Antoine Dubé

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to my NDP colleague's comments, particularly to his reservations regarding democracy. I think he has raised very relevant questions in that respect.

I will ask a question that might seem off topic, but two years ago, in August, I attended the New Democratic Party Convention. There I witnessed the adoption of a resolution about democracy, recognizing the Quebec people and their right to self-determination.

In contrast, I have also seen many of his NDP colleagues, except for two, support Bill C-20, a government bill which in fact did not recognize the right of the Quebec people to self-determination.

I would like my colleague to explain this contradiction.

[Division No. 76, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on February 5 of this year, I asked the new Minister of Industry a question regarding shipbuilding. Without rereading the text of the question, which anyone may consult in Hansard , I asked him when he intended to develop a shipbuilding policy, as promised two days before the election was called.

Furthermore, given that my Bill C-213 on shipbuilding had been through all stages except one hour of debate, which was refused me in the very week before the election was called, I asked the minister if he intended to introduce a bill on shipbuilding.

Although he was sympathetic to the spirit of my bill, he hid, as it were, behind a committee he had created on October 20, two days before the election was called, to study the issue of shipbuilding.

On March 30, the National Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Partnership Project released a report in Halifax. This report contained 30 or so recommendations having to do with some very important topics, such as financing and tax exemptions. To a certain degree, it improved on my bill with respect to such issues as training and all aspects of technological innovation.

Now that all this has been done and the report submitted, I would expect the minister's representative—the minister not being here today—to tell the House exactly when he will be following up on the committee's report.

It was two years ago, on April 15, that I tabled a bill along these lines and everyone knows the procedures. First of all, my name had to be drawn, and I got 100 MPs to sign so that the bill would be given priority. This bill made it through all stages, including second reading and clause-by-clause study in committee of the whole.

Six months have elapsed since the election and nothing more has been done for the shipbuilding industry. When he was asked to comment on the report, the Minister of Industry said “Since the committee that I set up took six months to table its report, you will understand that I will take some months to review it”.

Again, this is a committee that was set up by the minister himself. This means that committee members met him at various stages. Two years after I tabled my bill, we should expect to have more details as to when the government will table a shipbuilding policy.

Since the tabling of my bill, an additional 2,000 workers have been laid off and two major shipyards, those of Saint John and Marinestown, have shut down. The situation is even more urgent and critical than before.

Will the minister wait until every shipyard in Canada and in Quebec is closed before making a move?

Eight years after the promise made in 1993 to develop a shipbuilding policy, can the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry tell us when the minister and the Liberal government will finally act?

[Shipbuilding, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I wish to express our strong support for the report of the national partnership project committee set up by the Minister of Industry which is designed to make our shipyards more competitive.

This report is in response to the work of the shipbuilding coalition and to my Bill C-213. It is a major victory for Bloc Quebecois members, for the other members who supported me and for all the stakeholders in the marine sector.

While we are pleased that the government is finally doing something to make our shipyards more competitive with those of countries that subsidize this industry or continue to apply protectionist measures, we must deplore the fact that the minister intends to take six months to follow up on the recommendations contained in that report.

Since the Liberals have made a habit of postponing things, I will soon introduce a new bill to force the federal government to take quick and concrete action to help the shipbuilding industry.

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No.1

That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 1 with the following:

“committee of the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters, after consultation with the committee of the Senate that normally considers those matters.”

Mr. Speaker, the aim of this amendment is to prevent our being obliged to consult or include the Senate in amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

It would be a bit of a paradox, in the case of a law that applies to elections that apply to members of the House of Commons, to have people not elected involved. I would point out that I personally have nothing against those who make up the other House. We meet them fairly regularly and many of those I have met are competent and nice.

But one thing must be remembered. We must not forget that they are often appointed by the Prime Minister of the House of Commons. Who does the Prime Minister appoint? Generally, he appoints people he knows well and whose work, often partisan, he values. One way to compensate them for the work they have done is to appoint them to the other House.

Of course, we cannot rule out the fact that they have experience in a number of instances, but sometimes the subjective criterion is left up to the Prime Minister. There was the vote we had yesterday calling for a public inquiry on the conduct of the Prime Minister in his riding, especially given the fact that he himself appoints the ethics counsellor who reports to him.

We think that the people in the other House should not be consulted on this. They are just more people who would offer an opinion on ways to change the ridings and electoral boundaries.

When an election is involved, members of the opposition are entitled to speak, but if the dice are loaded from the start, if things are decided by friends of the Prime Minister or by people he considers his supporters, in principle, these people will tend to support the recommendations of the party in power, the party of the Prime Minister who appointed them.

This is why I am moving this amendment. It is out of respect for the people and because I am concerned about the continuity of this institution, which in our opinion, has become obsolete.

This is not the first time we have taken such a stand. In 1993 it was part of our election platform. We have consistently held that position since we first came here in 1993. We have always been opposed to having joint committees that include elected members of parliament and non-elected people to discuss, particularly in this case, electoral issues. Most of these non-elected people are not former members of parliament. They have not been confronted to electoral reality and they do not know what they are talking about in this regard even though they may have contributed, in a partisan way, to getting someone elected.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois feels that the proposed amendment is very relevant. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for having accepted it and thus allowing the House to look at it.

We invite our colleagues from all political parties, and particularly opposition parties, to support it. I am thinking more specifically of Canadian Alliance members. Even though we do not necessarily share their view, we arrive at the same conclusion. They are hoping for an elected Senate while we want to get rid of that institution. But we agree on the problem which is that the people in the other place are not elected.

Hopefully we can get the support of the other two political parties, namely the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. Members of these parties have already said that we should examine this issue among elected representatives and consult the public. We should get people's opinions because we work for them first and foremost. It is important to know what the public thinks because it is the public who elect us to this House. This must be done in the best possible conditions.

People must be confident that this parliament works in the best possible democratic spirit. Since I have a few more minutes, I might add in this connection that this government sees itself as the great champion of democracy on the international level. We must admit that it has acquired a certain reputation for this, so much so that some MPs, even opposition ones, are occasionally called upon to monitor elections in other countries.

As a member of the subcommittee on human rights, I know that Canada sees itself as a promoter of human rights. On occasion I have trouble adding my voice to those who say Canada is a champion in this field, when I see the major shortcomings that still exist within the country, particularly as far as campaign funding is concerned.

As the rules stand at present, big business can make campaign contributions. We have long opposed this and our last suggestion was that it at least be restricted to $5,000 or less.

I have no problem with the people across the floor, or anyone in this institution, ministers in particular, and the Prime Minister, making a contribution internationally with delegations or on other occasions making statements about how other countries ought to operate more democratically, ought to respect human rights more. However, we must ensure at the same time that we here in Canada really respect this evolution or, how shall I put it, this affirmation of these democratic concepts.

That is the reason behind my amendment this morning which was seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. That is the reason behind this representation.

I thank in advance all opposition members and those in the Liberal ranks as well who dare to support us. A number of them have often told me that they are not always totally thrilled—like last night—to toe the party line. They are sometimes obliged not to follow their convictions. In this case, since elections are concerned, I trust they will be faithful to their convictions and think of democracy.

[Volunteerism, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I announce that a travelling exhibit on the history of volunteerism is going to be in my riding from today until April 3.

This exhibit will be stopping in only three cities in Quebec, and Lévis has the honour to be one of them. I wish to congratulate Lévis's Service d'entraide, regroupement et solidarité for obtaining permission to co-ordinate the holding of this exhibit.

I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable contribution volunteers make to our society. In this International Year of Volunteers, we must recognize the value and the vigour of social and community life in all our regions, and thank these volunteers, who give so generously in such a wide variety of areas.

Let the spotlight shine on all those who work behind the scenes for the well-being of our community. I thank them all. Quebec is deeply indebted to them.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have always respected the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi but today I was both surprised and disappointed by his comments.

He based part of his arguments on the fact that he is a former president of the Quebec Bar Association. Listening to him, I got the impression that he was talking more like a Liberal member trying to support a minister who finds herself in a rather awkward situation.

As a Quebecer, he is well aware of. I know that he reads the newspapers. I was not surprised to see that La Presse did not publish his letter because La Presse must have realized that it did not reflect the consensus in Quebec.

Let me ask the following question of this former president of the bar association. I think La Presse should have noted that the national assembly, of which his brother is a member, agrees that this bill makes no sense in Quebec.

All the organizations, the youth centres, the representatives of the young people and the CLSCs say so. Everybody says so. There is a consensus, and the member for Berthier—Montcalm has shown this on a number of occasions. I even did so in the previous parliament. There was a very broad consensus among all the organizations concerned with young people in Quebec. They say that this law makes no sense, that is was introduced simply to please a certain western lobby, which wants measures to be more severe.

He surprises me especially where he expresses the statistics in national terms and notes increases in certain statistics. At the same time, he speaks of a 6% increase in detentions in Quebec, finding that this is serious and significant. Yet, the rate of detention is low—that is the way to see it—in fact, it is lower in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. He said there was a slight increase and yet this is where there are the fewest detentions in Canada. His making a point of saying “It increased by 6%” in order to justify his remarks, I find unacceptable.

Is the member aware of the list of all those opposing his bill? Could he list, by memory, those involved with young people in Quebec who agree with what he says? Could he name a dozen organizations in Quebec that would agree? Does he remember all those opposed, when in fact there is a consensus, which includes the Quebec National Assembly and his own brother?

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4. I support the remarks made by my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, and who reported what he heard to us. We could almost say that he reported what he did not hear since, except for the minister and departmental officials, there were no other witnesses.

The Minister of Natural Resources told us before oral question period that there would be a consultation process. I would like to know if the bill is so perfect why there is a need for further consultation once it is passed.

It does not make any sense. Usually, when the government wants to introduce a bill, there is a consultation process which often takes place at the committee stage.

There is something else, something important. If the government really thought this bill was important, we know it would have passed it a long time ago. We also know that this bill replaces a bill—I think it was Bill C-46—that was introduced in the previous parliament.

I deplore the fact that once again the government is bringing back a bill that died on the order paper. Why did we have an election last fall? I know what it did to me. I was about to introduce a private member's bill that could have been passed and implemented before the election, but the Prime Minister decided to call an election before I had a chance to do that.

Now this bill is coming back to us as Bill C-4 to do what? To establish a new foundation. We could say yet another one.

Each time we in the Bloc Quebecois have questioned the relevancy of a new foundation. Generally speaking why is a new foundation needed? I took part in the debate on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, another government agency.

Let us remind members about the millennium scholarships foundation. It was used by the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and hand out scholarships, and yet education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Now we have a new foundation to fund sustainable development and studies on new technologies. It is hard to be against a definition of sustainable development like the one we have in this bill, because it states the obvious.

The bill reads:

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

I am told that the budget of the foundation will be about $110 million. That is not very much for the kind of work it will have to do, which is almost the equivalent of the program of the whole government.

Going through a foundation is a different approach than the one the government normally uses, either through its departments or through agencies over which there is some control by cabinet, and therefore parliament, because we can ask the ministers questions in the House every day, ask questions and try to get answers to understand the way things are done, why money was spent, and so on.

When the government tries to justify the creation of a new foundation, it tells us “It is important for this to be done by an organization operating at arm's length from the government”. At first glance, this looks interesting, particularly since we wonder sometimes, every day in fact, how certain departments operate.

It would be great if everything were at arm's length, but we need only look at the nomination process. The chair is appointed by the governor in council, or the cabinet. Six members out of 15 are appointed by the cabinet and the others are chosen by the ones appointed by the cabinet. That is not very reassuring. Then the members choose the officials who will be in charge of operations. All this is done in a very independent fashion, far from the usual rules for hiring public servants.

Nobody is against sustainable development. Like all the other parties the Bloc Quebecois supports sustainable development. The provinces also support sustainable development. Quebec has created a foundation, a special fund to finance projects on new technologies that do not impact on the environment.

Everything should be clear and all levels of government should agree. According to information I got, the consultations dealt with sustainable development and the objects and purposes, but not with ways of proceeding, not with the structure. This is a new structure will operate at arm's length from the government but be controlled by the government, the cabinet, not by the department. We know who is the boss in the cabinet right now; it is the Prime Minister.

It is somewhat like the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister and responsible for watching over him. Here we have a process that turns itself around and could be fairly dangerous, even though it has noble objects.

Quebec has had for several years a foundation dealing with the same kind of projects. It would be normal that the federal foundation operate in co-operation with the provinces.

This is not so sure, since admissibility criteria are not defined in the bill or their definition is so vague and so unclear that anything or nothing can be done at the same time, notably things that are already being done by provinces.

Those are the main reasons why I feel we cannot vote for this bill. The bill itself, even taking into account the motions put forward, raises so many questions that we cannot vote for it because the bill is really vague and unclear. On the contrary, legislation should be clear, applicable and applied.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

If he spoke, I apologize. I followed the debate all day, except for a couple of hours during which I was absent, so I assume he spoke during that period. He will not have to make a statement tomorrow to ask me to make amends.

This issue is extremely important for all areas alongside the eastern border, including Kamouraska, Témiscouata, Bellechasse, Matapédia, all of eastern Quebec. The member for Charlevoix underlined the importance of this industry for all of eastern Quebec, on both shores of the St. Lawrence River. It is very important since it is the main source of employment in over 250 municipalities in Quebec. It is the industry that provides the largest number of jobs, even more than agriculture.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been there and will always be there to defend Quebec's interests until we achieve sovereignty. In doing that, we see that from time to time the government realizes that the Bloc Quebecois puts forward positive ideas that are not only in the interests of Quebecers but also in the interest of other Canadians.

We respect the fact that until Quebec achieves sovereignty any discussion on exports has to be viewed in a federal framework. I fully understood the comments made by the member for Yukon, but I do not see why he was so surprised that the members from the Bloc Quebecois had properly welcomed the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We have always behaved properly in these kinds of circumstances. For us, Britain is an important economic partner. We also have to go back to history. Even in Quebec, in the national assembly, procedure is based on British procedure and we have always respected those rules.

I am delighted by the comments by the member for Yukon, but a little less by others aimed at recalling some negative situations due to statements by the current premier of Quebec. People seem to have taken offence. I would, however, like to remind everyone of a sad anniversary, the anniversary of passage of Bill C-20.

I thank all the members who will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion and all those who spoken to this motion. It would have been even better if we had obtained the support of members of the New Democratic Party, but we understand their concern for consistency, considering the position they adopted earlier on free trade.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise now at the end of the day to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion on softwood lumber.

I was here this morning when the hon. member for Joliette introduced his motion. Afterwards I listened to what the first speakers for the various parties had to say, and all parties except for the New Democratic Party indicated that they would be voting in favour of the motion.

Therefore this must be a very positive motion. Some parties, especially the one opposite, often say that the Bloc never has anything positive to offer. This time members have to agree that this is a good motion. Even the government has come to this realization since it has indicated it will be supporting the motion. What is surprising is that an opposition party had to bring forward such a motion. Time is of the essence.

The softwood lumber agreement with the United States will expire at the end of the month, on March 31, just two short weeks from now. It was urgent that we addressed this very important issue because it will affect a large number of jobs in Quebec and throughout Canada. Even the member for Yukon, who just stepped out, seemed interested in this issue. I know I am not supposed to make such a comment, but the Speaker has already been very kind to me, as she always is.

I think it is important to remind the House of the terms of the motion:

That this House support the government's will in its efforts to restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade process.

Excellent. Everybody seems to agree, except the NDP, which is consistent to a point with its own past position on free trade. It has always opposed free trade.

This allows me to digress for a moment and remind the House that before 1993 and even during the election campaign, the Liberals and the Prime Minister spoke very negatively about free trade. Back in 1988 the elections were fought on free trade and the Liberals were dead against it.

This may explain in part their lack of a firm position until yesterday. When questioned the Prime Minister stood and said he was very much in favour of free trade in this industry and other industries. He may be a late convert, but that is what he said.

This raises a number of questions. How sure can we be that government members, who were against free trade in the past, will be very good negotiators of a free trade agreement on softwood lumber?

The Bloc Quebecois supports free trade. I should remind the House that in 1988 the Parti Quebecois, Quebec sovereignists and even Premier Bourassa supported free trade. There was a consensus on this in Quebec and it did have an impact on the course of events. We signed an agreement first with the United States and then with Mexico.

We are looking at extending free trade to the three Americas. It is fine and negotiations will start, but despite the fact that I have always supported free trade in principle I want to point out an area where I am not satisfied, as are many workers I might add, and that is shipbuilding.

In these negotiations we cannot blame the current government, because it was the Conservative government that was in office, but the fact remains that maritime transport and shipbuilding were excluded from free trade. This is very damaging now for the industry, which has only 2,500 employees. At the time, more than 10,000 employees and, depending on the time of the year, up to 15,000 employees were earning a living in this industry.

Why was this not included? What we have learned from people involved directly or indirectly, anonymously in some cases, is that the famous automobile pact that favoured Ontario has been used as a bargaining chip to exclude maritime transport and shipbuilding.

We see that with respect to lumber, while following the free trade spirit, the United States had asked in its negotiations to conclude with Canada an agreement that is expiring soon, with the whole issue of countervail duties that was not beneficial to the sawmill industry in Quebec; quite the contrary.

In Quebec, the product is different from the one in British Columbia. Our trees are not as tall as British Columbia pines. It seems that the product from that province is equivalent to that from western U.S. states, and that is why Americans are more reluctant.

Twenty-five per cent of all lumber comes from Quebec and over 50% is exported to the United States. I come from the Chaudière—Appalaches region, and this is an extremely urgent and important issue for that region. We have not heard from the member for Beauce, but it is an important issue for his region also. He did not think it was important enough to speak.

[Shipbuilding, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the National Post reported that the Minister of Industry was preparing to announce federal financial support for the shipbuilding industry.

Are we to understand that the minister managed to overcome the opposition of some of his colleagues regarding the need for a shipbuilding policy, as the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for several years?