Diane Bourgeois

[2009 Nobel Peace Prize, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama, making him the third sitting U.S. president to be awarded this prestigious award.

His election brought hope all over the world. The prize recognizes President Obama's efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation, advocating multilateral diplomacy and dialogue instead of the repressive and confrontational approach of the previous administration. Immediately upon taking office, he reached out to nations previously viewed as “the enemy”, stating in a speech given in Cairo that this cycle of suspicion and discord had to end.

He is also being recognized for his commitment to nuclear disarmament and to fighting climate change.

President Obama has definitely set the winds of change blowing, in deep contrast with the world view of the previous administration and that of its friends from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

That is false.

[Dalai Lama, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, despite the repression and constant violations experienced by the people of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has never strayed from his approach that favours tolerance, peace and non-violence, an approach that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

Today, the People's Republic of China celebrates its 60th anniversary, and the Tibetan culture is in danger. It is time for the Chinese government to respond to the Dalai Lama's repeated calls for independence for the people of Tibet, which would be in accordance with the provisions of the Chinese constitution.

In February 2007, the House passed a unanimous motion calling on the Government of Canada to encourage the two parties to continue talks.

The Bloc Québécois, which empathizes strongly with the struggle of the Tibetan people, would like to take the occasion of the Dalai Lama's visit to Montreal tomorrow to welcome him and to tell him that we support his call for dialogue.

[Made in Canada Act, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on Bill C-392. I will read the summary because there are two aspects to this bill that promote employment and economic development in Canada by ensuring that the Government of Canada, while complying with its international obligations, gives preference to Canadian products or services in transfers to provinces, municipalities and private parties and in the procurement of its goods and services.

Let me say from the outset that the bill before us imposes conditions on cash transfers from the federal government to Quebec and the provinces. Once again, that is the sadly centralized and paternalistic vision of federalism rejected by Quebec. It is an insult to the Quebec nation and under no circumstances will the Bloc Québécois support a motion, bill or any other parliamentary initiative that seeks to undermine Quebec's autonomy by imposing conditions.

Furthermore, the members of the National Assembly have unanimously called for unconditional transfers. I see that my colleagues are paying close attention. I say to them that what we have here are the two visions of what Quebec should be. A sovereign Quebec would make it own decisions and would not let transfers or transfer conditions be imposed on it. But the bill before us is a federalist bill that says that when the Government of Canada makes transfer payments to the provinces and municipalities, it has to impose its vision. I would remind you that, in Quebec, the municipalities are creatures of Quebec, of the National Assembly. We have our own legislation in Quebec. We are not happy with this part of the bill.

The NDP bill also runs counter to Quebec's long battle to correct the fiscal imbalance. Quebec is calling for the right to opt out of federal spending programs in areas of shared and exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, with full compensation and with no strings attached. Unfortunately, the NDP has introduced a bill that interferes in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

We will oppose this bill for that reason, but also for another reason: the Bloc Québécois has already introduced Bill C-306, which would enable the government to use government contracts to promote economic development, while respecting the jurisdictions of all governments and complying with trade agreements. In Bill C-306, which is quite similar to the bill before us today, the Bloc Québécois ensures that, within international agreements, the federal government uses its procurement as an economic lever to promote the growth and prosperity of businesses here. This bill would enable Canada to purchase up to $600 million annually, which is the equivalent of 21,000 jobs a year. In a way, it is also a response to the Buy American Act, and it would add to the pressure on the U.S. government to drop this sort of measure. This bill we have introduced focuses specifically on purchases not subject to NAFTA. In other words, it complies with the rules and the spirit of NAFTA, which would address the concern my Liberal colleague expressed earlier.

However, this bill is much narrower in scope because it would affect Government of Canada goods and services procurement only. It would target purchases whose value falls under the threshold requiring the government to issue public tenders under NAFTA. It would target only small federal government expenditures under $25,000 U.S.

We know that the Government of Canada is the largest buyer of goods and services in Canada, that it makes about 3% of its purchases abroad, and that passing a buy Canadian bill like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing, as opposed to the one before us today, would halt the flow of some $600 million to other countries. If only half of those purchases had been made in Canada, we would have created an estimated 21,000 jobs per year.

If the Bloc Québécois bill were passed instead of the one before us today, that would mean over $60 billion spent in Canada, perfectly legally, without having to deal with NAFTA legal negotiations.

The bill before us today contains conditions that are unacceptable to Quebec, conditions governing cash transfers from the federal government to Quebec and the provinces. We do not like that idea. We want our independence, and we will never accept such a federalist, paternalistic vision. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois has already introduced Bill C-306, which would use procurement to promote the kind of economic development that does not impose conditions on Quebec and the provinces and that complies with international agreements.

That is why, unfortunately, we cannot vote for Bill C-392 even though it is well-intentioned.

[Hugo Valiquette, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate a man from my region, Hugo Valiquette, who is Lanaudière's first ambassador of the francophonie in the Americas. With over 12 years of community involvement, Mr. Valiquette was selected during the first forum organized by the Centre de la francophonie des Amériques in Quebec City last June.

The Quebec nation is the cradle of francophonie in North America, so the new ambassador's role will be extremely important, as his job is to promote the French language across the continent. In North America, Quebec is leading the charge to protect and promote our language, and we are delighted with the appointment of this Quebecker. This sends a strong signal about the vitality of our nation and our language.

Once again, I would like to express how proud I am to represent an ambassador of the francophonie in this House. I wish him every success.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the minister announced that workers in a certain category would receive employment insurance benefits for an additional five to 20 weeks. A decision like that has to be based on numbers.

Can the minister tell us how many workers in Ontario and Quebec will benefit from this measure?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member needs to review his notes. On the contrary, aid to Africa has been cut, but there have been some transfers. It may not look like it, but aid to Africa has been cut. I would like my hon. colleague to check his figures.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think that the government-supported relationship between international development and corporations is a bad one. Allow me to explain: twice during the time I was a member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, Canadian companies received funding through CIDA. They used money distributed through CIDA to get paramilitary staff on the company payroll. They gave CIDA money to military employees. That money was used to pay hired guns, not to help the people. I sure hope that CIDA has solved that problem, particularly with regard to TVI and TVI Pacific Inc.

According to the documents, there can be no doubt: at one point, CIDA disbursed $14,000. That is not a lot of money here, but in Colombia, it might be worth $100,000. TVI used that $14,000 to pay professional soldiers to protect company assets and prevent people from using the only remaining source of drinking water because it had contaminated every other source around the site. That was an abominable practice that I hope is no longer happening.

Perhaps my colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, who travelled to Colombia, and who hosted Colombian envoys, can tell us whether this is still going on or whether the government has put a stop to it.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say hello to the people I represent in Terrebonne—Blainville and Ste-Anne-des-Plaines as Parliament resumes.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-23 at second reading. This bill concerns the implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill for various extremely important reasons.

When two countries sign a free trade agreement, it is because they are preferred trading partners and the volume of trade makes it worthwhile to reduce trade barriers. But the Colombian market is a small and not particularly lucrative market for Canada. Canada has limited trade with Colombia. Of course, we export western grain there, but when the whole world needs grain, we are not going to export the most grain to Colombia.

Colombian investment in Canada amounts to $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia totals roughly $1.058 billion, which can essentially be attributed to the extractive industry.

The Colombian subsoil is extremely rich. Ore and energy resources such as coal account for 31% of Canadian imports. Colombia is therefore extremely attractive to Canadian extractive companies. It is also rich in natural resources.

In concluding this free trade agreement, the government is motivated not by trade, but by investments and the mining sector. This agreement will make it easier to protect Canadian investments in Colombia.

The Bloc Québécois is not against protecting Canadian investments in another country, but we want the agreements protecting those investments to be fair and equitable and take into account the common good. This is not true of this Canada-Colombia agreement.

The current agreement contains many clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. This chapter had favourable results at least a decade ago, but for some time now, it has been misused, because it allows foreign investors to turn to international courts when a country wants to amend and improve its laws.

It is also possible under chapter 11 to use the threat of court action to prevent a government from improving people's living conditions. Lawsuits can be for an unlimited amount.

First, Colombia is not on an equal footing with Canada in terms of living conditions. Second, the proposed agreement uses chapter 11 of NAFTA, a chapter that has been roundly criticized everywhere and poses problems everywhere.

As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed by states with similar economies. The economies of Canada and Colombia are completely different. Colombia is an extremely poor country. It is estimated that 47% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2006.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas and affects 68% of the population. In addition, the current unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America. In view of this fact, what is the value of a free trade agreement that benefits mining companies and that will not necessarily improve the standard of living for the country's population given that they must work for the mining companies? We know what these companies do. I will come back to that later on.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. In June 2009, witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade and told us that the worst humanitarian crisis was unfolding in Colombia.

The impunity prevailing in Colombia has led human rights groups to believe that there is collusion between the Colombian political class and paramilitary groups.

Colombia is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to workers' rights. We know that union activists are assassinated and that thousands of people have disappeared. People are displaced because small farmers and miners sometimes own land that is coveted by big mining companies. In most cases, these people receive no compensation.

There is a great deal of opposition to this free trade agreement. Canadian civil society is opposed to this agreement, Colombian civil society is opposed to this agreement and many organizations in Quebec are also opposed to this agreement. A committee called the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries was created in 2007. This committee made recommendations to the government. What did the government do? It rejected them outright. It did nothing and did not implement any of the roundtables' recommendations.

Recently, members of this House who sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade also wrote a report based on their deliberations, their trip to Colombia and their meetings with witnesses. This report reproduced some of the conclusions of the famous round tables.

What did the government do? It rejected the report out of hand and gave us a slap in the face, saying that it had signed this agreement and asked only that we vote for it. That is irresponsible, and it shows disrespect for the members who sit in this House and the companies that sounded the alarm and warned the government that the situation in Colombia was not exactly what the government thought.

But we know that this government protects major investors, and this agreement protects Canadian investors abroad who will not be punished for the crimes they commit against the Colombian people and Colombian companies.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement and speak out publicly against it.

[Aleksandra Wozniak, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to an outstanding athlete from my riding, Aleksandra Wozniak. Even though she is just 21 years old, this tennis player has made us proud with her achievements on the courts. After an impressive career as a junior, during which she rose in the ranks to third in the world, played in nine finals and won six titles, Aleksandra turned professional in 2005.

In 2008, she became the first female player from Quebec to win a WTA tournament, defeating in the process the fifth-ranked player in the world and former number one, Serena Williams. Aleksandra currently ranks 23rd in the world, the highest ranking ever achieved by a woman from Quebec.

Aleksandra is currently in England, where she has reached the semi-finals of the Eastbourne tournament. Next week, she will play in the prestigious Wimbledon tournament. All the Bloc Québécois members join me in congratulating Aleksandra on her stellar achievements, and we wish her the best of luck in London.