Antoine Dubé

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, further to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill that denies the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.

It is an article published in the February 9 issue of Le Soleil entitled “Clarity Bill”.

[Mouvement Desjardins, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to draw attention to the election of Alban D'Amours as the head of the Mouvement des caisses populaires Desjardins, succeeding Claude Béland, who had held that position since 1987.

Mr. D'Amours has been on the executive of the Mouvement Desjardins for 12 years. He was a Quebec public servant, holding the positions of Deputy Minister of Revenue and Associate Deputy Minister of Energy. He also taught at the University of Minnesota and the University of Sherbrooke, where he was involved in the creation of the Institut de recherche sur les coopératives.

The Mouvement des caisses populaires Desjardins is the top financial institution in Quebec and the sixth in Canada. Co-operatives educate. Co-operatives develop. Co-operatives democratize. Co-operatives create solidarity.

Congratulations Mr. D'Amours.

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I felt that the December 12 article by Mr. Gagné was very interesting because it dealt with the Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I ask, in accordance with the rules, for unanimous consent to table this very interesting document.

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I know you are very interested in my area, and that is why I would like to read to you a quotation from an article in Le Soleil of December 12, under the title “The Blues of the Insurance Salesman”.

It reads “With a little bit of luck, obviously, the intergovernmental affairs minister could have done an amazing number of things in life. In the national hockey league, he would have had the videocam set up inside the net to see whether the puck gets across the thin red line or not. In the gardening business, his success would have been even more immediate. The intergovernmental affairs minister would have made a phenomenal lawnmower. Not a single blade of grass would have been left sticking out of the lawn—”

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Undemocratic.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten this House.

It is an article published in the daily newspaper Le Devoir on January 27 entitled “Ontario After a Yes Vote”. That article clearly shows that Ontarians feel they could very well live with a yes vote in Quebec and that a partnership—

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to contain my reaction somewhat. However, the Liberal member who just spoke is essentially saying one thing: he is accusing us of allegedly not wanting to debate the bill.

The fact is, he is the first member of his party to speak after a gag order was imposed to limit second reading today. This is a patent contradiction. What does he have to say on this?

How can he accuse the Bloc Quebecois of shying away from debate when he just voted in favor of time allocation? Incidentally, his party is the only one to have done so. This is undemocratic.

Besides, we in the Bloc Quebecois wish that a parliamentary committee would travel to Quebec and elsewhere to hear what Canadians and Quebecers have to say on this matter.

I would like his opinion, as one who seems to think of himself as a great democrat. It is time for him to prove it by saying “Yes, I agree that a committee should travel to hear people on this. This is highly democratic.” He who spoke in favour of debate should be all for it, since debate is so important.

I also react to hearing over and over speeches like the ones Trudeau used to make. He would say things like “Ours is such a beautiful country, with the Rockies and Atlantic salmon. Why would you want to leave?”

I sincerely hope that we will hear better arguments than those.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that could enlighten the House.

It is a document entitled “Quebec Today”.

[Shipbuilding Industry, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is wondering why. It is because Davie Industries is under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act. There are 200 people—

[Shipbuilding Industry, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Fundy—Royal in New Brunswick.

I say pleasure, because this member, along with certain others, has long been calling for a real shipbuilding policy.

Before I address the motion, I have a few comments about the speech by the Reform Party member. I was somewhat taken aback because I have been on the Standing Committee on Industry since the 1997 election, and I noticed that the party is on its third industry critic. The first two shared our vision, but all of a sudden, perhaps seeing the possibility of political gain in their fight with the Progressive Conservatives for a certain percentage of the voters, they are switching their position.

I want to point out to the Reform Party member who has just spoken and who is not listening to me—but I will say it again—that 20 members of his party supported my Bill C-213 just a few months ago. So some consistency is called for on the Reform Party side.

Now, I will return to the motion by the member for the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Fundy—Royal. His motion made sense and perhaps still does. What he was calling for at the time was for the issue to be considered by the Standing Committee on Industry.

There were at least three sittings of the Standing Committee on Industry where we met with Department of Industry officials. In response to a question by a Reform member, a deputy minister replied that the Reform member was wrong, that the federal government had no particular policy on shipbuilding and that the member could rest assured that no more was being done for that sector than for any other. I then rose to say “That is exactly where the problem lies. You are doing nothing in particular for this sector. You have abandoned it”.

Yet that party had committed, in its red book and in 1993, to hold, within a year of its election, a summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. Since then, nothing.

A little later on, management and the unions appeared before the committee. We asked the unions “Do you feel that there is a shipbuilding policy in Canada?” They said there was not. Then we asked management “Do you feel that there is a policy?” They said “Yes, there is the customs duty”. Clearly the CEO of the Shipbuilding Association did not want to overly displease the Liberal Party. He said “Yes, there are certain policies, including the customs duty” but that is all.

Over and over again I asked “Do you feel that you have a true shipbuilding policy?” In the bill we are going to address tomorrow evening, moreover, the three measures I am referring to are the three ones being requested. I stated further “You are supported in this by the unions, by the Chambre maritime du Canada, by the provincial premiers. You have the support of 150,000 people who sent a mail-in postcard to the Prime Minister. You even have the support of members of the Liberal Party of Canada who are holding their convention.” Some Liberal members attending the convention voted with the grassroots, urging their government to act.

The Minister of Labour tried to do something. She appointed a delegate to the Maritimes to look into the matter. The Reform Party member noticed and he criticized the minister for it, telling her “You should not have done that. You did that in secret”. As for the Minister of Industry, he did not want to do anything, while the Minister of Finance could not do a thing. That has always been his line.

Why can the Minister of Finance not act? He will not tell the House. He lets the Minister of Industry answer, but we are asking for tax measures. Outside the House, the Minister of Finance says “You see, I have some interests in the shipbuilding industry. These interests are now in a trust, but I cannot answer. I would not want to be seen as someone who wants to promote that sector because I happen to have some interests in that particular sector”.

Things are not good when the one person who could do something does not dare do so for fear of being criticized. When she saw that her industry colleague was not acting, and even though this was not her responsibility, the Minister of Labour tried to do something, but the Reform Party member criticized her for it.

I want the Minister of Labour to know that she did well, as did her colleague from New Brunswick. She wants to look into the matter. I have nothing against that, but we have been asking for reviews for seven years. The industry got organized and conducted a review. The Standing Committee on Industry considered the issue from a productivity point of view.

Figures in hand, the unions appeared before the committee to testify that Canadian shipyard workers were paid 20% less than their American counterparts, and 50% less than workers in Germany and Japan. Only two countries, Korea and communist China, pay their shipyard workers less, and that is the example the Reform Party member would have us follow.

There are people who claim to be experts on the shipbuilding industry while never having set foot in a shipyard. I would like the Reform Party member to try this line in Halifax or Vancouver, where there are two large shipyards. Or he could try out the audience in Lévis. He would be well-advised to pre-record his press conference because he is going to run into trouble.

This position is indefensible and inconsistent with the earlier positions taken by the Reform Party. Now it is trying to teach us a lesson about free enterprise. All they are trying to do is lower individual income taxes.

The member for Fundy—Royal told us that Canadian corporate taxes, which take in shipyards, are among the highest. That is one of the problems. Why do Canadian shipowners have their boats built outside Canada? Why do those people who have had ships built sometimes sail them under foreign flags? Because corporate taxes are not the same everywhere in the world, and there are tax havens. The Minister of Finance knows this. He chairs a committee of members of the group of 20 and he should give this some thought. That is the problem, not what workers are paid.

The problem is a serious lack of guaranteed financing. No one here in this House is asking for funding. The Reformers keep saying it, and the member himself keeps saying that the member from the Bloc is asking for a refundable tax credit. The words mean what they mean: refundable. It is not funding. A loan guarantee is not funding, it is support.

Is the Reform Party, which is trying to copy the American program, trying all the time to tell us that things are better in the United States? What is called for in Bill C-213 is exactly what the Americans have been doing for the past 100 years. We in Canada are doing what? We are exempting the U.S. from paying 25% duty. However, our Canadian shipowners cannot go to the United States, because of the protectionist measures.

The member for Fundy—Royal said “We have to look at that. It cannot be included in a bill”. It is not in my bill either because the Minister for International Trade is the one to go and negotiate some similar measure with his American counterpart or a change to NAFTA—and that is very difficult—or have the Jones act amended to exempt Canada from such a policy. If this were the case, with the current rate of exchange there would be work in Canadian shipyards, incredibly more than Canada could generate.

I recently did a study on the Internet and by phone. In the United States, shipyards are currently working at full tilt. The remaining European shipyards are also working to capacity because following the Asian crisis the Asian shipyards are not working at full capacity.

The Reform member does not know what he is talking about when he speaks as other detractors of the shipping industry. He said that China, Korea and Japan are building 500,000 tonne boats. No Canadian shipyard is in that league. They do not go beyond 100,000 tonnes. Why? Because they build ships that have to go through the Panama Canal which will accept nothing over 90,000 tonnes. So, let us compare oranges with oranges and apples with apples. If you do not know what you are talking about, better not to speak.