House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 46% of the vote.
Price of Petroleum Products May 26th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether the hon. member is going to make representations to his party to ensure that Bill C-454 gives the Commissioner of Competition the ability to launch inquiries, without necessarily having to supply proof of collusion.
Will he support us so that this bill is passed at the earliest opportunity, thus providing us at least with a tool to deal with price increases and obtain recommendations on the measures that should be taken?
Price of Petroleum Products May 26th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised to hear my Conservative colleague criticize the Bloc's Bill C-454, since his own party voted in favour of it. It asked to have the bill referred to committee to be examined.
The Bloc's intention is not to say that this is a cure-all, but it is a tool. The Bloc is taking action to try to solve this problem with gas prices. One possibility is to give the commissioner of competition the right to conduct investigations without having to prove collusion among companies, in order to analyze the market, make recommendations and come to the House to propose changes. The member and I are from ridings where the manufacturing sector is currently experiencing economic difficulties, and where the price of gas and delivery costs to the United States are making businesses less competitive.
Could he not participate in this debate today and say that we need to move forward with measures that will help us take control of the situation? It is not about controlling the prices. It is about making sure that we take control of the situation so that once and for all we are no longer dependent on oil, and so that we can move forward, help our industry, help the people who are struggling, and find ways to show our citizens that we are there to solve the problems they are facing and not just to look at them in the mirror.
Price of Petroleum Products May 26th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Windsor West brought back a lot of memories because the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology did a lot of work on the gas price issue.
Let us not forget that the recommendation to set up a mechanism to monitor petroleum products, which the Liberals finally inserted into a bill a few months before losing power, was initially made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. At the time, only Alliance members opposed it.
Today we are coming to realize the most important part of this whole discussion: this is not inevitable; there are ways to do something and take action.
Does my colleague realize that the greatest obstacle we are facing right now is the Conservative government's hands-off attitude and its belief that market forces will regulate everything eventually? With respect to the price of gas, the point is not to impose price controls. We need a comprehensive strategy that will enable us to deal with the situation and significantly reduce our oil dependency over the next few years.
Does my colleague believe that it is time this sustained effort came to fruition and that a real strategy to reduce oil dependency is possible?
Manufacturing Sector May 13th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec has lost 19,000 jobs. In reality, the nearly $15 billion in tax cuts made by the Conservatives in 2007 have not helped the sectors in difficulty. Instead, they have widened the gap between the provinces and unfairly favoured the oil companies to the detriment of Quebec's manufacturing sector.
Will the government accept the facts and introduce targeted measures to help the manufacturing sector, measures such as refundable tax credits for research and development, as the entire manufacturing sector has been asking it for?
Manufacturing Sector May 13th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is deluding himself if he thinks Canada's economy is not operating at two different speeds. He boasts that 19,000 jobs were created last month, but he claims not to know that during that same month 19,000 jobs were lost in Quebec, a province whose exports will decrease by 4.5% this year.
Instead of burying his head in the sand, will the minister immediately implement an assistance plan for the manufacturing sector, as the Bloc Québécois has been asking him to do for months now?
Mr. Speaker, in his response, my colleague provided the important element—the Quebec nation was recognized because of pressure from the Bloc Québécois, which moved a motion to which the Prime Minister reacted.
We now have a resolution—the Canadian state recognizes the Quebec nation. However, in December 2005, the Prime Minister committed to introducing a bill about spending power, which would ensure an unconditional right to opt out, with full financial compensation, of any new or existing federal program, whether cost-shared or not, which interferes in our areas of jurisdiction.
It is a permanent decision. A bill of this kind would ensure that Quebeckers are safe from federal government excesses. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister to follow through. Why will he not introduce this bill so that we can vote quickly? It would be a concrete way to keep a promise and fix another part of the fiscal imbalance, which has yet to be fixed.
Mr. Speaker, on April 3, 2008, just over a month ago, I asked a question about the fiscal imbalance. I asked when the government was going to keep the promise the Prime Minister made in December 2005, to introduce a bill on spending power that would control the federal spending power. It is not very complicated. It is a matter of controlling spending power, or “providing the unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation in respect of any new or existing federal program, whether cost-shared or not, which interferes in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction”.
That is precisely what Quebeckers expect when it comes to the federal spending power. This is an important aspect of the fiscal imbalance that has not been resolved. We have a hard time understanding why the government has not introduced such a bill. Where is it? The government has had more than enough time to introduce it. The Quebec nation has been recognized. The Prime Minister made that promise during the election campaign but he seems unable to keep it.
Why has the bill not been introduced? Is it being held up somewhere in the bureaucracy? Would the federal bureaucracy try to block such a bill in some way? Is the government afraid of how English Canada might react? I do not know why, but I do know that this is an important issue for Quebec. This is not just a sovereigntist issue.
I remember way back when I was just getting interested in politics, when Robert Bourassa was premier of Quebec, similar demands were being made. Then the Parti Québécois was in power, and then the Liberals were back in. Even the Action démocratique du Québec demanded this. Everyone wants the federal spending power to be controlled so that the federal government cannot intervene in areas that are under Quebec's jurisdiction, yet the federal government has not been doing anything to make that happen.
Quebeckers want the federal government to take concrete action to prove that it has a different way of seeing things and that its recognition of the Quebec nation is more than just words. Concrete action means introducing a bill to put limits on the federal spending power. Why is the federal government not moving forward on this? Why is it not keeping its election promise?
Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the debate concerns the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which is made up of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill and the agreement.
In the first part of my speech, I talked about how the agreement could mean attractive opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec. The same is true of the nickel sector, especially for one mine in Ungava, in Quebec. The agreement could also benefit aluminum exports to Iceland. Consequently, Quebec is very interested in seeing this agreement implemented.
Moreover, we have ascertained that the agreement will have no impact on agricultural supply management. The existing systems in Quebec and Canada can be maintained.
However, at the end of my speech, just before question period, I made the point that the federal government will have to take far more aggressive steps to support the shipbuilding industry once this free trade agreement takes effect. The agreement provides that tariffs will decrease over 15 years.
I believe that the shipbuilding industry in Norway, in particular, is much better equipped today than Canada's. Canada has abandoned the shipyards. The industry was not really given the tools to grow.
In that context, I would like to point out that one recommendation in the report presented by the Standing Committee on International Trade was adopted by that committee. It had been proposed by the hon. members for Sherbrooke and Berthier—Maskinongé from the Bloc Québécois, our two spokespeople in this matter. They did their work in a very conscientious manner and got support from the committee on the following motion:
The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada’s commitments at the WTO.
The purpose of the motion is to raise a red flag. Indeed, the free trade agreement is desirable. However, in practice, for the marine industry the government truly has to make a significant shift and implement a support strategy for the shipbuilding industry.
This currently does not exist and our shipyards have often been left to fend for themselves over the past few years. We are seeing the results of that. It is possible to have a healthy and competitive shipbuilding industry, but we have to have a policy to that effect. That is no reason not to support the free trade agreement with European countries.
We are sending a message to all of Europe. The agreement I am currently referring to is the agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which includes Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. It is important to note that these are countries Quebec does a lot of trade with. However, this now suggests that the real target should be signing a free trade agreement with the European Union that will help achieve results for all our exchanges with Europe.
For example, the four countries involved in the current agreement represent 12 million people and roughly 1% of Canadian exports. With the European Union, it would be 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. In fact, the European Union is currently the strongest economic power in the world.
Every day we are painfully becoming more aware that our economy is far too dependent on that of the United States. When there is a downturn in consumerism such as we are seeing now in the United States, when we see that the Americans are committing a lot of money to the war in Iraq, when we see the commercial paper crisis, when we see the economic slowdown in the United States, when we see the obvious aggression of emerging countries such as India and China, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult to keep our place in the American market.
This agreement gives us an opportunity to move forward and guarantee that we have access to Europe.
The current free trade agreement indicates that we are moving in the right direction. We should have a similar agreement for the entire European Union, but we do not. We believe that the federal government should speed up its attempts to access Europe so that we can arrive at an even more significant agreement that will give the best possible results.
This is the reality. We have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in five years, more than 80,00 of which were lost since the Conservatives came to power. They follow the laissez-faire doctrine, meaning that the market regulates everything, but that does not mean that we should not be open to new markets, as we would be with the free trade agreement we are talking about today, and of course a more widespread agreement with the whole of Europe. The European Union is absolutely essential to diversifying our markets and reducing our dependency on the United States. The fact that Canada has not yet signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes the competitiveness of our businesses on the European market.
At this point in my speech, I would like to say that the Canadian government must realize that it is essential to move forward on environmental issues. Other countries must see that we are respecting Kyoto, and that we will be firmly committed to Kyoto plus, which will be developed at the Copenhagen conference next year. As it stands, we could end up paying export taxes because the international community does not recognize that we have made an adequate effort on environmental issues. The government will have to be tougher and much more active in this respect, and it will have to recognize that sustainable development is not only good for the environment, but it is also good for the economy. Canada is not currently a leader, as it could have been if it had truly decided to accept Kyoto, to implement it and to create resources more quickly, such as a carbon exchange, so that we could reap all the necessary benefits.
Let us go back to the possibility of a free trade agreement with Europe. With the rise of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to open subsidiaries in the United States and leave out Canada. That is another reason why it would be a good idea to sign a free trade agreement with all of Europe.
Canada's share of direct European investments in North America dropped from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004. The alarm bells are ringing. We need to change our attitude, we need to change the way we do things, and we need to come to an agreement with all of Europe, like the one we are debating today, as quickly as possible. It would be to Quebec's and Canada's advantage to sign and implement an agreement as soon as possible.
I should also point out that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement in place since 2000. As such, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec. It is important to both companies and workers for the federal government to change its attitude and speed things up in terms of opening up markets. Being open to globalization when the conditions are right means that our companies have to be in a competitive position. We have to give them the fiscal tools they need, and we have to give them the tools they need to access the market.
The example I just gave is the best one. A Quebec company does not have the same access to the European market as a Mexican company, and companies in Mexico have access to both North American and European markets. This is an aberration that should be rectified as soon as possible.
Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. The Bloc Québécois has been promoting this for some time now. We proposed it as part of our election platform and our political agenda. We believe that if we persevere in this file as we have in others, we will eventually get a free trade agreement with Europe.
For example, 70% of the people who work for French companies in Canada are from Quebec, as are 37% of those who work for U.K. companies here and 35% of those who work for German companies here. In contrast, just 20% of people working for U.S. companies in Canada are Quebeckers. The Government of Quebec has been working with companies since the Quiet Revolution, and that is a major advantage when it comes time to seek out European investment. We have everything we need to become the bridgehead for European investment in America.
Thus, we see what the prevailing spirit was when the free trade agreement was signed with the United States, the agreement that later became NAFTA. Thanks to that spirit, Quebeckers rallied behind their leaders who wanted to implement free trade. Quebec has benefited from this free trade. Unfortunately, market conditions have changed considerably. Since the markets have opened up to China and other countries around the world, we are now facing a new reality. This reality calls for new tools for international trade. Free trade agreements are the best example.
Today, the Bloc Québécois is very pleased to support Bill C-55, which would implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the EFTA, that is, the European Free Trade Association, consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
We believe this is a step towards adopting such an agreement with Europe as a whole. Quebec is open to this position and hopes to see it come to fruition. Quebec as a whole shares this desire to move forward on such agreements. We hope the federal government will pick up the pace and conclude an agreement with the European Union. That would be the best way to diversify our economy, which really needs a boost, due to the slowdown in the American economy and the emergence of new competition from China.
I am pleased to confirm once again that the Bloc Québécois supports this free trade agreement and hopes to see it implemented as soon as possible. It will be beneficial for businesses and workers in Quebec.
Inter-Parliamentary Union May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, this association was founded in 1889, and not one of the 163 member countries except Canada has a problem with the rules that govern how the association operates.
Why is the government being so inflexible, if it is not out of ideological rigidity, which is completely unwarranted under the circumstances? Have a little flexibility, please. Help Quebec City get the conference.
Inter-Parliamentary Union May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has imposed conditions on the world conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, such that efforts to have Quebec City host this event in 2010 could be irreparably compromised.
Does the government not think it would do better to enforce the rules in effect at the UN instead of taking a purely ideological approach and trying to amend the existing rules, which suit the 163 members of this international association of parliamentarians?