Meili Faille

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is currently doing nothing to force Canadian companies to be socially responsible when they invest abroad.

The Bloc Québécois has always subscribed to the principle that international trade must allow for the mutual enrichment and development of the parties. The new rules in the 2010 budget create loopholes that benefit extractive and mining companies.

I am opposed to this fast tracking procedure, which would prevent parliamentarians from fully examining all important aspects affecting the Colombian population.

There are new facts and elements that must be studied further. I feel we should exercise due diligence with a request to fast track the adoption of an international agreement between Canada and Colombia.

How can the department attempt to impose this agreement when Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the other government departments involved do not follow up on requests for access to information on the matter?

[Justice, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is continuing to impose its regressive Conservative agenda by stealth. Just as it did when it wanted to dismantle the gun registry, it is introducing another private member's bill to reopen the abortion debate. The Prime Minister, who promised not to challenge the right to abortion, has nonetheless given this bill his blessing.

When will the government stop imposing its regressive ideology on the women of Quebec?

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-473, An Act to protect insignia of military orders, decorations and medals of cultural significance for future generations.

I met with the members of the Hudson Legion last week. I am always moved when I speak with veterans. Each medal and decoration marks an event in their military career and the role they played in various theatres of operation. I met with a number of veterans when I worked on the issue of Canadians who had lost their citizenship. These people were commonly known as Lost Canadians. They also take a great interest in the transfer of the last veterans hospital. They talked to me about the situation many of them are in and how they live in poverty. It is very disturbing. I believe we must do much more for them.

The bill has to do with part of our heritage and is intended to protect medals that were presented to soldiers who brought honour to us. I would first like to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for introducing this bill. It is a first step, but I believe that he will agree that we can do much more for these veterans.

I am also surprised at the narrow definition given to “veterans”, because many members of allied forces fought alongside our veterans, as the department currently defines them. Even though these people have been in Canada for 40 or 50 years, they still do not have privileged access to Ste. Anne's Hospital. We still have a lot of work to do on this.

As its title indicates, Bill C-473 is designed to protect Canadian medals and insignia of military orders that are culturally significant to Canada. The cultural significance of a decoration is determined by the regulations in this case. To keep decorations in Canada, the bill we are debating today would place tighter restrictions on the transfer of insignia of military orders, decorations and medals. It would be against the law to transfer an insignia of cultural significance to a non-resident, that is to say, someone who is neither a permanent resident nor a citizen of Canada. I encourage the committee that, I hope, will study this bill to review certain passages pertaining to citizenship.

I do not know if the member for Perth—Wellington realizes it, but more veterans have lost their citizenship. The last surviving veteran of World War I, Mr. Babcock, was not a Canadian citizen and the Prime Minister had to hop on a plane to restore it. The citizenship aspect should be revisited to prevent creating further irritants for veterans. Therefore, I invite the committee to examine this point and to do some checking.

This bill contains provisions that would allow any person to transfer a decoration provided that they have first tried to sell it at its fair market value to the Canadian War Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization or the Department of Canadian Heritage, in other words the Government of Canada. If the government refuses to purchase it and provides written confirmation to this effect or has not accepted the offer within 120 days after receiving it, the person may then transfer the decoration to a non-resident. As I mentioned, a number of veterans did not regain their Canadian citizenship before dying. That was the case for Mr. Vallière, among others. We should empathize with this situation, especially for the family's sake.

Bill C-374 indicates that all these restrictive measures do not apply to the transfer of a decoration to a near relative, which means the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, brother or sister of the owner of an insignia. At this stage, I find it unacceptable that spouses are excluded from this bill. I believe that this oversight will be corrected by the committee.

For people who do comply with the provisions of the bill, specific paragraphs in the bill stipulate that if a Canadian transfers a decoration considered “cultural property” in violation of the provisions I just mentioned, that person is committing an offence punishable by a fine in an amount that does not exceed five times the market value of the insignia. I would like to know how the government will contact the owners of insignia and medals. Is there a list of these persons? I also wonder how veterans will be advised of the changes proposed in this bill.

In the past, we have had a difficult time reaching veterans, even for a law as important as the Citizenship Act. So this will be an important part of the implementation of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-473 and would like it to be examined in committee. That will give us an opportunity to hear from witnesses and examine various aspects of the bill in greater depth.

We are also in favour of the principle of the bill because it is intended to conserve and protect heritage artifacts. Such artifacts are part of the military history of any country that presents military insignia, orders, decorations and medals to men and women to thank them for their actions and for their participation in various military missions.

In bestowing these decorations, a country recognizes the sacrifices and achievements of those who have served the cause of peace and freedom throughout the world over the years. Everyone here knows that our military personnel work hard and overcome many challenges. Many sustain serious injury, and some die.

Without hesitation, they accept the most dangerous missions with humility, determination and courage. Collectively, we have an obligation to recognize and support these soldiers.

We believe that all governments can and must do what they can to preserve the cultures and histories of the peoples under their authority. Military history and recognition of the dedication of the men and women in uniform are important parts of the history of a people.

That said, I must point out that the bill introduced by the member aims to protect a cultural asset that is military in nature.

The Conservatives wish to prove their willingness to preserve military history. Although we support this praiseworthy initiative, the Bloc Québécois urges the Conservative government to take concrete action to support the entire cultural sector.

We support the bill to protect one form of military culture. However, we insist that this government invest more in the protection and promotion of the culture and history of Quebec.

I would like to close by pointing out that for many veterans, medals are very important and so is the history behind every one of them.

The fact that enacting such a bill might be difficult and might touch some nerves must not be taken lightly.

I would also like the government to do more to address the poverty that prevails in that community.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9 on the implementation of the 2010 budget. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke.

In the 2010 budget, the demands of our constituents have been completely ignored or perhaps deliberately undervalued. That is completely unacceptable. For several years, we have been doing our job and have told the government that it needed to help Quebeckers. It needed to come up with a plan to help workers in the hardest hit sectors in Quebec.

We presented measures in good faith to help businesses make it through the economic crisis and to help people. The Bloc Québécois told the federal government that it could take this opportunity to settle a number of compensation claims with Quebec.

We proposed ways to combat the sophisticated schemes that enable the extremely wealthy to avoid paying taxes on their income. We proposed a 1% tax on individuals with a yearly income of over $150,000.

What is even more appalling is that the government ignored our proposal to eliminate the tax breaks given to the oil industry. We asked the government to treat Quebec's forestry and manufacturing industries fairly and equitably, by giving the Quebec industries the same breaks it gave to Ontario.

What does the government propose? It is maintaining the increases in military spending and completely ignoring the reality facing our forestry industry, investing very little in Quebec. It is completely ignoring sectors that have been suffering harshly for far too long.

In Bill C-290, the Bloc Québécois proposed a measure to help thousands of retirees who have been cheated. Over 20,000 workers and retirees will see their pension plans cut by about 30% following an Ontario Superior Court decision to reject an agreement between Nortel and its pensioners. The Conservative government is doing nothing to help them, and yet there are solutions.

The question asked by my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is clear. Will the government support the Bloc Québécois' bill to help the Nortel, Atlas and Jeffrey mine workers whose pension plans have been cut off?

The Prime Minister wants to review Canada's retirement income system. If the past is any indication and we remember what the government did to the employment insurance system, we have every reason to fear the worst: we will find ourselves with a program that does not meet the needs of retirees.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that the federal government recognizes that we must make major changes to better protect salaries and pensions. However, these measures do not allay the Bloc Québécois' concerns about declining securities values that, in times of economic crisis, lower the value of pension funds.

If a company goes bankrupt, its pension fund will be unable to fulfill its obligation to beneficiaries, but not because the company fails to make its regular contributions to the pension fund.

The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to put pension plans set up by companies under federal jurisdiction in trust. That is what Quebec does to prevent companies from liquidating pension funds when the securities market is at a low point. The Bloc Québécois also wants disabled workers insured through self-insurance plans to have preferred creditor status.

The proposal in the budget is not good enough. It does not meet people's needs.

Let us turn now to seniors, who have been largely forgotten in the federal budget. How can the government claim to defend people's interests? For over nine years now, we have been calling for improvements to the guaranteed income supplement. In December 2001, we learned that over 270,000 Canadian seniors, including over 68,000 in Quebec, who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it. They were entitled to that money. Our poorest seniors are suffering as a result. They are the ones bearing the burden of this government's spending.

Last week, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé rose in the House to criticize the rising rate of poverty among seniors. He cited a Conference Board of Canada study showing that between 1995 and 2005, the poverty rate among seniors doubled.

In an effort to promote equality and social justice, the Bloc Québécois has proposed simple, realistic measures to solve this problem and fight poverty among society's poorest.

Nowhere does Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, propose ways to decrease the poverty rate among seniors. The bill says nothing about this, and that is unacceptable. Improving benefits and paying seniors money that is owing them would prevent an increase in poverty.

The government should start by increasing by $100 a month the guaranteed income supplement that people currently receive. It should also consider the poverty in which many seniors live. Given the cost of urban housing—we can all do this exercise in our own ridings—and the fact that this cost and many utility charges are rising, the amount seniors currently receive is not enough. It should be increased, but neither budget 2010 nor the minister's Bill C-9 provides for an increase.

The program should also include individuals aged 65 and over who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The government says that it cannot locate these people. It needs to make an effort to find them, even if it tries just once.

One reason why people do not receive the guaranteed income supplement is that they are not aware of the program. Administrative delays are also to blame. The result is that people do not get everything they are entitled to.

The Conservative government should introduce a measure to pay the guaranteed income supplement retroactively. People have been hurt. The solution is simple: make retroactive payments. But Bill C-9 contains no such measure.

The measures in Bill C-9 are not enough and do not meet people's needs.

We also proposed that the government keep paying old age security and the guaranteed income supplement for at least six months after the recipient's death, to help his or her survivor through that difficult time. Again, there is nothing in the bill to meet these expressed needs, such as an amendment to the Income Tax Act or changes to other programs.

Bill C-9, however, contains measures that were not in the budget, for instance, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and the creation of an employment insurance operating account. There is no mention of a need for reform.

Among the measures not included in the budget which are included in Bill C-9, there is the liberalization of one of Canada Post's business lines. In the last session and previous ones, the government tried to pass Bill C-44 without much success in the House. With this bill now, it is trying to put something in place that the members of this House did not agree with.

To sum up the first part of my speech, I would say that the government did not listen to the various associations that support what I just said, associations like the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, also known as FADOQ. The government is also ignoring the motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling on the federal government to compensate those seniors who have been shortchanged. It was asking that seniors be refunded. Despite all this support, the federal government simply failed to act.

Allow me to pass on what the seniors with whom I met in February told me. They are asking that the public sign their petition. They are currently campaigning to raise public awareness of what is not in the budget.

I think that the government's message is pretty simple, and the campaign slogan pretty clear. I am mentioning it here because these people need the government to hear their slogan at least one. Their slogan is: “The alarm is sounding. React!” That is what seniors want the government to do.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I find the parliamentary secretary's reaction is quite surprising. I hope he will agree with the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, one of his Conservative colleagues.

We must take a stand with the artists. They deserve an income. I held consultations in Vaudreuil—Soulanges during prorogation. I met artists and people who promote Quebec culture in the Montérégie region. These people agree with the Bloc Québécois and the position that my colleague so expertly defended.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague. What was the amount of the royalties received by artists through the current law?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in the House of Commons today to denounce Bill C-2, the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. There are many reasons why I disagree with this bill as it has been introduced by the Conservative government.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made some good points about human rights and spoke about the ineffectiveness of parallel agreements. In my speech I will touch on these issues as well.

For Quebeckers and the citizens of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, certain arguments have come to the forefront of this debate: environmental protection, respect for workers' rights and respect for the most fundamental human rights of the Colombian people.

I would like to explain why I am worried that Bill C-2 will pass. The Canadian government's main motivation is not trade. It is looking to make life easier for the Canadian investors, particularly in mining, who will invest in Colombia. The desire to protect Canadian investments abroad is legitimate. However, it seems obvious to me that this must not be done at the expense of the fundamental rights of Colombians.

I am worried that this agreement would be detrimental to the development of the people of Colombia. We must understand that increased trade should not be the government's only motivation. An agreement such as this must also contain provisions that allow us to establish a position of strength and, through negotiations, to work toward both implementing social measures that would benefit Colombians and establishing rules that respect the environment and laws that improve the living conditions of workers.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia seems ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment.

To be more specific, we feel that these provisions could be harmful for a country where labour laws, environmental laws and respect for the people are uncertain at best. While attempting to protect our investments, the Canadian government is putting itself in a situation where it could increase the risk of delaying social and environmental progress in a country in great need of such progress.

I would like to point out that my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher referred to some of the organizations that have reported on the situation in Colombia. I thank him for doing that. Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world and certainly in Latin America.

The government of Colombia has the right to adopt, and should adopt, legislation to protect its environment and improve the quality of life of its people. We must determine whether it has the means to implement such measures and the means to fulfill its ambitions.

Yes, this regulation could cause companies that have invested in that country to lose some profits. We need to have some protection against nationalization without compensation, I do admit, but we also must include some provisions that will allow Canada to put pressure on the Colombian authorities.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as it stands.

Under no circumstances should the Canadian government swap its ability to pressure the Colombian government to respect human rights and protect the environment for guaranteed profits from investments by Canadian companies abroad.

I would point out that ratification of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement is also being delayed, particularly because they are trying to clear up concerns over human rights abuses. It is a matter of justice.

I consulted a number of people in my riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I cannot support the bill in its current form until Colombia brings in stricter legislation to protect minimum labour standards and the union movement, as well as stricter legislation to protect the environment.

The advantage of establishing a trade agreement with a country lies in the ability to develop a partnership with it. When economic barriers are reduced, trade between the two countries can increase. That is what one would hope to achieve with an agreement between Canada and Colombia. The likelihood of that happening in the near future is pretty low, though, considering the means being used.

When we look at the figures for imports and exports between Canada and Colombia, we can see that, not surprisingly, the vast majority of Canadian investments are in the excavating industry, specifically in mining. In 2007, imports in that sector accounted for nearly 31% of all imports from Colombia. In dollar figures, this represents almost $138 million. Canada buys only primary commodities from Colombia. We import $155 million worth of coffee, $72 million worth of bananas and $62 million worth of cut flowers. Adding agricultural and agri-food products brings the total to $387 million. Foreign direct investment in Canada is approximately $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia is approximately $1 billion.

Here are the aggregate trade data. In 2008, Canadian imports were rising and totalled $644 million, as were Canadian exports, which totalled $704 million. The pace of growth is quite varied, just as we predicted during the debate in the last session. In Quebec, imports amounted to $88 million. That is a 0.5% decrease from 2007. Quebec imports into Colombia represented about 14% of Canada's total imports. Exports amounted to $120 million in 2008 and accounted for about 17% of Canadian exports to Colombia. Quebec exports increased by a little less than 2% between 2007 and 2008.

Canada has other trading partners in Latin America and the Caribbean that rank higher than Colombia. In recent years, trade between Canada and the other Latin American countries has increased considerably, which has meant a smaller share of trade with Colombia than with other countries in the region.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Colombia is growing exponentially. To create a predictable environment and ensure that foreign investors will not be dispossessed of their property or have it nationalized without compensation, countries conclude treaties protecting investment. That is standard procedure and the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this kind of treaty.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States had a chapter on protecting investment—chapter 16—and was the first agreement in the world to include a dispute settlement mechanism which both countries could use. The FTA worked very well. No cases of discriminatory measures against foreign investors were reported and none were taken to the arbitration panel. During the five years the FTA was in effect, the value of Canadian investments in the United States increased by 41%.

However, things went downhill with chapter 11 of NAFTA. By virtue of chapter 11 on investment, foreign investors can go directly to international courts, bypassing the filter of the public good that governments would apply. The concept of expropriation is so broad that any legislation that might have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be interpreted as expropriation and give rise to a lawsuit. In addition, the amount of the suit is not limited to the amount of the investment and includes all potential future profits. It is completely abusive.

This chapter has been decried by everyone. As soon as legislation, for example to protect the environment, is passed and reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government is exposed to astronomical lawsuits. Over the years, Ottawa signed several bilateral agreements that basically copied chapter 11 of NAFTA. There was so much criticism, however, that the Liberals stopped signing these kinds of agreements. It is very hard to understand their about-face in this regard, and I hope they will review their position and vote against the present agreement.

Under the Conservatives, Ottawa returned to its old ways and negotiated many such agreements. In the case of Colombia, the Conservative government has ceded to multinationals the task of determining the common good.

The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia because it contains clauses copied wholesale from chapter 11 of NAFTA. The Bloc wants the government to return to the previous approach used in treaties, which did not amount to a charter for the multinationals at the expense of the common good.

The displacement of communities is a serious problem in Colombia. There are several reasons for this human disaster, including internal conflicts within the government, paramilitary groups and guerrillas.

The arrival of extractive industries is also a major reason for forced migration.

[Rights & Democracy, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is so determined to shove its right-wing ideology down our throats that it is refusing, for no valid reason, to bring in Suzanne Trépanier, the wife of the former president of Rights & Democracy, to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, so that she can testify about the government's interference in this organization.

What is the government trying to hide by blocking her testimony?

[International Cooperation, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to export their right-wing ideology by denying women in developing countries access to contraception and abortion. Despite the Minister of Foreign Affairs' flip-flop on contraception, the issue of abortion remains unresolved.

Does this government not find it inappropriate to put its ideology above the needs of women's health in developing countries?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that industry has asked among other things for loan guarantees. However, the government has made no commitments to give those guarantees either in the budget or in statements it has made in the last few weeks.

The Bloc Québécois proposed a strategy for private woodlot. I invite people who are listening to our debate to read the document they can find on the Bloc Québécois' website.

We also proposed green energy initiatives. We have requested several times that regulations take into account the investments that were made since the 1990's to comply with our international environmental commitments. These are important levers that could be used to help the industry.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

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

The conclusion we must reach is that more than one industry has been abandoned. The federal government invests first in the nuclear industry and in other sectors like the oil industry.

We too are disappointed. Quebec's economic structure is based on the manufacturing industry and on the development of the forestry industry. Unfortunately, the government has let Quebec and those two industries.