Diane Bourgeois

[International Aid, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is rushing out of the country to show how generous Canada is. Still, the reality is that the level of international aid, far from increasing, is stagnating. Moreover, in 2002-03, Canada ranked 12th among OECD countries, having slipped from sixth place seven years previously.

Faced with such devastating figures, can the government deny that, ever since the Liberals came to power, Canada has been slowly and continuously withdrawing from foreign aid?

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the bill now before us, namely Bill C-31. This gives me a chance to illustrate the total lack of consistency displayed by the Liberal government in many areas. This inconsistency is all the more noticeable in foreign affairs and international trade.

I am talking about inconsistency, because Bill C-31 is nothing less than a step backward after what a previous Liberal government, that of Pierre Trudeau, undertook in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time, the federal government decided to integrate the International Trade staff with the Foreign Affairs staff. Most of the decisions made under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau sought to integrate not only the employees, but also their efforts, the efforts of each of the two entities of the Department of Foreign Affairs, so that trade would be a tool at the service of Canada's foreign policy.

Now, the government is proposing two bills. Today, we are dealing with Bill C-31, but Bill C-32 will soon follow. Both of them have the effect of splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two distinct departments. From the outset, this is a futile exercise that is pointless, since everything has already been decided and the process is already underway. Indeed, the two bills merely confirm a change that has already been announced by a ministerial order dated December 12, 2003, which is the day the member for LaSalle—Émard was sworn in as Prime Minister.

The issue of the democratic deficit was raised. The Prime Minister likes to seize every opportunity to say that he will solve the democratic deficit. However, on the day that he was sworn in, he decided alone to split a department into two entities.

What I find truly astonishing in the government's action, is above all this blatant lack of transparency. As I mentioned, the split was announced on the very day that the Prime Minister assumed his duties. The Liberals cannot in any way claim that they held consultations on this issue. The fact is there were never any consultations.

In November, at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was absolutely unable to explain the need for this separation. We are served up a fait accompli with the same arrogance this government displayed when it had a majority. I want to remind the Liberal members that they are in a minority in this House and that they better realize it as soon as possible.

It would have been interesting to see the government use some logic in its approach. I mean that it could have used the foreign policy review as a chance to consult the public, NGOs, and parliamentarians in order to get their view on international policy. Unfortunately, there will be no foreign policy review. It is highly likely that the interested parties will never be consulted.

We also learned last week that the Prime Minister was not satisfied with the work of his officials and that he asked for the international policy review to be drafted by an Oxford University professor. Just imagine.

In the meantime, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation has come forward and expressed a strong desire to intervene and make its point known to the government, but to no avail. Any request to the Prime Minister to this effect falls on deaf ears.

Let us talk about the foreign policy review. It would have been a good idea to hold a consultation in which interested parties could have participated. The parties could have explained some basic things to the government. Unfortunately they will slip under the radar should these two bills be passed.

I am talking about human rights. We are living in a world where 11 million children under the age of five die each year from easily preventable diseases; where close to 1 billion people do not have access to safe water; where many girls and women do not enjoy the same rights, and dignity, as boys and men; where environmental degradation is both a cause and a symptom of poverty.

In light of this, in September 2000, at the United Nations, world leaders subscribed to an ideal of global justice for the 21st century, promising to achieve the millennium objectives to reduce poverty by half by the year 2015. All subscribed to the principle that, to achieve better living conditions for the people, their governments had to be stable, predictable and fair, and their values had to be able to guide social, political and economic behaviour. That is when the notion of governance started to emerge as a key to development. This is why, in international instruments, governance is taken seriously.

Statements on poverty reduction, prosperity and peace all deal with enhancing governance. Good governance is interpreted as being both a development tool and a development objective, involving a broad range of elements in the fight against poverty, including public sector workings, democratic institutions, the political leadership, civil society, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

I would like to read an excerpt from an Amnesty International report dated December 2004, which states the following:

Canadian companies span the world. Resourcecompanies drill for oil and dig for minerals in isolated, far-flung corners. Telecommunicationsfirms do business on every continent. Foreign investment flows in and out of Canada like never before. As global trade expands and the reach and impact of corporate Canada grows, it becomes increasinglyimportant to ensure that Canadiansdo business in ways that safeguard and promote fundamental human rights and do not directly or indirectly lead to human rights violations.

We believe that to establish a completely separate Department of International Trade will not prevent rights from being violated because, who, then, will keep an eye on how Canadian companies take human rights into account?

In this world of free trade, we clearly see the emergence of various economies, indeed, a number of powers in direct competition with our economy. Although it is wonderful to see countries succeed, I am greatly concerned by the realization that some countries are doing so at the expense of the fundamental rights of their citizens. Quebeckers have always strongly defended human rights, and the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that any review of Canadian foreign policy must refer directly to this.

Last week, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation contacted me to say that, during the meeting of donor countries in Colombia, Canada was preparing to take a dramatic backward step on human rights. In the first half of 2005, Canada is chairing the group of 24 donor countries providing aid to Colombia.

So, we would expect Canada to take advantage of its role and strongly insist that Colombia take concrete measures to comply with the recommendations of the UN High Commission for Human Rights for a reform of human rights there. It is common knowledge that Colombia currently has the highest number of human rights violations.

However, the Canadian government allowed—this is important—donor countries providing aid to Colombia to relax their rules on granting international aid. This means that they did not consider human rights, they did not consider the climate in Colombia. Business comes first. Human rights are set aside.

Canada was the chair at that meeting and should have insisted with the Colombian government that the situation in its country be recognized, a situation the world recognizes and the UN recognizes, the existence of an armed conflict and a humanitarian crisis. However, Canada did not assert itself. It caved, no doubt—we may think—for a few dollars. It put the issue of respect for human rights on the back burner. Yet, of all the countries in the Americas, Colombia has the highest number of human rights violations each year.This is an extremely sad example of this government's vision, which puts the economy above fundamental values such as human rights and the fight against poverty in developing countries.

It is obvious to me and my colleagues that the structure prior to the December 12 order in council, allowed the government to more easily and more effectively incorporate its human rights concerns into its trade policy. At least, we could expect good governance would be incorporated in this regard. Unfortunately, now it has created a distinct Department of International Trade, which has the sole objectives of promoting trade, investment partnerships and trade and economic policy, who, then, is going to ensure that the objectives of promoting human rights will be considered?

I repeat. All these arguments should have been expressed and presented as part of the Canadian foreign policy review. Evidently, the Prime Minister is having trouble delivering the goods he promised, because that review has been a long time coming. Now, looking at what is going on, I wonder how much he really wanted that review.

Moreover, when I was describing the government's inconsistency, earlier, I was also thinking about the current discontent in CIDA concerning Canada Corps or Solidarity Canada. This apparently will likely be the umbrella organization for CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, which concerns itself with such things as human rights, and would coordinate Canadian projects abroad. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister travelled around. He met people who were supposedly in international solidarity and promised them a distinct agency. He created Canada Corps or Solidarity Canada, and gave it $15 million in operating funds. However, he did not make certain that Canada Corps and CIDA would work together.

We recently attended a fine briefing by CIDA officials, who told us, “We don't know what to do with Canada Corps. It was created by the Prime Minister. It is a promise made by the Prime Minister, and we don't know what to do with it.” It is a good example of the improvisations that make the NGOs more than a little worried. It causes real discontent in a number of organizations that cannot see how the functions of the various government instruments for international aid will work out in practice.

We are seeing so much improvisation within this government that I think I have got a handle on how its decision-making process works. The PM draws the country's international and trade policies on the corner of a table and then submits them to Cabinet. They adopt without turning a hair and without consultation. Scandalous.

This way of doing things is scandalous. I will go still further. I question the motives of the Prime Minister. We know that his family still owns ships. And we are well aware that he is capable of changing legislation to benefit businesses owned by himself, those close to him, or his little millionaire or billionaire friends, so is he not capable of trying to relieve the business he owns of any foreign policy that would limit trade with a certain category of country where there is no respect of human rights?

Or yet again, is he trying to weaken Canadian foreign policy in order to ensure that polluting businesses, with which he has close connections, can get around the rules on environment? These are all reasons for which the Bloc Québécois is going to oppose the bill we have before us.

I will just state in closing that when I see the way the federal Liberals make use of power, particularly as far as international relations are concerned, it makes me dream of a future sovereign Quebec and what it could accomplish.

That Quebec will be an alterglobalist Quebec, one that respects human rights and will take steps to promote human rights worldwide.

That Quebec will be in solidarity with the workers of the third world, who have such difficulty making a living.

I allow myself to dream and to think that Quebec will soon become a country, very soon I hope.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about creating jobs, I should point out that, in Mexico, there are currently 2 million people working in maquiladoras, except that these people are losing their jobs, precisely because companies like General Motors Canada, which had opened plants there, are closing down their operations and moving to China, with the assurance that their costs will be lower in China. Canada is opening doors for these businesses in China.

On the environmental front, the businesses which operated in maquiladora areas have contaminated the land in northern Mexico. It was contaminated by lead, and the businesses are not even required to decontaminate.

At present, wages are low. In the future, even larger numbers of people will be living in poverty because they are migrants who travel from the south to the north of Mexico to work in plants opening up trade between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. These people are living in shanties, because these are Indians from the north or from the south who migrate to these businesses.

My hon. colleague would be well advised to get the facts.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I am partly in agreement with a member opposite. However, today I agree in part with the hon. member's presentation on our trade with the United States and Mexico. He is right when he says that we are doing business with these countries and that there is a huge import and export market. However, he would be well advised to inquire about the impact of all these imports and exports.

We have been debating Bill C-31 for a few days and I keep getting back to the issue of the maquiladoras, in Mexico. It is the best example, it is at the core of our discussions. I hope the hon. member has already done some research on this issue.

The maquiladoras are free trade zones where Canadian businesses, among others, have settled and are making big bucks. These companies are not required to reinvest anything, whether it is in terms of labour or infrastructures. Wages are very low and working conditions are terrible. These companies would rather invest in buses to pick up workers and bring them to their workplace, thus ensuring that they are indeed at work doing their job, than invest to provide these workers with decent living conditions. There is no infrastructure. The water is literally undrinkable, except on the company's premises. The ground is polluted all around the plants. Human rights are not respected. These companies just focus on trade.

The hon. member talked about competition, productivity, competitiveness and trade relations. He never said anything about the impact on the population.

In light of these facts, I have a question for him. Does he realize that trade relations that are strictly based on competition totally ignore the development or the protection of human rights? Can the hon. member tell me whether Bill C-31 includes a guarantee that human rights will be protected?

[Teacher's Week, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this year, from February 6 to 12, we have an opportunity to formally thank teachers for the professionalism they bring to their work with young people each and every day.

Teaching is more than just transferring knowledge, it is about promoting the values of equality and justice, freedom and cooperation. It is about working against marginalization and failure. It is about shaping independent and responsible citizens capable of critical thinking. It is multi-faceted.

Teaching is also about meeting a number of daily challenges. It is about helping young people achieve their goals and giving them the inspiration to pursue their studies. It is about transmitting enthusiasm for life and shaping the adults of tomorrow.

As a former teacher, I invite my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois to join me in applauding Quebec's teachers and expressing our gratitude to them.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, no one can object to the fact that Canadian firms can and must become more competitive on the world market. However, there are questions to be asked on another aspect: we will be more competitive, but at what price?

A decade ago, a number of our Canadian firms set up in Mexico. With the approval of the Mexican government, they created what are called the maquiladoras. I believe there are also some in the Yucatan. Maquiladoras are free economic zones—areas where businesses can locate without paying duties or income taxes. On the premise that they get people working, governments leave them alone to do business. The maquiladoras we are familiar with are primarily around Ciudad Juarez on the Mexico-Texas border.

The Mexican maquiladoras now employ over 2 million workers. These people come from all over northern Mexico, Central America and South America. They work for $1 or $2 a day. There are Canadian firms—I know; I have seen them; I took pictures of them—located there, which have received assistance from the Government of Canada. At present the two departments, international trade and foreign affairs, are together. People are already being exploited without any attention being paid. Their working conditions are being negotiated downwards.

What is more, the Canadian government has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It has not ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right. It has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. It has not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.

What will happen, then, in a world where international trade is on one side and human rights on the other? I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me how we are promoting the best interests of human beings through competition.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster provided us with the pros and cons as well as observations by other people outside Parliament. As his party's critic, would he tell me—I did not understand since it was not clear—whether he is for or against splitting these two departments and why. I want this to be clear.

[André Shatskoff, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously honoured to pay tribute to Mr. André Shatskoff, a man with a big heart who has for the past 17 years been volunteering in our community.

As the director general of Caisse populaire Desjardins de Terrebonne, board member of the Chamber of Commerce and founding president of the Terrebonne cultural development society, he has just achieved his dream of providing the citizens of Terrebonne with one of the most beautiful theatres in Quebec. the new Théâtre du Vieux-Terrebonne.

In addition, he was recently named volunteer of the year for 2004 by the newspaper La Revue .

The Bloc Québécois congratulates André Shatskoff for his remarkable accomplishments. A tireless and dedicated volunteer for social, cultural and economic causes, there is no doubt that he is deserving of our deepest respect.

Congratulations, Mr. Shatskoff.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for making such a clear presentation. He clearly demonstrated the futility of this exercise, since everything is already firmly in place. As far as I am concerned, I think the whole thing is turning into a circus.

The Prime Minister announced a review of our foreign policy. As we know, he was not pleased with what his public servants had given him. Therefore, he asked a professor from Oxford University to conduct this review of Canada's foreign policy. Based on what we know, on what the media are telling us, it seems that our foreign policy will be refocused on the community, on citizens.

Here is my first question: does the hon. member not think that it would have been better to wait for the findings of that study on foreign policy and for the work of that expert, before splitting the department in two?

Second, Canada has endorsed the millennium development objectives proposed by the UN. One of these objectives is to pursue the implementation of a trade system that is based on a commitment to good governance, to development and to fighting poverty, both at the national and international levels. This is one of the objectives that Canada supported.

I want to ask the hon. member how Canada will meet this objective, now that it has two committees, two departments that are totally different and that may possibly no longer talk to each other?

[Department of International Trade Act, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the minister has painted a somewhat bleak picture of what would happen if the two departments, namely International Trade and Foreign Affairs, were not split.

Roughly a year ago, I was fortunate enough to travel to Mexico, mainly to Ciudad Juarez, where maquiladoras are located. Some 2 million people live in extreme poverty there. Of these maquiladoras , 50% are Canadian companies, which I will not be naming for now. People are paid $1 or $2 dollars a day for their work. They live in extreme poverty.

Some companies negotiate contracts for their workforce which are below the international standards. That is what we learned. Canada is well aware of that. It is an accomplice in that.

Moreover, Canada has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. Some Mexicans come up here to work. They have problems with Canadian companies. Canada has not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.

And now, the minister shows up and talks about trading with the United States, Mexico and China, the latter, a country which does not respect human rights.

My question to the minister is the following: Trading is fine, but in your bill, is mention made of protecting human rights?