Diane Bourgeois

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

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

There is no consensus as such on the idea of totally abolishing the Senate. It is not a top priority. However, the Bloc Québécois has noticed that the minimum condition set by successive governments in Quebec on Senate reform has always been clear: there will be no Senate reform without first settling the question of Quebec's status.

I mentioned earlier that in 1989 Robert Bourassa said that he did not wish to discuss Senate reform before the Meech Lake accord was ratified. In 1992, Gil Rémillard said that Quebec's signing of an agreement on Senate reform would depend on the outcome of negotiations on the concept of a distinct society, the division of powers and the federal spending power.

Finally, with Bill C-20, the government is proceeding with piecemeal reform of the Senate without satisfying the minimum conditions stipulated by Quebec.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I must be very drawn to the current Prime Minister, since I keep referring to him by name.

By further legitimizing the federal Senate, this government wants to undermine the authority of provincial premiers. This Prime Minister is marginalizing the Quebec nation by creating an elected Senate. Under the pretext of an orthodox reform of federalism, this Conservative government is proposing shattering the balance of the federation.

In Australia and the United States, having an elected senate has enhanced the legitimacy of the federal government and has nationalized public life rather than serve the representation of the federated states within federal institutions. To be heard in Congress, the American states have been reduced to being lobbyists. Senators elected to represent an entire province would overshadow the authority of the provincial premiers and run the risk of supplanting them as regional representatives.

Quebec has always asked that the Senate be abolished for the simple reason that it wants, above all, to have powers of its own. This is what Robert Bourassa and Gil Rémillard asked for through constitutional laws at the time of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. It was never accepted. A constitutional amendment was never possible for Quebec. This time, since this Prime Minister is incapable of making a constitutional amendment for the senators, he is asking that we gradually strip away their mandate and eligibility.

We are definitely against the Senate. Clearly, we are against the very principle of the bill. No amendment could make it more constitutional, equal or legitimate for us.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, excuse me.

So I will say that even the Conservative government admits that Canada cannot be reformed. It is trying to reform the Senate piecemeal. It is trying to take things away from the Senate piecemeal, rather than by a constitutional amendment. To the Bloc, it is obvious: it is impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way.

Attempts have been made to reform the Senate on numerous occasions, but nothing has ever resulted. History is repeating itself. You are quite young, Mr. Speaker. We who are a little older have read widely. If we look back a few years, we see that attempts have been made to reform the Senate on numerous occasions. Senator Serge Joyal, who is still living, has written a book about Senate reform. In that book, he listed 26 proposals for Senate reform, in only the last 30 years. So the problem of Senate reform is not a recent one. We assume that we may again find that we have to say it is not possible to do it.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, the Senate is a useless institution. Originally, in addition to being the Chamber for sober second thought about bills, the Senate was also supposed to protect regional interests. Clearly equal representation of the regions in the Senate should, in theory, provide a counterbalance to representation in the Commons.

What we see at present is that party affiliation has got the better of regional representation, thereby nullifying the very objectives of that Chamber, which instead tends to replicate what goes on in the House of Commons. It is as if the Senate has become a second House of Commons.

The indirect election of senators would not improve this situation, in the Bloc’s opinion. On the contrary, the electoral process tends to strengthen the role of political parties, to the point that indirectly elected senators would likely be more concerned about the interests of their party than about those of their region.

How can this government justify preserving a Senate that would have responsibilities similar to those of the House of Commons, of the parliamentarians who sit in this Chamber? This would create duplication and would cost an estimated $81 million. If we elect senators and they have the same powers as the members of this House, we are going to be creating duplication that will cost a great deal in public funds.

Term limits for senators and indirect elections of senators do not make the Senate more democratic. Under the bill that has been presented to us, in our opinion, it would be virtually impossible to unseat senators. The public consultation is not binding on the Prime Minister.

As well, electors are not all equal before the Senate. And eligibility for the position of senator is not open to everyone, again under the bill. An indirectly elected Senate would undermine the existing parliamentary system in the event of a deadlock between the two chambers. And lastly, the senators have the power to oppose measures enacted by the House of Commons, which is elected.

Do you see all of the hypocrisy in this? I would add to this that by strengthening the legitimacy of the federal Senate, Stephen Harper is trying to infringe the authority of the provincial premiers. And we know that the provincial premiers have—

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to this bill entitled An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

From the outset I would like to say that we are against referring this bill to committee before second reading. In fact, we are against the very principle of the bill, and we believe that no amendment in committee could make it acceptable.

I would add that a lot of hypocrisy surrounds the tabling of this bill. To support that claim, consider that the Senate currently consists of 61 Liberals, 24 Conservatives and 4 independents. I say it is hypocritical because the current government is very uncomfortable with the Senate and the people in it. It is also uncomfortable with the work done by the Senate.

We are against this bill because we think that Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. Just look at the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Twice Canada has rejected the aspirations of Quebec.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois was born in 1990, as hon. members will remember, precisely because Canada could not be reformed. Even the Harper government admits that Canada cannot be reformed.

[Public Works, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government is justifying this expense, at four times the market rate, on the basis that the event was to take place shortly. Yet, they knew for months that the summit would be held in Montebello.

Why does the government hide behind this false pretext to justify its contravention of the basic rule of tendering?

[Public Works, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance awarded an untendered $122,000 contract to a friend to write a speech. The unelected Minister of Public Works, Michael Fortier, awarded a $875,000 contract for the installation of a security fence in Montebello, again without obtaining bids. This clearly contravenes Public Works rules that require the use of the tendering process.

How can the government allow its unelected minister to contravene this rule with impunity?

[Teachers' Week, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is Teachers' Week, and I would like to thank and pay tribute to those whose energy, dedication and perseverance is key to the education of our future citizens.

Teachers are precious. Their understanding, commitment and competence help prepare students for future challenges. Every day, these educational professionals have a positive impact on the daily lives of our children. In recognition of just how much work teachers do and to pay them proper tribute, the Commission scolaire de la Seigneurie-des-Mille-Îles in my riding launched a contest called “My Teacher” for the second year in a row. What a great initiative.

On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to salute all our teaching professionals, who really care about the progress of Quebec society, and congratulate the school board on this wonderful initiative.

[Normand Beaulieu, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to pay tribute to Normand Beaulieu, who has been with the Société de développement économique in Thérèse-De-Blainville for 22 years, and is currently the assistant director general.

Last year, the Chamber of Commerce of Bois-des-Filion–Lorraine awarded Mr. Beaulieu a trophy for personality of the year, in recognition of his economic, social and community contributions. His consistent involvement in the region in all these areas is much appreciated by entrepreneurs, young people and the less fortunate.

Hebdos Transcontinental, in the Journal Le Courrier, recently acknowledged the importance of his achievements and named him personality of the week.

The members of the Bloc Québécois and I, along with the people of the Lower Laurentians, would like to thank him for his dedication to the people of our region.

[Special Import Measures Act, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask my colleagues to take this seriously and read the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which was released in February 2007 with the unanimous approval of all members from all political parties in this House. After reading the report, they will realize that a great many of the things said in this House tonight are simply not true. A lot of misinformation has been heard.

I listened carefully to the remarks, and I think some things require clarification. I would remind the members that dumping does exist and that under international law, dumping is illegal. Companies that engage in this unfair, illegal trade practice export products below the cost of production or for less than they would sell them on their own domestic market.

When a business uses practices of this nature, it must expect countries to impose antidumping duties in order to counter the effect of these unfair and unlawful practices. Trade legislation must really protect businesses against the unfair and unlawful competition known as dumping. It is not just the Special Import Measures Act or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, since those two authorities are under the minister, and it is the minister who raised the question of antidumping duties.

At this time, the Conservatives have decided not to enforce the Canadian trade legislation that could temporarily protect our businesses, as well as give them time to adapt to the new context and become modernized.

We would not be the first country to bring in measures to ensure that our businesses are not forced to compete with countries or importers that use unfair and unlawful means. The United States, 25 countries in Europe and all the members of the OECD have adopted such measures, all except two countries—and guess which? Australia and Canada.

The countries that have antidumping measures have issued a series of criteria to assess whether the practices of the Chinese government, in particular, distort the costs and prices. For example, they look at the value of the currency. The regulations, especially in China, are also considered. However, these countries know full well that theirs are not always on a par with the universally recognized regulations, and feel free to hide data.

The EU and the U.S. also evaluate the suppliers. Once again, Canada is showing a complete lack of leadership. I am convinced that this government, which wants law and order, cannot allow something unlawful to take place. It must automatically support my bill. I understand that the Conservative ideology is focused on the open market. However, the open market does not mean illegality. Allowing this to continue now means allowing illegality.

I believe that members who vote against my bill will be demonstrating that they are in favour of an illegal practice that harms Canadian and Quebec businesses. Next Wednesday we shall see who supports our businesses.

The government boasts that it has reduced taxes and passed measures to help the manufacturing, forestry and agriculture sectors. The reality is that they are enabling those turning a profit to add to their coffers. It has not brought forward any measures to help companies existing on credit to deal with the devastating effects of the high dollar. It is now preparing to allow foreign companies to use illegal and unethical practices.

The Bloc Québécois believes that globalization can benefit taxpayers. It provides the opportunity to have more variety in the choice of products. However, we must not allow globalization to harm the efforts of our companies who do not have sufficient means to help them exercise their rights.

Therefore, I repeat, dumping, members of the House, my colleagues—

[Bill C-411, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be a critical day for businesses. Indeed, this will be the second hour of debate on Bill C-411, which I introduced in this House, on March 2.

This legislation is very important, because it provides, at last, anti-dumping measures that are in compliance with those recognized internationally, and that will allow businesses to protect themselves against the flood of subsidized imports, particularly from so-called “emerging” economies.

All the parties will have the opportunity to support businesses by voting in favour of a better imports control system. The Bloc Québécois feels that it is urgent to put in place means to help our businesses, which must deal with a strong dollar and face unfair trade practices.

Tomorrow, we will see which federalist parties defend, like the Bloc Québécois, jobs in Quebec.