Maud Debien

[Status Of Women, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian and Quebec women have made significant progress toward gender equality. In particular, they have gained notional rights to equality, wage equity and security.

However, there is a world of difference between theory and daily reality. Wage equity has yet to be achieved in the public service. Women are still afraid at night. Their salaries are still lower than those of men. They are still, along with their children, the most vulnerable members of our society.

The last federal budget is an insult to their intelligence. Women were asking $2 per woman and girl child to continue their progress toward equality. They got nothing, absolutely nothing.

The Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that our society's progress toward equality is everyone's business, and that the federal government has a role to play.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the government review and increase the budget for the advancement of women. To invest in gender equality is a public responsibility the federal government must assume.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

The MAI includes a number of far-reaching rules that will restrict governments' ability to regulate foreign investments, because we must not forget that it gives businesses the new right to challenge government decisions. “In short, the MAI would give government and private enterprise the same status in law”, the writer commented.

Finally, and in the interests of transparency, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the Canadian government to refer the text of the agreement back to the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade before it is signed. Once again, it is absolutely essential that the Minister of International Trade meet this requirement for transparency.

In closing, I would like to move an amendment to the Reform motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after the final use of the word “Agreement”: “, in particular by refusing to make a commitment to submit the text of the MAI to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and more specifically to its Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, before signing the Agreement.”

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the Reform motion. It gives me the opportunity to make known the Bloc's position on the multilateral agreement on investment or MAI. This agreement is currently being negotiated among the member countries of the OECD.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion by the official opposition on the MAI primarily because the government failed to hold a proper public debate on this important issue.

Apart from the brief hearings hastily held by the subcommittee on international trade, trade disputes and investment in the last Parliament, the House and therefore all members elected to represent the people were unable to debate it at length.

Furthermore, a number of groups including unions, non governmental organizations and consumer groups have unfortunately not had the opportunity to express their considerable reservations to the government on this agreement. It is of some concern, because people are unaware of the agreement's existence, its scope, its advantages, its inconveniences and its costs.

The government has failed to explain what is at stake in the MAI and yet it must do so, because, when it signs this agreement, the government is committing the people of Canada for over 15 years. The government has lacked transparency in this matter. It is saying, through its Minister for International Trade that, for the first time in Canadian history, a commercial agreement was considered by a parliamentary committee before it was signed. Care must be taken here.

If the agreement was examined, it was as the result of a leak by the NGOs, which managed to get a copy of it and to make it available on the Internet. A number of members already had the text of the MAI and were querying the government on it. These are the real reasons the government gave the MAI to a subcommittee for examination. No credit should be given for transparency and good intentions when there were none.

Questions from the opposition and public pressure are forcing the minister to organize a public information meeting shortly.

At this point, I would like to give a brief background of the MAI, so as to explain its purpose and the Bloc Quebecois' position.

In 1995, 29 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agreed to negotiate a multilateral agreement that would liberalize foreign investments and clarify the rules governing them.

The agreement was originally scheduled to be signed in May 1997, at the meeting of the OECD Ministerial Council. This was put off for a year, member countries being unable to agree on final wording because of the complexity of the procedure and, more importantly, differences of opinion.

Sources even indicate that key paragraphs of the text are covered in changes and that over 600 pages of reservations submitted by the various countries have yet to be negotiated. A new deadline has been set for April 1998 and will not be met. And we have since learned that the MAI will not be finalized before the fall. The minister is therefore able, if he really wants, to submit the text of the agreement for public discussion and to hold a real debate.

Two principles underlie the MAI: the first is non-discrimination against foreign companies. This means that countries that sign the agreement will have to treat foreign investors and their own investors without distinction and without discrimination. Eliminating protectionist barriers and opening up our borders to international competition will enable our businesses to increase their foreign business opportunities, we are told. The goal of the MAI is to create equal conditions for international investors.

The second principle is the legal protection of investors and their investments. The goal here is to ensure that investors have safe access to target markets. It is known that investments are not always safe because of a lack of precise rules with respect to investments and because of the corruption sometimes found in certain countries. The recent Asian crisis is a very good example.

The MAI provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that gives a foreign investor legal recourse if he feels he has been treated unfairly. As a result, such an investor could sue a state through a panel of referees with binding powers.

While supporting the general objectives of the MAI, the Bloc Quebecois shares some of the concerns expressed by a number of groups that testified before the sub-committee. In our view, this agreement will promote freer investments and trade in general and we cannot oppose it.

In addition, since capital mobility is increasing, we believe there should be regulations to ensure non-discrimination and protection for investments. This means being able not only to take advantage of globalization but also to manage the stress resulting from globalization while at the same time extending the investment system world-wide.

However, a number of conditions must be met before the Bloc Quebecois will be able to support the signing of the MAI. First of all, it is important that the Canadian government negotiate the inclusion of a cultural safeguard clause to protect the cultural industry in Quebec and Canada. Under no circumstances will the Bloc Quebecois be satisfied with a simple reservation. In this kind of agreement, a proviso does not sufficiently protect this industry as it only applies to those countries that requested it, while a general exemption clause would apply to all signatory countries. Also, the fewer the countries requesting a reservation, the greater the chances of it being removed in future negotiations.

The Bloc Quebecois is also concerned about statements made in this House by the Minister for International Trade, who said on February 12 that the agreement would not be signed if it did not include an exemption for culture. The minister added that he would walk away from the table if there is not a complete carve out for culture in the MAI. However, on February 13, the minister stated just the opposite in a speech, when he said he would agree to a reservation if he could not get full cultural exemption.

The essential thing regarding culture and communications is to preserve the ability of the federal and provincial governments to set up policies that promote the development of that sector. Our planet is rich because of its diversity, its cultures, its ways of life and its customs. The world would lose if we tried to standardize everything.

The Bloc Quebecois also supports the subcommittee's first recommendation that Canada should sign the MAI provided the final text protects Canadian culture, the environment, work standards, health and education services, and social security, at the federal and provincial levels. We should prohibit states from lowering their national standards to attract foreign investments. The Bloc Quebecois will never let the MAI give precedence to the rights of investors and businesses over those of the citizens, the workers and the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois also believes that consultations must continue to take place on a regular basis with the provinces, before the Canadian government ratifies the agreement. There are currently many preliminary lists of reservations and it would appear that coverage of federal states remains a problem. Therefore, there is a need for proper and ongoing consultations between the provinces and the federal government.

An editorial writer was right in expressing concern about the MAI's scope. He wondered whether we would witness the setting up of a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Some groups expressed the same concerns when they appeared before the committee. The MAI includes a number of important and far-reaching rules that will restrict governments' ability to regulate foreign investments, because it gives—

[Scouting, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to draw attention to International Guides and Scouts Week.

Scouting, founded by Sir Robert Baden-Powell, offers its members practical lessons in life, in addition to what they receive in their school and family settings.

Thanks are due to the many volunteers, parents, leaders and former members involved in activities to help young people grow and develop. The thousands of people involved in Scouting and Guiding help boys and girls to develop knowledge of self and of others, along with respect for their fellow human beings.

Many of today's leaders came up through the ranks of Scouts and Guides. I am sure they all have indelible memories of those days.

I would like to send special greetings to all of the Scout and Guide groups of Laval, and the many volunteers who are helping our young people to develop to their full potential.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday men and women from all regions of Quebec demonstrated unanimously in front of the supreme court, proclaiming for all to hear their pride and deep sense of belonging to Quebec and reaffirming that only Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future.

On Monday, Quebeckers of all ages reiterated their disagreement with, and declared illegitimate, null and void, any attempt to have a court of law overrule the sovereign will of a people.

Quebec's democrats, sovereigntists and federalists alike, whatever their political affiliation, are calling on people to join forces against this unprecedented attack on Quebec's democratic institutions, and against the use of the supreme court for political and partisan ends.

At this crossroads, it is clear which direction we must take: the people of Quebec will follow the way of democracy pure and simple.

[Suicide Prevention, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Quebec's suicide prevention week, the Bloc Quebecois would like to draw attention to the efforts by the Government of Quebec to stabilize and lower the suicide rate in Quebec.

Suicide is the primary cause of death among young men between 15 and 29 and has been on the rise since 1990. More women than men attempt suicide. This is a complex phenomenon if ever there was one, and the risk factors involved in suicide are many: psychological problems, drug or alcohol dependency, dysfunctional families, difficult economic circumstances, job loss, social isolation.

The federal government's cuts in transfer payments to the provinces have forced them to cut health and social services. Furthermore, the empty job creation promises of the Liberal government are not helping anyone in difficulty to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

By giving the provinces their due, the Liberal government will be helping to prevent suicide. We encourage it to do so.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this evening's debate on the possibility of a war with Iraq is certainly not an easy one. We must consider all the effects of the decision the Canadian government is preparing to take in this conflict.

Yesterday's request by the U.S. government that the Government of Canada support a military intervention against Iraq is fraught with consequence. It would likely take, for the moment at least, the form of help in the areas of transportation and search and rescue teams.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois is clear. We favour a resolution of this conflict by diplomatic means first, and in full compliance with the UN resolutions. The President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, must comply with the resolutions of the UN requiring him to totally dismantle his arsenal of mass destruction. Every diplomatic effort must be made to avoid this catastrophe.

Should the resolution of the conflict be through military intervention, the Bloc considers that a decision in this regard must be made with the approval of the security council, as it was in 1991. Because it is the UN Security Council that deals with issues relating to world peace and security.

Should it decide to act without the Security Council's approval, Canada would send the message that we can do without the UN and not comply with international law and treaties.

However, should the United Nations, through the Security Council, agree to military intervention, we would then have to decide on the nature of Canada's military contribution. Would it be similar to the one in the 1991 conflict, or would it be of a more aggressive nature? This is another important issue that should be debated in this House. It goes without saying that I hope we do not have to get to that stage.

The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that, in the reply Canada will soon have to give to the United States, our country should demand that any military action be first and foremost authorized by the UN Security Council. Canada must protect the credibility, the authority and the supremacy of the United Nations, which is the only authority in this matter.

To fully understand today's debate, it must be remembered that it was in the aftermath of the Gulf War that the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to unconditionally destroy all its weapons of mass destruction, both chemical and bacteriological, and its ballistic missiles.

In addition to not complying with over 30 UN resolutions, Iraq will trigger a conflict by refusing to let inspectors from the UN special commission conduct inspections and destroy the stockpiles of weapons located on certain presidential Iraqi sites.

Tonight's debate deals essentially with two issues: to preserve peace and to promote disarmament throughout the world.

By tradition, Canada's foreign policy pursues objectives that seek to promote peace. For decades, Canada has been trying to project the image of a country dedicated to maintaining peace and security. Our peacekeepers have been sent to many regions where conflicts were raging, for the purpose of helping to restore and to preserve world peace. Providing defensive resources to resolve the Iraqi conflict would jeopardize everything Canada has worked so hard to accomplish in this regard.

With its success in the case of the land mines treaty, Canada has played a leadership role with respect to disarmament. As we have already said in the House, ratification of this treaty has not and will not resolve the problem of disarmament. Much remains to be done regarding heavy, conventional, small or light weapons. But let us point out that, for Canada to play an active role in an armed conflict would, once again, be contrary to the objectives pursued for years now.

Canada is not, however, as pure as the driven snow when it comes to disarmament. The annual report on Canada's military exports states that, in 1996, exports to countries such as Indonesia, China, India and Algeria increased.

Although the overall value of Canada's military exports went down in 1996, exports to low and middle income countries have, to all intents and purposes, doubled during the same period, increasing from 8% to 14%. These figures are the proof that much remains to be done, even in Canada, to disarm the planet and set the stage for real world peace.

In the conflict that concerns us, negotiations must therefore be stepped up, and in this regard the Bloc Quebecois feels that the Canadian government has not made all the necessary efforts. These negotiations must therefore be stepped up so that a negotiated settlement can be reached. World order cannot allow such a conflict. Hostilities could worsen with unimaginable consequences for people, with Iraq favouring bacterial and chemical weapons to defend its territory. Such weapons, we must remember, are inexpensive to produce and, unlike nuclear weapons, require little storage space and so may be easily hidden. These indiscriminating weapons are launched without warning and affect both innocent civilians and military personnel.

The problem we now encounter with Iraq could one day arise with the growing powers of developing countries. We even know that certain governments are trying to acquire or already have the technology that affords them inexpensive deterrence capabilities and that can be used forcibly anywhere in the world against any country.

In closing, I consider the possibility of a conflict with Iraq very serious. I hope that it may be resolved in terms of the sharing of the burden, if the decision is the UN's alone. However, the Bloc's basic position is that diplomatic efforts should be made to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.

[Child Poverty, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the statistics on child poverty are increasingly conclusive.

Since 1989, the number of children living in poverty has increased by 58%; the number of children living in families on welfare has increased by 68%; the number of children living in unaffordable housing has increased by 48%; and the number of children whose family's net income is under $20,000 has increased by 45%.

We are a long way from the House's unanimous resolution in 1989 to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. These children are suffering and cannot even aspire to the strict minimum needed to get off to a good start in life. They are feeling the effects of the cuts made by the Liberal government since it took office.

The Bloc Quebecois urges the federal government to give back to the provinces the money it owes them, the money it used to improve its accounting image and achieve a budget surplus.

Only the provinces are in a position to use this money—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Mississauga-South, for his question.

I am glad that the member has emphasized like I did in my speech the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and recognized that this fund has produced important economic spinoffs for Quebec, especially in the area of job creation.

He also clearly outlined the procedures that the board would have to follow for making investments under this bill. And he said that the investment fund would be managed by professionals whose mandate will be to produce the best possible return while ensuring the lowest possible rate of contribution. This is a process that we fully support. Except that I feel that this bill does not go far enough.

And as I pointed out in my speech, the accumulated funds in the plan should provide the opportunity to go further by allowing major investments in regional economic development.

In this respect, and I think the Bloc Quebecois has reiterated this many times when it spoke, we believe that having professionals manage the investment board is a good thing in itself and indeed is an excellent step; it is important we ensure that this fund is managed professionally. Except that, when considering the types of investments that the board could make, what the Bloc Quebecois pointed out about Bill C-2 is that it does not go far enough to promote economic development and job creation. This is how I interpreted the member's question and I hope that I answered it.