Diane Bourgeois

[Public opinion polls, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the Conservatives, it is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do”. In opposition, they criticized the Liberals' excessive spending on polling. Now that they are in power, they are spending as never before.

Is it not true that they are delaying tabling the Paillé report until the House has risen to avoid questions about their own actions and because it is clear that they are not doing better, but worse when it comes to partisan polling?

[Public opinion polls, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when he was in opposition, the Prime Minister was outraged, with good reason, at how much the Liberals spent on polling, often for partisan purposes. The problem is that his government is doing worse. In fact, the Conservatives spent more on polling last year than any previous government.

How does the Prime Minister explain that his government is doing worse than the Liberals by spending record amounts on polling?

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion. I suppose that the debate on it will end soon.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when it studied the role of television and especially CBC television in the 21st century, when it debated the Canadian Television and Cable Production Fund, and when we made changes to the name and orientation of the CRTC. I had the pleasure and honour, therefore, of touring around Canada for the hearings that the committee held. Today I would like to tell the House a bit about what happened at these hearings and say that we should show some respect for the committee members by taking their work into account. We should also show some respect by allowing them to present the results of all the consultations they conducted over nearly a year and a half.

I agree with the motion introduced today by my colleague from Ahuntsic. When it comes to the interpretation of Canadian policy on broadcasting and telecommunications, we should be able to submit changes to the House by way of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We cannot simply overlook or disregard all the expertise that the members of this committee accumulated in the course of all their deliberations over a year and a half.

The minister and parliamentary secretary cannot simply ignore everything that was said at these hearings and all the work that the committee did. I might say in passing that throughout the entire tour we made across Canada, there were two members who were always present for all the hearings. They were the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay and me.

The parliamentary secretary did not show up even once, whether in Yellowknife, British Columbia and Toronto. He was never there. So far as I know—and people can check—the Conservative members on the committee at the time seemed to change quite often. It was a crying shame to see their lack of interest in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

In nearly all the major cities we visited where we had the opportunity to discuss cable television and telecommunications, we heard from communities seeking our protection, wanting the assurance of continued service and not wanting to be at the mercy of foreign interests. I would remind hon. members that, when we discussed the Canadian Television Fund, Shaw Communications came up. This is a Canadian company that wants to draw heavily on U.S. programming. In committee, Shaw told us that Canadian English programming was boring and that they were in business to make money. According to them, making money requires U.S. programming. The committee records will show this.

At the time of the discussions on the Canadian Television Fund, we knew there had been an agreement in place between Shaw Communications, the CRTC and the minister to the effect that Shaw Communications would continue to make these monthly payments, but there was an agreement that has never been totally revealed.

It is my suspicion, in fact, having sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that the act of deregulation, of opening the door wide to American culture through cable distribution companies such as Shaw Communications, is not totally dissociated from the agreement entered into with that company.

With the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage we toured Canada in order to meet with members of francophone communities outside Quebec, in particular those in Yellowknife, Vancouver and Manitoba, as well as with aboriginal communities. They were all extremely surprised to learn that U.S. culture was coming into Canada freely, via radio and television stations, and that no effort whatsoever was being made to protect this Canadian culture. As a Bloc Québécois member, I called upon them to react, to do something, because they were getting stabbed in the back by their own government's desire for deregulation, which would lead to their losing jobs, though they did not realize this yet. It must not be lost sight of that Canadian culture creates thousands of jobs, especially in television program and dramatic series production, on top of all the others that depend on culture. Thousands of jobs are at stake.

Here in Quebec, we are relatively protected. We have Vidéotron, which findings show has helped us tremendously in disseminating our Quebec culture. However, for people living in the rest of Canada, their culture is based on the culture of the French Canadians. They have so little culture that they had to borrow our woollen sash, our national “Rocket”, our Canadian horse, and even our maple syrup, to create their own culture. They have so little culture or ideas that they are now leaving the door wide open to American culture, with programming that is always shoving crime down our throats. And speaking of crime, to get back to Bill C-2, and I am speaking to the parliamentary secretary here, we might reduce crime if we paid attention to Canadian culture.

This is all just a big show today, for the simple reason that it is not something new. For a year and a half, the attitude of the ministers and members, the government members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, have demonstrated how little importance they place on culture. To them, culture can be bought and sold, and in any event there is no Canadian culture. As for Quebec culture, that is not important and we must not talk about it.

When I have travelled in other Canadian provinces, in other countries, I have told people that Quebec was a nation and that it had to protect its culture. I told them that in Quebec, we were lucky because we long ago joined forces.

I do not understand how Canadians in the other provinces can not have seen what this government is up to, buying American culture or being prepared to let it in. They have made an agreement, that is clear.

I would like to point out to all Canadian citizens that they can look this up in all the debates of the House of Commons and the committee. They will realize that they are being had.

[Government Buildings, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad day. Today, the sale of buildings belonging to taxpayers will be finalized even though the members in committee and public service unions are against it and despite the request for a moratorium on this sale. This government is transferring ownership, through a leaseback agreement, of seven very valuable federal buildings.

This transaction will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and the government will lease the premises for 25 years. Two other buildings located on native land were to be sold; however, the federal court issued an injunction forcing the government to review its decision to sell them.

Studies were carried out over several months at a cost of $1.5 million and yet no one realized that certain buildings posed a problem. That is difficult to understand and the rush by this government to go ahead with this transaction is even more perplexing.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who was not elected and is not present in this chamber, is determined to hide the cost and the information from members and taxpayers. We are entitled to ask who is profiting from this sale.

[Dalai Lama, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Dalai Lama's visit, the city of Blainville in my riding has accepted the invitation from members of the Canada-Tibet committee to raise the Tibetan flag in support of the Tibetan cause and its spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

Blainville is the first city in Quebec to raise the Tibetan flag today to officially support the cause. It did so in the tradition of major European cities and at the invitation of the Canada-Tibet committee, which has taken a stand against the human rights violations, particularly of freedom of religion, currently taking place in Tibet. Justice, compassion and freedom are fundamental and legitimate values to which Tibet is entitled.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join me in expressing, as Blainville has done, their solidarity with the Tibetan people. We also want to take this opportunity to wish the Dalai Lama an excellent stay.

[Anti-violence Organization, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the events at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, an organization known as TROP was formed to promote peace on the airwaves by raising awareness among youth and encouraging them to think about issues surrounding violence on television, in video games and on the Internet.

With the support of the Terrebonne Optimist Club, Claude Pagé, a committed volunteer, brought together a number of stakeholders to bring this program to the Saint-Louis-de-Terrebonne school. The program engages young people in conversations about important issues, such as violence, intimidation, bullying, chatting and the Internet.

Together with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I am very proud to congratulate and thank Claude Pagé and the Terrebonne Optimist Club for their ongoing work with young people.

[Special Import Measures Act, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question. Nonetheless, I do not know if I will have enough time to give him an answer. His question is related to the answer I wanted to give the hon. member for Repentigny about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. If I may, I would like to come back to that.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has to ensure that the aerospace market is not being hobbled. Again, this can cost between $50,000 and $200,000.

After companies have exhausted the normal recourse to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, it can become very expensive for them to exercise their rights—$400,000 in the case of Raleigh. The minister can veto and say that there was no dumping, when the proof is there—

[Special Import Measures Act, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Repentigny for his extremely important question. It touches on two things: first, the discretionary power of the minister to agree to antidumping measures or not and, second, the entire issue of the cost a business has to incur to appeal to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the CITT.

If a company suspects that there is dumping on the Canadian market, it is required to go to the Canada Revenue Agency first. The cost is between $50,000 and $100,000 and can even reach $200,000. If the Canada Revenue Agency finds that there was indeed dumping, then the Canadian International Trade Tribunal—

[Special Import Measures Act, October 18th, 2007]

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

There have been a few minor investments in research and development, but this is not enough and it is not what companies need.

Although the manufacturing sector is concentrated mainly in Quebec, Canadian as well as Quebec firms need safeguards to protect them against this huge influx of goods from China and other emerging economies.

We must ensure that companies from emerging economies do not import goods that they manufacture to Canada and sell them for less than on their domestic market. That is important.

As the Auditor General of Canada said, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not currently equipped to get to the bottom of things. We hope that putting criteria in place will make it possible to add skilled staff to get to the bottom of things.

[Special Import Measures Act, October 18th, 2007]

moved that Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-411, which I am introducing today at second reading, sets out criteria that we hope will make it easier to detect dumping and will provide better protection for Canadian businesses.

Competition in the business environment has changed enormously in recent years, and the manufacturing sector has been hard hit. The rise in value of the dollar is an aggravating factor that has dealt a serious blow to Quebec's economy. However, we believe that increasing competition from Asia is the main factor in the distress of many of our companies.

Between 2001 and 2006, Chinese imports to Canada nearly tripled, going from $12 billion to $32 billion. What is more, Canada now has a $26 billion trade deficit with China. In Quebec, traditional industries are suffering the most from Asian competition right now. Chinese textile and clothing imports have risen eightfold, furniture imports have increased sixfold and bicycle imports have grown fivefold. Needless to say, our traditional industries are suffering and job losses are multiplying.

The government is doing nothing to help these companies, and the manufacturing sector is being devastated. Between 2003 and 2006, 100,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in Quebec. In 2006 alone, the first year this government was in power, 35,000 jobs were lost in Quebec's manufacturing sector. And 2007 is shaping up to be even worse. Quebec had 29,000 fewer manufacturing jobs at the end of February than it had at the beginning of January this year.

The more traditional sectors were the hardest hit, including the clothing industry, which has lost almost half of its workers since 2000. The textile industry has lost a quarter of its employees since 2000. The furniture industry has also had a 22% drop in its workforce, and the forest industry has lost 10,000 jobs since April 2005 alone.

Currently, the industry is being left to fend for itself. This is the policy of this Conservative government, at a time when the industry is experiencing terrible difficulties.

Programs for the textile and clothing industries were cut from the budget in 2006. The main federal support program for research and development called Technology Partnerships Canada came to an end on December 31. The Conservatives claimed it was because of administrative problems, even though analyses confirmed that all these programs were very effective.

As for trade laws, the Conservatives decided not to implement the laws that would temporarily protect our companies and give them time to adapt to the new environment and to modernize.

As the members of the Standing Committee on Industry unanimously agreed in February 2007, trade laws must genuinely protect businesses from unfair competition, which is called dumping.

The Bloc Québécois has decided to propose a series of measures for Quebec industries that are facing the biggest challenges: the furniture, textile, clothing, forest and aerospace industries, the marine industry and high-tech industries in general.

I will backtrack a little in order to explain what dumping means.

Dumping is an unfair and illegal trade practice by which a company exports a product at a price that is lower than the normal production cost or lower than the price at which it is sold within the exporting country. When a business adopts practices of this nature, it must expect some countries to impose anti-dumping duties in order to counter such unfair practices.

How do we measure dumping? Generally, to determine if a foreign company is practising dumping, we must look at the price at which the product is sold within its own market. If the product's selling price is lower here, this constitutes dumping. We must be careful: this practice is only valuable if the fair price can really be identified. We can also ask the company to turn over its books and total all its costs in order to determine of the sale price reflects the production cost. Once again, this way of proceeding is only valuable if the production costs are accurate. They can be altered by government intervention in production costs. For example, an intervention might involve the government paying for the electricity needed to manufacture the product.

When the bank is government owned and gives a loan at a prime rate, or if the currency is artificially devalued—we need only think of the Chinese yuan, which is 40% lower than its real, normal value, specifically to help Chinese companies export their products—or when the books do not account for all the normal costs because of inadequate accounting practices, in these instances it is pointless to look at their accounting books.

Also, when various government practices play a role in altering the data, we will not necessarily be able to calculate the fair price. These practices could involve devaluing the dollar, indirect assistance or assistance to the business' subcontractors. We must look further. This is what bill C-411 proposes.

The United States and the European Union do more than just look to see whether the Chinese government is directly involved in setting prices on products, which is what the Government of Canada does. The U.S. and the EU have issued a series of criteria to assess whether the practices of the Chinese government falsify the costs and the prices. In particular, they look at the value of the currency. As I was saying earlier, it is widely known that the yuan is deliberately devalued to artificially lower the prices of Chinese exports. The regulations in China are also considered, but they know full well that these are not always on par with universally recognized regulations. This practice allows the Chinese to hide data. The U.S. and the EU go much further and do more investigating. The production cost and the input cost to manufacture a product can be artificially lowered if the supplier of the raw materials or parts is a government corporation. Thus, the EU and the U.S. evaluate the suppliers. While Canada imposes anti-dumping tax on only 17 Chinese products, the United States taxes 53. While the European Union taxes 49 products, Canada carries on with its 17 little Chinese products only and these products enter freely here in Canada.

Bill C-411 is based on legislation in effect in the United States and in Europe and lays out criteria to be taken into account to assess whether there is dumping, which we hope will better protect Quebec and Canada's businesses from the illegal practice of dumping.