often, in the House, I talk about the Lévis shipyard. When that shipyard is in full operation, it employs 1,000 to 1,500 workers. In my riding, this bill also affects 1,200 to 1,500 workers. Therefore it is very important.

[Income Tax Act, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-222 that was introduced by my colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. This is the second time that he has introduced this bill. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper because the election was called.

I understand his situation, because I remind the House, without going into this too much, that I myself introduced a bill on shipbuilding that also died on the Order Paper when it was on the verge of being passed at third reading. The government preferred not to pass it.

Again today, during Oral Question Period, we talked about this. The same thing applies to mechanics. At the time, at second reading, only 11 members had voted against the bill. Before the election, many Liberal members had voted for the bill. I hope they will continue to do so. It is simply the election that prevented it from being passed.

I listened to my two Liberal colleagues who spoke about this bill. The parliamentary secretary basically maintained the position he took last time. But I am a little surprised to see the position taken by the member for Durham, who has often shown that he can not only express himself in an independent way, but also vote independently from his government when he had the opportunity—

[Shipbuilding, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a coalition of unionized employees of shipyards in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia is asking for a meeting with the Minister of Industry in order to follow up on the report on shipbuilding entitled “Breaking Through”.

When will he grant this request for a meeting? Is he waiting for all Canada's shipyards to close?

[Shipbuilding, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to yesterday's Le Soleil , all Davie Industries are waiting for to begin construction of a new $340 million drilling platform is adequate funding from the federal government.

Since EDC officials have a letter of intent from the important Davie client who has been interested in building this platform for three and a half months, will the Minister for International Trade tell the House what the Government of Canada is waiting for to announce some good news to Davie workers? The shipyard's closing?

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to acknowledge that. However I am having a bit of trouble with the hon. member's question, because I think he is confusing me with a previous speaker, since I did not talk about the number of votes any party got. It was the previous speaker who did.

That however makes me wonder about the capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade to really listen, since he is confusing what I have just said in my speech with what a previous speaker had mentioned earlier on. It is doubly troubling since the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis was talking about the lack of attention and the lack of understanding shown by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of International Trade.

I do hope the minister will have a better understanding of what we are saying. It is simple, we want it to be submitted to parliament before it is ratified. It cannot be that hard since the Americans have found a way to do it. U.S. parliamentarians were able to get the texts and the positions of all the parties. However in Canada it is not possible.

I find it incredible that Canada is refusing, for instance, to sign or to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Why? Because it is following the example of the U.S. government, which has refused to do so. I find it strange that the Canadian government follows in the steps of the United States when it is wrong, but not when it is since U.S. parliamentarians have access to these documents, but not us. This is an odd situation.

Yes, I am all for progress. I wish that, as far as possible, progress be everywhere in the world and that people enjoy equal quality of life.

The charter of human rights says that it is important to strive to have a better redistribution of wealth and access to education. However, if words really mean something, once their meaning is well understood they have to be acted upon.

I understand those who demonstrated in the streets and said that everybody was talking about democracy. All the heads of state talked about democracy, and I think they talked about it more strongly because of the peaceful mobilization of a very large number of people calling for more openness. These people wish that the civil society and all citizens be as well informed as possible. In the age of Internet, let us make all the documents available, and not just some of them. Let there be real consultation.

To consult does not mean only to inform, as the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis said, it also means to receive advice, to listen and try to implement what is suggested when it makes good sense.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it will be hard for me to do better than the member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, but I will certainly say what I can.

First, I wish to thank and congratulate the member for Joliette for his work and particularly for the motion he moved today, which all parties said they appreciated the opportunity to discuss, particularly just a few days after the Quebec summit was over.

I also wish to remind the House that it was the member for Joliette who, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, asked the government to hold a take note debate in the House, which we were finally granted. Because of his leadership and initiative, there was an opposition day, in the course of which we asked for the documents related to the negotiations. I also wish to congratulate the member on his involvement in the peoples' summit, particularly that portion of it having to do with the parliamentarians' summit.

Obviously, this all required teamwork. Many members of the Bloc Quebecois got together. Each week we met in committee in the morning to discuss all of this, to consider all the issues, every aspect.

Personally, I am most concerned about the human rights aspect, since I represent the Bloc Quebecois on the foreign affairs sub-committee on human rights. Because of this special interest, I took part in the people's summit and in last Saturday's march, for which between 30,000 and 60,000 people turned out, which admittedly was for those opposed to the FTAA. There were also people in favour of the FTAA, but on certain conditions. I fall into this category.

It is difficult to be against free trade, and I find somewhat simplistic the definition given by NDP members, who are completely opposed to it and who say that it means trade without any constraints. This is not what anybody wants.

In fact, the purpose of NAFTA, the agreement now in force between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is to place restrictions on free trade. The best proof of this is that not all sectors are subject to free trade. This is the case for shipbuilding and shipping. Personally, I do not agree with this. Why? Because the United States wants to maintain protectionist measures for certain sectors of activity. We are also having problems with softwood lumber.

What the Bloc Quebecois is asking as a minimum is that existing free trade provisions in NAFTA be applied to lumber. We are not asking the government to negotiate new agreements that would weaken the free trade agreement in that respect.

In the shipbuilding sector, Quebec and Canada are currently faced with an almost impossible situation. Some countries work as partners and they endorse and respect the OECD's view against subsidizing the industry. However, the United States has a somewhat different and very protectionist policy.

It must be understood that when people are opposed to a free trade area, if the existing situation is not changed, that situation will prevail. What is the current situation? When each country's trade is not free, what is it subjected to? We must ask ourselves that question, always keeping human rights in mind.

We must not exclude from the outset any possibility of negotiating a free trade area, because this is indeed an opportunity to deal with human rights, along with the 34 countries involved in this free trade area of the three Americas.

The more I read on this issue, the more I realize that a number of countries do not respect the declaration of human rights and the various conventions on human rights. However we must seize every opportunity. These issues should be included in trade negotiations with other countries.

Let us take, for instance, the democracy clause with regard to Haiti. We saw, during the weekend, that the president of Haiti had to answer some questions. He was questioned by other leaders. So this is a way to influence him.

He apparently has asked for help in order to implement some clauses because sometimes, if only in terms of the justice system, there is a need for courts. There are costs involved and some situations are not easily managed.

For instance, during the people's summit, representations were made to me by the Dominican Republic and Haiti regarding 500,000 Haitians who presently work in the Dominican Republic but have no legal status there. Because these people have no passport nor any official document, they have no rights. The only right they have is the right to live, but they live in utterly deplorable conditions.

Of course, the two countries agree that they must address these problems, but there are often economic issues involved. They need the financial support of developed countries. We should never forget this.

The Canadian government often champions democracy and the implementation of international charters. In this regard, I wish to mention a meeting between senators and members of parliament, which was organized by a committee only five or six weeks ago. They discussed the refugees now living in Canada, ten years after having obtained their citizenship or having been accepted in Canada. Those people have met all the formalities, except the requirement for documentation.

Of course, when people leave their country because of violence, massacres or other emergency situations, it is understandable that they do not always have the time to bring along a passport. This is presently the case for some Canadians.

This issue will possibly lead to amendments to the Immigration Act. Some people live in Canada as refugees but have no Canadian passport. Therefore, they do not dare leave the country.

We must see to it that this country, namely Canada, does correctly what it is asking of other countries. This motion is about democracy.

Why did so many people take part in the march on Saturday? Because they wanted to know more. They wanted their parliamentarians to be informed of the issues.

However, as we are debating this motion today, we still do not have the texts used in the negotiations. We have absolutely no guarantee that any agreement will be submitted to parliamentarians, before it is ratified. However, in other countries, including our neighbour, the United States, things are quite different. The U.S. president may not have mentioned it in Quebec City, but he said on other occasions that he was not be allowed to fast track the process, meaning that he did not have the mandate to negotiate as freely as he would have wanted.

However, if we compare that mandate to the one the Prime Minister of Canada says he has, the Prime Minister seems to have a lot more latitude than the president of the United States. People do not realize that. Moreover, the Prime Minister is not elected directly by the people, like the president in the United States. Despite the shortcomings of the American electoral system, which we had the opportunity to see in the last election, the U.S. president has a mandate that was given to him directly by the people. This is not the case in Canada.

Therefore, I enthusiastically support this motion and I urge the Minister for International Trade, who I think is an intelligent man to make the texts available to us and to give us the assurance that any future agreement will be submitted to the Parliament of Canada before it is ratified. He knows the value of words and understands what this means.