Luc Malo

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to accept that those who defend workers can be killed while carrying out their responsibilities. In my opinion, it is our duty to reject this type of conduct.

Given the numbers provided by my colleague, it is obvious that we cannot accept this type of conduct. We also believe it is important for the government to revise its positions in all trade negotiations to ensure that trade agreements include clauses on the respect for international standards pertaining to labour rights, human rights and the environment.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague just read is along the lines of what I was saying when I mentioned that the government seems to be ignoring and not hearing the opposing views on this free trade agreement.

I must reiterate and also remind this citizen that the Bloc Québécois has always adhered to the principle that international trade must allow for the mutual enrichment and development of the parties. In the comments read by my colleague, it is evident that what this citizen has observed is not based on the principle of mutual enrichment and development. Therefore, it is important, when establishing trade relations, to always ensure that the government, in this case the Canadian government, is always able to keep applying a certain amount of pressure on the Colombian government with respect to improving the economic activities that take place in its territory. We believe that the wording of this free trade agreement will no longer allow the Government of Canada to apply this needed pressure.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are debating the subamendment put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to amend the amendment presented by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, which basically calls on this House to refuse to give its consent to Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

With this subamendment, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is asking that we consider this refusal, “including having heard vocal opposition to the accord from human rights organizations”. The member is therefore asking this House to refuse to grant its consent based on comments we have received from groups asking us not to support this bill. I must say there are many such groups, both in Canada and in Colombia.

I would like to name a few of those groups: the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

These are but a few of the organizations in Canada and Quebec calling on us to not support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I must say that, even in Colombia, civil society is trying to mobilize to show its lack of support for this agreement. However, we will agree that it is harder to organize in the rather difficult situation in Colombia.

I would point out that a number of members of our caucus met last February with members of the coalition of social movements and organizations of Colombia, which includes the national indigenous organization of Colombia, the popular women's organization, the national agrarian coordinator, the Christian movement for peace with justice and dignity, the national movement for health and social security, the Afro-American African roots movement and the Black Community Process.

It is extremely important in making a decision to check with a number of the players to see whether there might be a consensus regarding this agreement. Unfortunately, in this matter, I believe a number of voices were raised against the agreement.

In June 2008, here in Parliament, the Standing Committee on International Trade tabled a report entitled Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia. The report made a number of recommendations to the government, recommendations the government did not implement. It decided to have the agreement ratified without considering the very sound recommendations made by the committee, including that Canada not sign the free trade agreement with Colombia until it was confirmed that the improvements in human rights were maintained and continuing.

The government nevertheless decided to proceed with the agreement, even though according to the information available to us, Colombia's record continues to be disastrous.

The committee also recommended that governments mandate an independent body to study the impact on rights and the environment of such an agreement. Canada has not done any study. And if studies have been done, the public has not been informed of them.

As well, the committee recommended that a competent body be established to examine the repercussions on human rights comprehensively, impartially and independently.

All of this is part of the process that would have led Canada to sign this trade agreement with a concern for its potential repercussions on the Colombian people. These recommendations came from parliamentarians. Once again, we note the Conservative government's propensity to ignore majority proposals from the House. We have seen and identified a number of proposals right here in this House during the two mandates of the Conservatives. I have to say that this is not the first time the Standing Committee on International Trade has been rebuffed. Last year, the government decided to categorically reject the committee's report calling on it to exclude water from all trade agreements.

Once again, the government decided to ignore the opinion of the House. As members of Parliament, how are we supposed to support such an anti-democratic attitude? Parliament is the voice of the people. When parliamentarians unite to make recommendations to the government, it seems to me that the government should take note and act accordingly. But ironically, in the case of the free trade agreement with Colombia, the government says that it has to go through with its draft free trade agreement to support democracy in Colombia. How are we supposed to trust the government when it comes to signing a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement when it will not even listen to its own Parliament?

Of course such agreements have to protect investments. We are not opposed to that. However, we must ensure that these agreements respect both partners. The government is calling this a free trade agreement, but free trade agreements are usually negotiated between partners of similar size. In this case, the agreement seems designed to protect investments. In many cases, that makes sense because it creates a predictable environment and ensures that assets belonging to foreign investors will not be taken over in the event of nationalization. In this particular case, we have to ensure that such protection will not be detrimental to the country where the investment is made.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows some investors to initiate legal proceedings against countries that seek to change or improve their human rights or environmental laws. It is clear that the contents of this proposal are not in line with what members of the House called for in committee. The government's refusal to heed the recommendations of civil society groups is appalling.

[Petitions, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling two petitions calling for the resumption of full Canada Post services in the south end of Sainte-Julie. Eight hundred and forty-seven citizens living in this neighbourhood signed the petition, and 813 signatures have been duly certified.

According to the petitioners, the closing of the Domaine des Hauts-Bois outlet in Sainte-Julie deprives approximately 10,000 people of postal service in the vicinity of their homes and requires them to use a busy road to cross highway 20 in order to take advantage of this public service.

Many people have rightly demonstrated that action is urgently needed in this sector because of a new seniors residence with several hundred units.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 2009, in response to a question I asked, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said in this House that a proposal taking into account the situation the potato producers in Saint-Amable have been facing for almost three years would be presented by the end of May.

Today is June 18. Does this mean that, just as I feared, the minister's fine words should be added to a growing list of broken promises?

[Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear at this point that the result of the vote on Bill C-32 is no longer a secret to anyone, because, as hon. members will have noticed during routine proceedings today, a motion was unanimously adopted in this House to pass Bill C-32 unanimously at the end of this debate, which my NDP colleague will close.

I imagine that the reason is quite simple: all the parliamentarians in this House—on the advice of the Standing Committee on Health, on which I sit with my colleague from Repentigny—decided that all the measures in Bill C-32 were in keeping with the objective of the bill, which is to place greater limitations on young people's access to cigarettes and tobacco products.

This objective is very much in line with the purpose of the Tobacco Act that was enacted in 1997 and that stipulates in paragraph 4(c) that the purpose of the act is to protect the health of young persons by restricting access to tobacco products.

We know that Bill C-32 aims essentially to eliminate any attractive packaging that resembles candy and contains a single little cigar or just a few units. In fact, the weight limit is 1.4 grams. Removing these flavoured products from circulation broadens the scope of the act to include blunt wraps.

It is important to try as much as possible to remove from circulation and make inaccessible to our young people tobacco products that could introduce them much more easily and quickly to tobacco use, which we all know is harmful to health and leads to addiction.

Of course, in a few moments, when this debate concludes, we are going to make our decision, which, as I said earlier, is a unanimous vote in favour of this bill. It will be sent to the Senate to be studied there.

It is clear, however, that our actions as parliamentarians must not stop with this bill. As we know, manufacturers have a great deal of imagination and could try to find other ways to make tobacco more appealing and more accessible to young people. We must always remain vigilant. We mentioned this and talked about it during our examination at the Standing Committee on Health. We said that the government and this Parliament must remain truly open to adding any other products that might appear or are already on the market, and for which we do not have any evidence on how appealing they are to young people.

The ISQ revealed that more than one-third of secondary students had smoked a cigarillo in the month before the survey. I think that number speaks for itself and illustrates the importance of taking action.

I was also pleased to hear my colleague from Etobicoke North describe cigarette smuggling as a scourge and say that it encourages our young people to use tobacco products.

Indeed, according to the statistics I found by doing a little research, 200 illegal cigarettes can be purchased for about $6. What young person today does not have $6 in his or her pockets? And 200 cigarettes translates into a lot of heavy smoking.

It is therefore important that we make a greater, more concerted effort to put an end to cigarette smuggling. I am pleased to have my Liberal colleague's support on this, because our work as parliamentarians should focus on finding a solution to smuggling as quickly as possible. The problem is already well entrenched and critical.

The government also loses out because of smuggling. According to the most recent figures I could find, federal and provincial governments lose $1.6 billion in tax revenues every year because of cigarette smuggling.

I would like to talk about another matter for future consideration by all my colleagues. We heard in committee from cigarillo manufacturers that stopping the production and sale of cigarillos will lead to a substantial reduction of their revenue, not that generated by sales to young people but revenue from sales to adult clients who currently smoke these products. Lost revenue translates into future job losses. Out of concern for these workers, it is our duty as parliamentarians to reflect on the impact of this legislation on those workers in the industry who may lose their jobs and consider possible assistance for them. The government should also think about this when implementing the bill.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge all witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health during the course of this study. When we have to study a bill it is important to hear from experts and also from those people who make the fight against smoking a priority every day.

It is also important, as we deal with this matter, to congratulate and acknowledge all those who have quit smoking, something I wish to highlight. By quitting they have decided to do something positive for their health and we should give them credit for that.

I would also like to thank all stakeholders, including groups of young people who, every day, try to get the message out to our youth about the harmful effects of smoking and urge them to not start down the road to this addiction. As years go by, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop smoking. I am not speaking from experience because I have never smoked a cigarette or any other tobacco product. However, I have met many people and, in my previous speech in this House, I gave the example of Louis Lemieux.

[Bisphenol A, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. These substances attack the human reproductive system, with the negative end result of fewer and fewer boys being born. The CBC reported the case of a first nations community near Sarnia, Ontario where the proportion of newborn boys was under 35% in 2003.

Does the government plan to better regulate the use of chemicals, such as bisphenol A, which researchers have identified as the source of the problem?

[Bisphenol A, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, according to a study released yesterday, the effects of endocrine disrupting substances are responsible for the shrinking gap in the birth weights of newborn boys and girls between 1981 and 2003. Bisphenol A, which the government has banned in the manufacture of baby bottles, is one of those substances.

Now that the toxic effect of these substances on the fetus has been established, will the government finally ban this product in the manufacture of all food and beverage containers, as called for by the Bloc Québécois for over a year now?

[Artists, June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we are reaching the end of the debate on Motion M-297, which I was very happy to sponsor. I thank all the members who have taken part, even the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who unfortunately used his time to run the same old tape, which no one wants to hear anymore. I especially want to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert—who was just applauding—for her dedication and her enlightened look at this issue, especially during the tour of the regions of Quebec that we had the pleasure of making together and that took us to Trois-Rivières, Joliette, Rouyn-Noranda, Rimouski, Matane, Bonaventure, Laval, Montreal, Victoriaville, Sherbrooke and Saint-Jérôme. My biggest thanks go to the artists, artisans and cultural organizers who shared their opinions on a host of issues they have to deal with every day. I also thank them for their generous support for our efforts to have this motion adopted by all the elected members in this House. I hope that the practical examples that I have taken from those meetings and will share with you in the too-short time I have left will convince even the most skeptical among us of the importance of adopting this motion.

Regarding the Canada Council of the Arts, I can make three observations. The first is that many organizations told us that they had seen their support from the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec increase, but that they had received nothing more from its federal counterpart. Second, other organizations such as Festival La Virée in Carleton were simply cut off. Third, a number of cultural groups would like to receive support for operating expenses instead of support for individual projects.

These are just a few examples that show that Canada Council funding needs to be increased.

As for the programs that were cut, it seems clear to me that PromArt and Trade Routes are the ones that the stakeholders we met with on our tour were most upset about.

What will become of all those artists and all those troupes that need to present their creations abroad in order to develop and innovate? In Sherbrooke, I heard a comment that does not bode well. The largest institutions that can no longer afford to travel abroad will try to save their skin in Quebec, leaving little or no room for the smallest productions that managed to survive thanks to the domestic market up to now. Our small population base and the Quebec government's limited financial resources will not be enough to support everyone. This is what we could call the loss of diversity by suffocation.

In that context, what is to become of art other than entertainment? I pass that question on to you, and it could not be more pertinent.

In Victoriaville, Suzanne Richard, representing the Quebec artistic trades council, emphasized how necessary the assistance to artisans through Trade Routes is for the international dissemination of these unique skills. Without its support, this presence in other countries is compromised, yet it constitutes one of the criteria considered by the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec. To my mind, this is one more proof that the government carried out no impact studies whatsoever on the programs it abolished. That is, at the very least, an irresponsible way to proceed.

What about the Laval theatre troupe, Bluff, which was about to apply for funding from PromArt? Does it have to cancel a production it thought was well on the way to being exported? Where will the Sages Fous perform after the 375th birthday of Trois-Rivières if PromArt is not restored? There are plenty of other questions like these.

We were told in Montreal that foreign purchasers of cultural and artistic productions do not understand why Canada does not foot the bill for artists' and performers' travel and the shipping of their equipment, when this is what is done elsewhere. All this is totally unacceptable.

In addition to their direct impact, I invite my colleagues to reflect on another consequence of these cuts. Will the quality of the artists invited to teach or exhibit their art suffer because they no longer have the opportunity for professional development with artists and the public in other countries? That is a concern raised by the chair of the board of directors of the Concerts aux Îles du Bic.

At our meetings, many comments were made about cultural programs in general. The difficulty of keeping federal programs in sync with the realities of Quebec regions was often mentioned. It is obvious that, in light of this concern, the ideal approach would be for these programs and their budgets to be transferred to the Quebec government. While waiting for that to happen, we can vote for motion M-297.

We came to the same conclusion wherever we went in Quebec and I am convinced that it cannot be any different in Saguenay and Montérégie, where we will be going in a few days. Abolishing these seven programs not only creates uncertainty in the cultural sector, but it also results in the cancellation of foreign tours and layoffs by companies that are barely hanging on.

[Medical Isotopes, June 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, experts including Dr. Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, have condemned Canada's lack of leadership on the isotope issue and its lack of credibility in the eyes of the international community. Dr. François Lamoureux has even suggested setting up an independent international commission to get a clear picture of the situation.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that he must fire his minister and replace her so that the government can finally start again on a solid footing in order to manage the isotope crisis?