Paul Crête

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the proposed free trade agreement with Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, the members of the European Free Trade Association. I am speaking on behalf of all the Bloc members and would like to acknowledge in particular the contributions of the members for Sherbrooke and Berthier—Maskinongé to the Standing Committee on International Trade, which has studied the proposed agreement and the free trade agreement.

The Bloc believes that this is a good free trade agreement that deserves to be supported. Moreover, we believe that Quebec will benefit a great deal from this agreement.

For example, the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec, like the industry in Switzerland, is very healthy. We can therefore expedite trade and perhaps pave the way for more and more transactions. To penetrate the American market, Swiss pharmaceutical companies might be tempted to produce drugs here, which presents an attractive opportunity for us.

We would remind this House that Quebec is the home of the brand name drug industry in Canada because of its pool of skilled researchers and its tax breaks. For Quebec this agreement will pave the way for new business opportunities.

The agreement facilitates trade between a company and its subsidiaries and is likely to mean new investments in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec. That is good news.

Let us turn our attention now to Norway. Nickel accounts for over 80% of our exports to that country. The largest mine in Canada and the third largest in the world is owned by the Swiss company Xstrata and is located in Ungava. This agreement may also have benefits on that front.

Let us continue our tour of the countries with a stop in Iceland. Aluminum is our main export to Iceland. Aluminum production is also concentrated in Quebec.

Overall, this is an attractive agreement. I would also say it does not have the same drawbacks as previous agreements.

For example, NAFTA and the agreements with Costa Rica and Chile all contain what could be called bad clauses on investments that give companies the right to sue a government that adopts measures that would reduce their profits. This sort of provision is not found in the agreement with the EFTA. Consequently, the free trade agreement with Europe, at least this part of Europe, is worthwhile. There will be no sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, because this agreement does not contain any such clauses.

Furthermore, the agreement only covers goods and not services. It will not create competition with public services, whether they are offered by the state or not, since they will not be covered. Similarly, banks providing financial services will not be in competition with Switzerland, which is known to have a very solid and very discreet banking system, and Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity. We are already having enough problems with Barbados without adding any more. It would be best if the agreement did not allow this type of exchange.

For government procurement it is the same thing. The government is still free to favour domestic procurement, subject to the WTO agreement on government contracts. It would be somewhat ridiculous for the government to negotiate room to manoeuvre and then decide not to use it. It is imperative that the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada, favour suppliers here and consider the potential spinoffs from its purchases.

We have another absolutely ridiculous example. Canadian athletes will be dressed in material that is made in China. There should have been a different solution. We could call this an obvious and quite unacceptable lack of pride. This is outside the limits of the agreement before us, but I wanted to mention it anyway. When we look at an agreement like this, we have to look at what it will allow us to do. This agreement does not allow for such an absurd possibility.

The whole issue of agriculture is a concern that a number of MPs have mentioned in this House. Supply management is not affected by this agreement. The Bloc Québécois motion passed here in 2005 has become the cornerstone of the Canadian government's position on protecting supply management. We are very proud of that and we hope things will continue this way.

We are just as proud of the fact that the supply management model is being developed throughout the southern countries. It may be part of the solution to the food crisis. The more countries that use this type of system, the less agriculture will be subjected to traditional trade patterns. Thus, it will be possible to provide better protection that will allow both communities and producers to be well served in terms of agricultural production.

This agreement ensures that supply management will not be affected. That is another reason that the Bloc Québécois likes this agreement.

This agreement will make it possible to implement bilateral agricultural agreements as add-ons to the free trade agreement. We will see how this will come together. Bilateral agreements will not necessarily have a huge impact on Quebec agriculture, because milk proteins are excluded from the agreement and the tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In short, supply managed products will be protected.

However, there is one sector where this agreement would be good, although the federal government will really have to go out of its way to make a sustained effort. I am talking about the issue of support for shipyards. A number of members in this House have brought this up this morning. As a member of the maritime caucus, I know that there have been questions. They have been handled in an acceptable fashion in the agreement, but that does not mean that the Canadian government will not have to have a more aggressive and constructive policy on shipyards. In fact, we have some concerns.

For example, imported vessels are currently subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease over three years, and will be completely eliminated in 15 years. In the future, in 15 or 20 years, we do not want to see a whole industrial sector disappear, as was the case with the textile sector. We know that the government needs to take action now to ensure that once this all disappears, our industries in this sector will be competitive.

Our shipyards are currently less modern than Norwegian shipyards, for example. They are in worse condition. So some things will need to be renewed, since Norway has invested heavily in modernizing its shipyards, while ours have been completely abandoned by the government.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support the NDP motion. We believe that there are two aspects of the motion that particularly deserve our support.

There is the fact that the government's economic agenda is completely inefficient and does not get the desired results because the government has adopted a laissez-faire attitude. Then, there is the scandal of the $54 billion taken from employment insurance that will remain in the government's coffers. These two reasons alone would justify moving a non-confidence motion and giving the public an opportunity to decide on the outcome in an election.

This just confirms what was in the papers today, about the widespread tax cuts offered to big corporations. Not only will they take away the government's ability to intervene, but they will also have more impact in the oil-producing provinces, which are currently very economically viable.

For example, Alberta and Newfoundland have corporate profits worth almost $16,000 per resident, while the rest of Canada averages $4,500 per capita. When the taxes of multinational companies are reduced, they end up with more money. This will widen the gap between the provinces.

Is the role of the government not to ensure there is leeway to help the manufacturing industries, so that Quebec and Ontario, for example, can grow? The government's role should not be to widen the gap.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance's speech, and he said something that I cannot accept. Here in the House, we are discussing real situations that real people are going through. It sounds like the government is saying that people who do not think the way it thinks should not submit that kind of request. That sounds an awful lot like the Bush government's approach in the United States, but that is not how we do things here.

Early on in his speech, he said that there are people all over the world who are far worse off than Canadians and Quebeckers will ever be. I always thought that we treated our people here the same way we treated people elsewhere.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain how the government managed to funnel the $54 billion surplus out of the employment insurance fund and make it look as though workers and the unemployed never contributed in the first place?

Can he explain how the government managed to justify diverting $54 billion dollars and make it legal while leaving international aid at 0.3% even though so much wealth is being created here? We are way behind developed nations on this. Coincidentally, the same thing is happening here with those who are the worst off, the unemployed.

The government should be getting that message rather than reacting negatively to the NDP motion, which reflects a reality that I believe should be an election issue.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform my colleague that we will support the NDP motion because we think that since this government presented the budget, it no longer deserves the confidence of the House. We should have triggered an election over these things and given the public the chance to debate and make different choices.

Two specific things in the motion caught my attention. It states that there is a gap fostered by this government's unbalanced economic agenda. The best example is the $10 billion surplus that was put towards the debt, when at least $7 billion of that was needed to stimulate the economy.

In terms of employment insurance, even Canada's actuaries are saying that the reform proposed in Bill C-50 is unacceptable.

My question is for my colleague. The Bloc will support the NDP, and we will see what the Liberals decide to do. Are we not at a crossroads, meaning that the government will have to answer to the public for its actions, because it seems determined to go against the wishes of the majority of citizens?

[May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to explain to me how the government can provide support to the tune of $2,000 for each job lost in Quebec and $20,000 for each job lost in Alberta. Is that equity?

Could the government not have used tools such as refundable tax credits? It is lowering taxes for companies that make hefty profits, such as the oil companies. But it is not giving refundable tax credits to companies that are barely keeping afloat and are not turning a profit, companies that could use refundable tax credits to invest and offer competitive products.

Why did the government decide to use $10 billion to pay down the debt when the manufacturing industry is in crisis and over 100,000 jobs have been lost in recent years? Is that how the Conservative government has provided “key support” since early 2006?

[May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, today it feels as though I am reading the weekly newspaper obituaries. Despite each adjournment debate on questions we asked a few months ago about the manufacturing sector, day after day, more businesses are closing and hundreds of jobs are lost, while the government does absolutely nothing.

I remember that on January 31 we asked what concrete action would be taken by the federal government. At the time, a budget surplus of $10 billion had already been announced. The Conservative government had a choice: it could pay down the debt, or put some towards paying down the debt and use the rest to stimulate the economy. It chose to throw it all at the debt, a real obsession of this government.

Today we can see the results. In all regions of Quebec—yesterday in the Sherbrooke region, last week in the Montreal region, or a few weeks ago in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence—businesses are shutting down. However, the federal government has not put forward an action plan for the manufacturing industry. The Government of Quebec, which has much more limited financial means—since the fiscal imbalance has yet to be corrected—is trying to create a plan. But this plan would have to be backed up by a similar one from the federal government. This has not happened.

In January, when I asked the question, the Prime Minister was still saying that the $1 billion trust would be part of the budget and that we would have to vote in favour of the budget to have it adopted. The negative reaction was so strong that he had to backtrack and agree to have a separate vote for the $1 billion, and that was done.

That is why today, I am raising the issue again and I am telling the government that the need for action in response to the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries is as urgent as ever. In Quebec and Ontario, the crisis has been aggravated by the rising cost of petroleum, of gasoline, which has resulted in even more undue competition for our manufacturers.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that the government had cut the GST. The last GST cut did a lot more to support manufacturing jobs in China than it did to strengthen our own manufacturing industries.

We expected the government to move forward. Today, we are reiterating demands from union members and the groups that represent them, as well as from employers, such as Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They are all calling for additional measures. Perrin Beatty, a former Conservative minister, expressed his support for these demands, as did Jason Myers, executive director of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and major unions.

In closing, what I would like to know is, has the government finally realized that the crisis in the manufacturing sector is a real problem and that it must put all of the tools in its toolbox to try to deal with this problem?

[Manufacturing Sector, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, besides Mr. Beatty, Mr. Myers, President of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, has brought to the attention of the Conservatives on several occasions, and to no avail, that tax cuts are of no help to companies that are losing money and that therefore do not pay taxes.

What are the Conservatives waiting for to implement the Bloc's plan that would provide refundable tax credits for research and development? Manufacturers are in dire need of such credits right now.

[Manufacturing Sector, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the manufacturing sector is in dire straits. Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and a former Conservative minister, has said that the situation has deteriorated to the point that other tools must be considered in order to do more for this sector. Last fall, the Bloc Québécois presented a robust plan to resolve the crisis. However, the Conservatives preferred to indulge their obsession with the debt to the detriment of manufacturing jobs.

Will the Minister of Finance undertake to take concrete action quickly to deal with the crisis?

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think our society has suffered, and in fact is still suffering, from the negative effects of neo-liberalism. People believed that simply opening up trade would solve all the problems. People thought poverty would disappear with open markets. People believed that products would suddenly be much better. We know that, in reality, that is not how it works. We have seen it in the past and we must remember that.

We have some concrete examples from before globalization. Here, at the beginning of the 20th century, workers, people who were worried about their own environment, fought hard battles just to obtain the slightest protection. They earned those things, which improved our quality of life.

I think it is important to learn from the current example of the toys. This is the obvious factor to consider: if a toy is dangerous for our children, we want to ban that kind of toy.

There is another, less obvious factor, which is not as much of a concern for us, because it affects us less. The person at the other end of the production line making those goods probably earns $1 an hour and works in terrible conditions that might even pose a danger to his or her health.

In the months and years to come, we will have to develop the control mechanisms identified around the world to guarantee the quality of products. Quebec and Canadian businesses and workers are ready to compete against the entire world as long as the playing field is level. If not, the environment will suffer and we will be moving away from the desired results. We lower the bar when we allow people to manufacture goods with inadequate consideration for the environment and for inadequate wages. As a result, our citizens who fought for decent wages and decent working conditions are forced to accept unacceptable working conditions.

We have to try to reverse this trend. We have to find original approaches, such as this bill, for dealing with hazardous goods. But we must also give some consideration to labour relations and working conditions of people all over the world.

This affects our families and our daily lives. However, we have to have the same consideration for an individual who, thousands of kilometres away, is forced to work for wretched wages because in Canada we drink their coffee and eat bananas produced elsewhere because we want to pay as little as possible for these goods.

We will have to move from a free trade system to a fair market, and that should become the rule in international agreements. We have work to do on that front.

As the saying goes, you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. We have taken a step in the area of hazardous goods. In the months and years to come, we should be open to the idea of additional legislation to protect our working conditions.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

I agree with him that the vast majority of suppliers—the people who create, manufacture and sell toys—are honest, as are those who make other products. But the reality is that there is no room for error in this sector. Risk management is needed. We have to ensure that the percentage of dishonest people is reduced to a minimum. That is why I was talking about an near-zero tolerance.

In response to the second part of his question, it was not so long ago that we allowed Chinese products to enter the market. China became a member of the WTO three or four years ago and that resulted in a massive increase in imported products. I am not saying that Chinese products are not good, generally speaking, but we know that 80% of toys imported to the United States are from China. We see that people constantly seek to make a profit every step of the way, from the U.S. parent company that awards contracts or subcontracts, to the people who have to produce at a lower cost and pay meagre wages. We are all well aware of global competition.

There have been concrete examples and, in my opinion, public pressure, more than the Conservative government or any of the parties here, has prompted us to take action. There have been some appalling examples. When we buy a toy for a two or three year old child who puts that toy in his or her mouth and we are not sure whether the toy is safe, only to find out that there are unacceptable levels of lead in that product, that is what prompts us to react.

In an ideal world, when we opened up the markets across the planet, we would have considered not only the benefits of having more trade, but also the conditions under which this trade ought to take place. There is a message here.

I will close with that. I think we should apply this same type of reaction in a number of sectors when it comes to globalization. I am all for international trade, but it has to be well regulated and well monitored to avoid unacceptable extremes that produce results that may be the opposite of what is desired, namely, having a population that is healthy and well-protected in the purchases it makes and ensuring that it gets high-quality products.