André Bachand

[Briefings or Negotiations, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Quebecois colleague has indeed been very brief. He has summarized a thought many of us share, in some very fine phrases couched in impeccable French, and I must congratulate him.

I will soon have sat in this House for five years, but I have still learned something from Motion M-360. The hon. member for Provencher, the mover of the motion, has said that in the debate in the justice committee on Bill C-7, the committee chair indicated that a rule or convention excluded elected representatives of the provinces and territories. Not being an expert like you, Mr. Speaker, on rules, procedures, conventions and traditions, I have learned something new.

I am going to ask our parliamentary leader and our rules and procedures adviser to explain to me in greater detail what this is all about. They refused to allow the provincial ministers of justice, the attorneys general, to speak, based on rules and conventions, claiming that committees cannot accept them as witnesses, if I have understood the hon. member for Provencher correctly.

This led me to wonder. I though the committee was sovereign. I know that royal commissions hear provincial and territorial elected officials and wondered why the same did not hold true for committees. I wondered if there were any examples. There have been a number of examples where provincial and territorial elected representatives have appeared before a committee examining a bill.

SInce there is not much time left, I am going to speak about the famous Bill C-20—now a law—I might even call it the infamous bill on referendum clarity. If I remember correctly, Joseph Facal, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, came before the committee, as did Benoît Pelletier, the Liberal MNA for Chapleau, not far from here.

If, for a bill such as Bill C-20, there was acceptance of provincial ministers and elected representatives, and this issue did not come up, I do not understand why a committee would decide to exclude them because of rules of procedure.

I need more clarification. If it was because of rules, conventions or traditions, the government, which refused to hear from the people of Quebec, among others, during consideration of Bill C-7, citing parliamentary procedure, ignored that procedure during consideration of Bill C-20; this is a double standard. If rules need to be changed, it should change them, but I do not think that that is the case. We have a number of examples of elected provincial government officials appearing before the committee.

I am not sure what the specific purpose of the motion is but, if I understand correctly, the idea is to not exclude elected officials from the provinces and territories when bills which have an impact on the provinces are being considered. We would not disagree. I am learning things. We need some answers.

I listened to my former colleague who crossed the floor, the turncoat who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. He explained how federal-provincial relations are supposed to work. This government is in no position to tell us how to operate. I think that the previous government had much more credibility when it came to respect for the provinces. The short-lived government that the leader of my party had the opportunity to lead could point to examples of real co-operation.

Members will recall that when the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was about to make appointments, he telephoned the then Premier of Quebec, Mr. Lévesque, and told him, “I have some names, but I would like your opinion”.

My leader reminded me that Mr. Lévesque was quite surprised that the Prime Minister had called to consult him about appointments.

This is a fine example of the skilful handling of relations. However, our friends on the other side are arrogant, because they base their decisions on certain rules in order to exclude some people and go their own way, do as they please.

I find it unfortunate that, for Bill C-7, they refused to meet with elected provincial representatives on the basis of some criteria and regulations, some tradition and conventions, whereas, in the case of Bill C-20, which divided the country much more than it united it, the presence of ministers and members of legislatures was accepted.

They resort to double standards whenever it suits them. This is another case of bad handling of relations here in the House by this government. It is another example of this government using the rules for the benefit of its own leader and excluding the provincial elected representatives, who are our partners only when this government finds it convenient.

Finally, we must be careful. We must not forget that there are two distinct philosophies about the vision for our country. On the one hand, some say that Canada is Ottawa. It is a central governmen, which in its great generosity grants some powers and responsibilities to what we call provinces. This is Canada according to some people.

Perhaps it would help to look back further in history. Canada is made up of regions and provinces which decided to act together and to give shared services to Ottawa. It was a bottom up approach, not a top down one. A country such as Canada cannot remain united if decisions are always made at the top. Decisions that shape this country must be made in the regions and in the provinces.

This is why we hope for a fairly quick change of government in order to change the way things are done and if possible, an even quicker change in Prime Ministers and Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs. This could not come soon enough. In any case, squabbling has already started within the ranks of the Liberal Party.

Having said that, these are two different visions of the country, two different approaches. I hope that the vision of the country that recognizes that it was the regions and the provinces that created this country and that decided to come together for all kinds of reasons, more or less good, will gain more widespread acceptance.

I also sincerely hope that there will be a level playing field when it comes to the witnesses that will be called to appear before committees. We need to acknowledge that on numerous occasions, when it suits the government, provincial and territorial members and ministers have appeared before committees. I hope that decisions will not be made based on rules once, only to flout them the rest of the time.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.

He is right in saying there is overlap between the international agreements, and in referring to the softwood situation. All party politics aside, we hope this dispute will be settled as soon as possible. I know the parliamentary secretary wants the same thing. He is deeply committed to this.

As far as the agreement with China is concerned, the parliamentary secretary is right. There is the question of bureaucracy and respect for existing international rules. A U.S. committee said that, over the last ten years, China has not abided by a single international agreement. Naturally we hope that, with China becoming a member of the WTO, it will abide by the rules of that organization, and will comply with all the subsidiary agreements or parallel agreements existing between China and other countries or continents of the world.

We support this bill because we truly believe that the attitude of the People's Republic of China toward Canadian investors, and toward the industries in the parliamentary secretary's riding, will be such that they will not only find a market, but a real openness. When we say that we will open up a market, we must also recognize that we will have to facilitate access to that market.

What the parliamentary secretary said is true. There is some red tape and too much of it. It is complicated. Some have even alluded to the fact, inaccurate I hope, that little envelopes were being handed out here and there. If the market does open up, it will not only be an opening for 1.250 billion people, it will also mean access to a certain way of doing things. I believe the WTO will modernize China's way of dealing with other countries and that Canada will profit from that. However, we must be very careful about the China's weak points in view of its accession to the WTO.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This may annoy our Liberal colleagues a little, but it is always nice to see that they have changed their position on free trade treaties since the 1993 election. As we know, only fools never change their mind. Therefore, we are very happy that those on the other side of the Housee have changed their mind.

Actually, some protection measures do exist. However, as things stand now, there could be job losses. The protection measures deal mostly with dumping and they are good measures. However, eight, ten or twelve years is a very short period to allow a company to transform itself and adapt to a new reality called China.

Nevertheless, we are satisfied with the provisional protection measures. They are necessary. As I said in my previous speech, while complying with current worldwide agreements, we would also like to see incentives for companies that are most at risk.

The textile industry will be one of the most seriously affected. We do not need to convince anyone of that. It is written in the bill. These are not my words. Everyone agrees that this industry is more at risk. Where are the incitatives which will help the textile sector to transform itself and become more efficient?

Having said that, we are satisfied. In my riding, I hope that the asbestos industry will be among those that will benefit from the accession of China to the WTO. As we know, Asia buys large quantities of asbestos. Unfortunately, Russia is dumping this product. China needs it. If this product is used safely--it is like a credit card--you get the benefits out of it and you forget its inconveniences.

I would like to point out, however, that in my riding there are textile companies specialized, among other things, in jeans, shirts and skirts; they could be hard hit. In the Eastern Townships, several companies have already closed down. I am thinking in particular of people who bought cotton. Since cotton imported from China, for example, is much cheaper, some companies have already been forced to close down.

That being said, in the end, the hon. member is right: an agreement like the one before us today is beneficial for all citizens of the participating countries.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate that has been going on for a long time and started long before the introduction of this bill. We have held debates in committee and in the House on the future of the People's Republic of China and its accession to the World Trade Organization.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my Progressive-Conservative colleague from Cumberland--Colchester on his excellent work in raising the awareness of our caucus and explaining the situation to us.

We often hear about the WTO when there are problems and we win or lose our case. What we are dealing with here is the accession of a player who is most important by its territory, its economy, its political situation and its population. Obviously, the rules of the game will change, and Canada should be ready for this.

That is why this bill provides for a buffer period Canada has secured through negotiation concerning the opening of our market, especially in the textile industry.

This being said, textiles are indeed going to become a major market, and this is a matter of some concern in our country, especially in Quebec. As we know, the Quebec textile industry was hard hit by uncertainty and job losses when the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico came into force.

However, there is no need for concern. We need to adjust. Currently in Quebec the textile industries that upgraded have been able to start exporting again while taking free trade into account, of course.

Indeed, when you open your market to major players such as China, there is a period of uncertainty during which some sectors of the economy suffer losses. However, these sectors know this is coming. They have enough time to prepare for it.

I remember that when the previous government had negotiated the first free trade agreement with the U.S. certain measures were proposed. They were far from being perfect and probably insufficient. However, associated measures were offered to help with the transition from a closed market to an open market.

Sadly, we see no such thing in this bill. This may not be the appropriate time, but the government is not putting forward any financial incentives or measures to give those businesses that will most likely be harmed by the accession of China to the WTO a chance to further upgrade; the textile industry is a case in point. I hope that when the bill is passed in both Houses, when China officially joins the world trade community through its membership in the WTO, the government, while respecting its agreements with our southern neighbours and our international commitments, will put in place incentives to help the industry prepare and upgrade.

The WTO is not the answer to everything. One should not think that just because China is joining the WTO, the Tibet issue will be solved tomorrow morning, questions regarding human rights will be answered tomorrow morning and the religious groups issue will be solved tomorrow morning. This is not the way to look at it.

That being said, there are two ways of approaching the problem. There are countries where sanctions are necessary and others where incentives are necessary. In the case of China—I will remind members that the negotiations were extremely lengthy—incentives are better suited to the situation than sanctions. We are not talking here about apartheid, even though Quebecers and Canadians wonder about respect for human rights in China. The advantage of China's accession to the WTO is that it will level the playing field.

Let us take dumping as an example. It is an important aspect. Several businesses in our country are eager to see other countries, such as Russia, join the WTO, because their industry will be better off with regard to exports. I am talking of course about the asbestos industry. It is known that Russia is dumping asbestos all over the world. In my riding, 300 jobs could be lost this year and a mine will be closed. I take this opportunity to urge the government to act quickly to develop a policy on the use of asbestos.

WTO rules will open up the market, which means that there will be increased interaction between China and its WTO partners. Therefore, it will be easier to go to see the positive things that China has to offer. For the less positive things, we will not wait to receive official invitations. We will be able to go to see, because the WTO also opens up he country. It is not only an economic tool.

When billions of dollars are traded, not only does it have social and economic impacts, but it also has impacts on culture, on the environment and I would even say on tourism. If we get to know China better and if China gets to know countries such as Canada better, things will most certainly improve.

That being said, I think the WTO is far from perfect. This will cause problems, but look at what Canada has been able to do through free trade. We have been winners in this. Changes have to be made, of course; there is always a transition period.

The WTO will not solve all our problems, because it is only an organization. There are other economic and trade agreements. Members on this side of the House have mentioned that, with all the various international agreements we have, we do not know which one prevails. For instance, in a dispute with our neighbours south of the border, is it the Free Trade Agreement or the WTO that prevails? We know our American counterparts quite well; we know they will use the one with which they stand a better chance to win.

Given all the agreements being signed by Canada, there will come a time when we will have to wonder which one has priority. We are talking about expanding the free trade area of the Americans, with the FTAA. Which of these agreements will have priority? These questions need to be asked and deserve to be answered.

I will stop here, because I feel we have had a very good debate on this bill. A lot of members took part in it. Again, I would remind the House that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has always wished for citizens and stakeholders to take part in the process and not only be consulted.

On the eve of the negotiations concerning the FTAA and other agreements, the committee asked for some kind of permanent mechanism to keep in touch with the people we represent. We still do not have one. People ask us questions about this bill, the WTO and other international agreements we are currently negotiating, and we do not have a way to get back to them. We will have to rethink the whole consultation process and the way to ensure Canadians get involved.

The Progressive Conservative Party will be glad to support this bill, while reminding everyone, of course, that some parts of our economy will suffer, at least during the transition period, but eventually China, Canada and every country in the world should be able to benefit from this initiative.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting no on this motion.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party who are present will be voting yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Privilege, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time, but I want to give my support to the request made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

The credibility of three major players must be preserved. I want to mention them, not necessarily in order of precedence. First, there is the committee's credibility. Committees are made up of opposition and government members who try to do credible work.

Second, there is the minister's credibility. As we know, the Minister of National Defence is in a difficult situation. While we must do our job as opposition parties, we must also preserve the defence minister's credibility, and ensure that the committee can work in a credible fashion.

Then there is the Chair's credibility. Mr. Speaker, you have issued very specific rulings, for example as regards oral question period and the issue relating to the Minister of National Defence. This House has co-operated with the Chair.

Today, the issue is a document that was released earlier than it should have been. While the committee's credibility is affected, the Minister of National Defence cannot, regardless of where we stand in the political spectrum, hope for a credible judgment from his peers if documents are released before they are completed. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, you want to make sure that the issue is dealt with in a credible manner when you issue a ruling.

Mr. Speaker, you, the Minister of National Defence, the committee and even this parliament all have a credibility problem. With all due respect, I hope that you will grant the request made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, so that we can get to the bottom of this issue as quickly as possible, in the interest of all.

[Grants and Contributions, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will get a copy to him before he gets one to me.

That having been said, there is a taint of scandal, corruption, patronage and overpayment hanging over this government.

After one, two, and three reports, when can we expect a fourth and a fifth? When will there be a full public inquiry? Will the minister stop defending the indefensible patronage of this government?

[Grants and Contributions, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned, big surprise, that, in addition to the two almost identical reports prepared by Groupaction in 1998 and 1999 for the department of public works, there was a third report. There is, no doubt, a fourth one on the horizon. This report lists many of the same events. There are three similar reports, three contracts and three payments of half a million dollars.

How many reports and how many millions will it take for the government to understand that Matane does indeed hold a shrimp festival? When may we expect a public inquiry?